{"id":51815,"date":"2011-05-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-05-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bses-yamuna-power-ltd-vs-sh-s-k-choudhary-anr-on-5-may-2011"},"modified":"2015-10-10T13:02:25","modified_gmt":"2015-10-10T07:32:25","slug":"bses-yamuna-power-ltd-vs-sh-s-k-choudhary-anr-on-5-may-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bses-yamuna-power-ltd-vs-sh-s-k-choudhary-anr-on-5-may-2011","title":{"rendered":"Bses Yamuna Power Ltd. vs Sh. S.K. Choudhary & Anr. on 5 May, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Bses Yamuna Power Ltd. vs Sh. S.K. Choudhary & Anr. on 5 May, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Indermeet Kaur<\/div>\n
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n\n%                              Date of Judgment: 05.05.2011\n\n\n+      R.S.A.No. 16\/2008 & CM Nos.1014-16 \/2008\n\n\n\nBSES YAMUNA POWER LTD.                    ...........Appellant\n               Through:              Mr.Sandeep Prabhakar and\n                                     Mr.Prena Mehta, Advocates.\n\n                         Versus\n\nSH. S.K. CHOUDHARY & ANR.      .........Respondents\n                 Through: Mr.Nandita Rao, Advocate.\n\n\n\nCORAM:\nHON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR\n\n     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to\n        see the judgment?\n\n     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?             Yes\n\n     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?\n                                                          Yes\n\nINDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)\n<\/pre>\n
CM Nos.1015-16 \/2008 (for exemption)<\/p>\n
       Allowed subject to just exceptions.\n<\/p>\n
R.S.A.No. 16\/2008 & CM Nos.1014\/2008 (for stay)<\/p>\n
1.     This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated<\/p>\n
24.10.2007 which had reversed the finding of the trail judge
\nRSA No. 16\/2008                                           Page 1 of 9<\/span>
\n dated 20.12.2003 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff Sh. S.K.<\/p>\n
Choudhary seeking a declaration (to the effect that he should be<\/p>\n
granted his second time financial upgradation after 13 years of<\/p>\n
service which had been denied to him be set aside and be<\/p>\n
declared null and void; further prayer that he should be placed in<\/p>\n
the pay scale of 15800-21100 with notional pay fixation of basic<\/p>\n
pay of Rs. 17150\/- from 01.01.1996 as also relief of mandatory<\/p>\n
injunction i.e. payment of arrears in the aforenoted pay scale<\/p>\n
w.e.f. 01.01.1996) had been dismissed. The impugned judgment<\/p>\n
had reversed this finding. Suit of the plaintiff stood decreed.<\/p>\n
2.    Plaintiff was employed with defendant no. 2 since June<\/p>\n
1984. He was an Executive Engineer. Vide the resolution of DVB<\/p>\n
dated 29.04.1998, provisional pay scale for executive engineers<\/p>\n
and superintendent engineers was worked out; this was a<\/p>\n
modification      of   an   earlier   office   order;   second   financial<\/p>\n
upgradation was permitted to the plaintiff after having completed<\/p>\n
13 years of service which he had completed in the year 1994; he<\/p>\n
was thus entitled to the second financial upgradation; one<\/p>\n
Mr.Jagdish Kumar had already got this benefit; plaintiff not<\/p>\n
having got this benefit, he had filed the present suit.<\/p>\n
RSA No. 16\/2008                                                  Page 2 of 9<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 3.    In the written statement, it was stated that the second<\/p>\n
entitlement of the plaintiff for financial upgradation was 8 years<\/p>\n
after his first upgradation i.e. after 18 years of service. Plaintiff<\/p>\n
had not completed 18 years of service; Sh. Jagdish Kumar was<\/p>\n
working on an adhoc basis as an assistant engineer and he had<\/p>\n
thereafter been selected by the UPSC and even in his case, he<\/p>\n
was entitled for a second upgradation only after 18 years of<\/p>\n
service.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.    In replication, the plaintiff made reference to the case of<\/p>\n
one Mr. V.K. Sood who was given promotion after completion of<\/p>\n
13 years of service.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
5.    On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were<\/p>\n
framed:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      “1.    Whether plaintiff is entitled to second time bound
\n      promotion after service of 13 years? OPP\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      2.     Whether plaintiff is entitled to get the benefits of past
\n      service rendered in the Government Organization for the present
\n      suit? OPP\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      3.     Whether plaintiff is liable to pay court fees on declaration?
\n      OPD\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      4.     Relief.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
6.    Documentary evidence was led.              The documents adduced<\/p>\n
are, in fact, not in dispute.\n<\/p>\n
      A.     The first document is the office order of the DVB<\/p>\n
      dated 23.07.1997. In terms of this office order, the time
\nRSA No. 16\/2008                                                       Page 3 of 9<\/span>
\n       bound promotional scale was introduced in the DVB.                             It<\/p>\n
      states that the employees of the DVB shall be entitled for a<\/p>\n
      first time bound promotional scale after completion of 10<\/p>\n
      years       of   regular   service.        The     second      time     bound<\/p>\n
      promotional scale shall be given on a completion of further<\/p>\n
      8 years i.e. after 18 years of service from the date of their<\/p>\n
      induction.\n<\/p>\n
      B.      The second document is the office order dated<\/p>\n
      30.04.1998. This order modifies the existing pay scales of<\/p>\n
      the following persons. It reads as follows:<\/p>\n
      “To revise the pay scales of the officers\/employee, Delhi Vidyut
\n      Board w.e.f.        .1.1996 and to pay the allowances alongwith
\n      revised scales of pay or pay the Vidyut Board (Revised pay) Rules
\n      1998 (enclosed) as Appendix I) except in the case of Executive
\n      Engineer and Superintending Engineer in whose case the scales
\n      shall be as under which shall be provisional till further orders.
\n      Sl.No. Designation     Existing Scale          Revised scale\n<\/p>\n
      1. ………………………………………………………………………<\/p>\n
\n      2.Suptd. Engineer 3700-5000             14300-400-18300                on\n                                              completion     of      13   years\n                                              service in group A i.e. on the\n                                              14th years.\"\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
              Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out<\/p>\n
      that this was only a provisional pay scale. This document<\/p>\n
      had been heavily relied upon by the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
RSA No. 16\/2008                                                             Page 4 of 9<\/span>
\n       respondent to advance her submission that after 13 years<\/p>\n
      of service, the superintendent engineer is entitled to a<\/p>\n
      second financial upgradation.\n<\/p>\n
      C.     The   third   document   is   the   office   order   dated<\/p>\n
      20.11.2001. Vide this office order, the provisional pay scale<\/p>\n
      of the engineers which was being implemented w.e.f<\/p>\n
      01.01.1996 had been finalized.\n<\/p>\n
             This office order stated that the existing time bound<\/p>\n
      promotional pay scale will be allowed to continue.<\/p>\n
             Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out<\/p>\n
      that the existing time bound promotional pay scale makes<\/p>\n
      the reference to the first scheme i.e. scheme of 21.07.1997<\/p>\n
      by virtue of which the second financial upgradation will be<\/p>\n
      granted only after 18 years of service and not after 13<\/p>\n
      years of service.\n<\/p>\n
7.    Arguments have been countered by the learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the respondent. It is pointed out that the provisional pay scale<\/p>\n
for superintendent engineers (which includes the plaintiff) had<\/p>\n
come into effect provisionally on 30.04.1998. This was the cut-off<\/p>\n
date; on this date, the plaintiff was admittedly eligible for the<\/p>\n
second upgradation as he had completed 13 years of service.<\/p>\n
This date would in fact be the relevant date for fixing the
\nRSA No. 16\/2008                                               Page 5 of 9<\/span>
\n financial upgradation of the eligibility criteria for the plaintiff.<\/p>\n
Moreover, there is also no answer as to how Mr. V.K. Sood had<\/p>\n
been granted a financial upgradation after 13 years of service.<\/p>\n
Learned counsel for the respondent has drawn the attention of<\/p>\n
this court to the affidavit which had been filed before this court<\/p>\n
wherein this fact had been so stated in para 1.        Copy of the<\/p>\n
noting\/order pertaining to this second time bound promotion<\/p>\n
granted to Mr. V.K. Sood had also been perused.      This was vide<\/p>\n
order dated 13.06.2000. This document states that Mr. V.K. Sood<\/p>\n
had completed 13 years of group A service; he was liable for the<\/p>\n
revised pay scale with effect from 01.01.1996.<\/p>\n
8.    A counter affidavit (to this affidavit) had been filed by the<\/p>\n
appellant.    Para 7 states that Mr. V.K. Sood had only been<\/p>\n
granted a provisional revised pay scale which was subsequently<\/p>\n
adjusted once the pay scales were regularized in the year 2001.<\/p>\n
      At the request of the learned counsel for the respondent,<\/p>\n
the record has also been produced from the Department.          This<\/p>\n
record shows that the second financial upgradation which had<\/p>\n
been granted to Mr. V.K. Sood was only a provisional measure;<\/p>\n
this financial upgradation had been adjusted at the time of<\/p>\n
finalization of his accounts.\n<\/p>\n
9.    The documents on record support the case of the appellant.
\nRSA No. 16\/2008                                            Page 6 of 9<\/span>
\n An employee was entitled to claim a second time bound<\/p>\n
promotional scale only after 18 years; the question of a second<\/p>\n
financial upgradation after a period of 13 years was only<\/p>\n
encompassed as a provisional measure; i.e. till the time and when<\/p>\n
the final pay scale was notified on 20.11.2001. It stated that<\/p>\n
      “the existing second time bound promotional scale scheme
\n      is already continued”.\n<\/p>\n
10.   This existing second time bound promotional scheme<\/p>\n
admittedly refers to the scheme of 23.07.1991. This is also not<\/p>\n
disputed before this court. In this view of the matter, it is clear<\/p>\n
that the second financial upgradation could have been granted to<\/p>\n
the plaintiff only after 18 years of his service.   The impugned<\/p>\n
judgment holding otherwise is a perverse finding. It is liable to<\/p>\n
be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
11.   The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that<\/p>\n
she had completed the 13 years of her service admittedly on or<\/p>\n
before 30.04.1998 i.e. at the time when the provisional pay scale<\/p>\n
had been introduced and thus the plaintiff was eligible on that<\/p>\n
date and had to be considered is an argument to be noted only to<\/p>\n
be rejected. Admittedly, as per the case of the respondent, the<\/p>\n
office order of 30.04.1998 was provisional; the word \u201eprovisional\u201f<\/p>\n
as is evident from its meaning makes reference to a temporary<\/p>\n
RSA No. 16\/2008                                           Page 7 of 9<\/span>
\n period i.e. a fill-in-gap arrangement till the time when the matter<\/p>\n
is finally decided.         Admittedly, this provisional pay scale of<\/p>\n
30.04.1998 was finally settled on 20.11.2001, on which date the<\/p>\n
office    order   clearly    states   that    the   existing   time     bound<\/p>\n
promotional scale scheme will continue; there is no dispute that<\/p>\n
the existing second time bound promotional scale scheme makes<\/p>\n
reference to the scheme of 23.07.1997 which stipulated that a<\/p>\n
second financial upgradation will be granted to an employee only<\/p>\n
after 18 years of service.\n<\/p>\n
12.           Reliance by the learned counsel for the respondent on<\/p>\n
the judgment reported in (2010) 2 SCC 422 Union of India Vs.<\/p>\n
Kartick Chandra Mondal is misplaced.                In this case the office<\/p>\n
memorandum was under consideration which was in express<\/p>\n
language; there being no intention expressed in the notification<\/p>\n
that it would apply retrospectively; it could not be given a<\/p>\n
retrospective effect. Ratio is wholly inapplicable. In the instant<\/p>\n
case what is under consideration and vehemently relied upon by<\/p>\n
the respondent is the office order dated 30.4.1998; the intent<\/p>\n
gathered from this document is clear; it clearly specifies that this<\/p>\n
pay scale is only provisional.\n<\/p>\n
13.      The arguments on discrimination has also been answered<\/p>\n
after the perusal of the record.             The provisional upgradation
\nRSA No. 16\/2008                                                       Page 8 of 9<\/span>
\n granted to Mr. V.K. Sood had been adjusted against his final<\/p>\n
dues.\n<\/p>\n
14.     The appeal is accordingly allowed. Substantial question of<\/p>\n
law is answered in favour of the appellant and against the<\/p>\n
respondent.       Suit of the plaintiff is decreed. Pending application<\/p>\n
is disposed of.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                             INDERMEET KAUR, J.\n<\/p>\n
MAY 05, 2011
\nSS\/nandan<\/p>\n
RSA No. 16\/2008                                               Page 9 of 9<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Bses Yamuna Power Ltd. vs Sh. S.K. Choudhary & Anr. on 5 May, 2011 Author: Indermeet Kaur * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Judgment: 05.05.2011 + R.S.A.No. 16\/2008 & CM Nos.1014-16 \/2008 BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD. ………..Appellant Through: Mr.Sandeep Prabhakar and Mr.Prena Mehta, Advocates. Versus […]<\/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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-51815","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBses Yamuna Power Ltd. vs Sh. S.K. Choudhary & Anr. on 5 May, 2011 - 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\/bses-yamuna-power-ltd-vs-sh-s-k-choudhary-anr-on-5-may-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bses Yamuna Power Ltd. vs Sh. S.K. Choudhary & Anr. on 5 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bses-yamuna-power-ltd-vs-sh-s-k-choudhary-anr-on-5-may-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-05-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-10T07:32:25+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bses-yamuna-power-ltd-vs-sh-s-k-choudhary-anr-on-5-may-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bses-yamuna-power-ltd-vs-sh-s-k-choudhary-anr-on-5-may-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bses Yamuna Power Ltd. vs Sh. S.K. Choudhary & Anr. on 5 May, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-10T07:32:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bses-yamuna-power-ltd-vs-sh-s-k-choudhary-anr-on-5-may-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1543,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bses-yamuna-power-ltd-vs-sh-s-k-choudhary-anr-on-5-may-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bses-yamuna-power-ltd-vs-sh-s-k-choudhary-anr-on-5-may-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bses-yamuna-power-ltd-vs-sh-s-k-choudhary-anr-on-5-may-2011\",\"name\":\"Bses Yamuna Power Ltd. vs Sh. S.K. Choudhary & Anr. on 5 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-10T07:32:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bses-yamuna-power-ltd-vs-sh-s-k-choudhary-anr-on-5-may-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bses-yamuna-power-ltd-vs-sh-s-k-choudhary-anr-on-5-may-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bses-yamuna-power-ltd-vs-sh-s-k-choudhary-anr-on-5-may-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bses Yamuna Power Ltd. vs Sh. S.K. Choudhary & Anr. on 5 May, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Bses Yamuna Power Ltd. vs Sh. S.K. Choudhary & Anr. on 5 May, 2011 - 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\/bses-yamuna-power-ltd-vs-sh-s-k-choudhary-anr-on-5-may-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bses Yamuna Power Ltd. vs Sh. S.K. Choudhary & Anr. on 5 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bses-yamuna-power-ltd-vs-sh-s-k-choudhary-anr-on-5-may-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-05-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-10T07:32:25+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bses-yamuna-power-ltd-vs-sh-s-k-choudhary-anr-on-5-may-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bses-yamuna-power-ltd-vs-sh-s-k-choudhary-anr-on-5-may-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bses Yamuna Power Ltd. vs Sh. S.K. Choudhary & Anr. on 5 May, 2011","datePublished":"2011-05-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-10T07:32:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bses-yamuna-power-ltd-vs-sh-s-k-choudhary-anr-on-5-may-2011"},"wordCount":1543,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bses-yamuna-power-ltd-vs-sh-s-k-choudhary-anr-on-5-may-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bses-yamuna-power-ltd-vs-sh-s-k-choudhary-anr-on-5-may-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bses-yamuna-power-ltd-vs-sh-s-k-choudhary-anr-on-5-may-2011","name":"Bses Yamuna Power Ltd. vs Sh. S.K. Choudhary & Anr. on 5 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-05-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-10T07:32:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bses-yamuna-power-ltd-vs-sh-s-k-choudhary-anr-on-5-may-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bses-yamuna-power-ltd-vs-sh-s-k-choudhary-anr-on-5-may-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bses-yamuna-power-ltd-vs-sh-s-k-choudhary-anr-on-5-may-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bses Yamuna Power Ltd. vs Sh. S.K. Choudhary & Anr. on 5 May, 2011"}]},{"@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\/51815","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=51815"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/51815\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=51815"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=51815"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=51815"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}