{"id":55010,"date":"2005-11-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-11-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishore-chandra-samal-vs-the-d-morissa-state-cashew-on-17-november-2005"},"modified":"2017-01-17T12:05:24","modified_gmt":"2017-01-17T06:35:24","slug":"kishore-chandra-samal-vs-the-d-morissa-state-cashew-on-17-november-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishore-chandra-samal-vs-the-d-morissa-state-cashew-on-17-november-2005","title":{"rendered":"Kishore Chandra Samal vs The D.M,Orissa State Cashew &#8230; on 17 November, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Kishore Chandra Samal vs The D.M,Orissa State Cashew &#8230; on 17 November, 2005<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: A Pasayat<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Arijit Pasayat, R.V. Raveendran<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  5458 of 2004\n\nPETITIONER:\nKishore Chandra Samal\n\nRESPONDENT:\nThe D.M,Orissa State Cashew Development Corpt.Ltd. \n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 17\/11\/2005\n\nBENCH:\nARIJIT PASAYAT &amp; R.V. RAVEENDRAN\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAppellant calls in question legality of the judgment<br \/>\nrendered by a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court<br \/>\nsetting aside the award of Labour Court, Bhubaneswar dated<br \/>\n29.10.1997 passed in I.D. Case No.90 of 1994 which directed<br \/>\nthe appellant-Corporation to reinstate the present appellant<br \/>\nwith full back wages.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFactual background in a nutshell is as under:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe case of the appellant was that he was appointed as<br \/>\nJunior Typist on N.M.R. basis by the respondent with effect<br \/>\nfrom 12.7.1982. He continued in the said post for more than<br \/>\none year. All of a sudden another order was issued<br \/>\nappointing him for 44 days with effect from 1.10.1983. On<br \/>\nits expiry on 15.11.1983 another appointment order was<br \/>\nissued on 5.12.1983 for a fixed period giving effect from<br \/>\n16.11.1983.  Thereafter, he was allowed to continue for<br \/>\nabout 8 months. Later he was appointed on ad hoc basis in<br \/>\nthe usual scale of pay of Rs.255-5-285-EB-7-306-12-390\/-<br \/>\nwith effect from 23.7.1985. Thereafter without any rhyme or<br \/>\nreason, he was again kept in N.M.R. on payment of Rs.10\/-<br \/>\nper day for a period of 90 days from 1.12.1985 to 28.2.1986.<br \/>\nThereafter he was allowed to continue from 29.6.1986 to<br \/>\n25.9.1986 and further from 27.9.1986 to 24.12.1986.<br \/>\nThereafter, he was allowed to continue without any break<br \/>\ntill 11.8.1989. Alleging that refusal of work beyond<br \/>\n11.8.1989 amounting to retrenchment, he raised dispute<br \/>\ngiving rise to the above reference.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe respondent&#8217;s case before the Labour Court was that<br \/>\nthe appellant was working on N.M.R. basis as a Typist with<br \/>\neffect from 12.7.1982. He was appointed for a specific<br \/>\nperiod on daily wage basis. On consideration of the<br \/>\nrepresentation for further engagement and having regard to<br \/>\nthe requirement, he was engaged again and again on daily<br \/>\nwage basis for specific period. The last order of<br \/>\nappointment on N.M.R. basis was issued to him on 28.4.1989.<br \/>\nThereafter no further extension was given.  Thereafter, his<br \/>\nservice automatically ceased and it is not a case of<br \/>\nretrenchment.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe Labour Court on perusal of the evidence on record<br \/>\nheld that the appellant served continuously for many years<br \/>\ncovering the requisite period of continuous service in a<br \/>\ncalendar year.  Although there is no evidence that the post<br \/>\nof Typist was a permanent one, he was engaged from time to<br \/>\ntime and at the time of termination as the provisions of<br \/>\nSection 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short<br \/>\nthe &#8216;Act&#8217;) had not been complied with, termination of his<br \/>\nservice is illegal and unjustified.  On the basis of the<br \/>\nsaid finding, the Labour Court directed the appellant to be<br \/>\nreinstated in his former post.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe High Court accepted the stand of the respondent-<br \/>\nCorporation that the appointment of the writ petitioner<br \/>\n(appellant herein) was on N.M.R. basis for a fixed period of<br \/>\ntime on the basis of payment at different rates.  The<br \/>\ncontractual period of engagement ended on 3.5.1989 and there<br \/>\nwas no renewal thereafter.  Since the engagement was for a<br \/>\nfixed period, the High Court held that the award of the<br \/>\nLabour Court was to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn support of the appeal, learned counsel for the<br \/>\nappellant submitted that the High Court failed to notice<br \/>\nthat the period fixed was a camouflage to avoid<br \/>\nregularization. Reliance was placed on a decision of this<br \/>\nCourt in S.M. Nilaikar and Ors. v. Telecom District Manger,<br \/>\nKarnataka (2003 (4) SCC 27) where it was held that mere<br \/>\nmention about the engagement being temporary without<br \/>\nindication of any period attracts Section 25-F of the Act if<br \/>\nit is proved that the concerned workman had worked<br \/>\ncontinuously for more than 240 days.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe position of law relating to fixed appointments and<br \/>\nthe scope and ambit of Section 2(oo)(bb) and Section 25-F<br \/>\nwere examined by this Court in several cases. <a href=\"\/doc\/589623\/\">In Morinda<br \/>\nCoop. Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Ram Kishan and Ors.<\/a> (1995 (5) SCC\n<\/p>\n<p>653) it was observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;4. It would thus be clear that the<br \/>\nrespondents were not working throughout<br \/>\nthe season. They worked during crushing<br \/>\nseasons only. The respondents were taken<br \/>\ninto work for the season and consequent<br \/>\nto closure of the season, they ceased to<br \/>\nwork.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tThe question is whether such a<br \/>\ncessation would amount to retrenchment.<br \/>\nSince it is only a seasonal work, the<br \/>\nrespondents cannot be said to have been<br \/>\nretrenched in view of what is stated in<br \/>\nclause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Act.<br \/>\nUnder these circumstances, we are of the<br \/>\nopinion that the view taken by the<br \/>\nLabour Court and the High Court is<br \/>\nillegal. However, the appellant is<br \/>\ndirected to maintain a register for all<br \/>\nworkmen engaged during the seasons<br \/>\nenumerated hereinbefore and when the new<br \/>\nseason starts the appellant should make<br \/>\na publication in neighbouring places in<br \/>\nwhich the respondents normally live and<br \/>\nif they would report for duty, the<br \/>\nappellant would engage them in<br \/>\naccordance with seniority and exigency<br \/>\nof work.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe position was re-iterated by a three-Judge Bench of<br \/>\nthis Court Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1555359\/\">Anil Bapurao Kanase v. Krishna Sahakari<br \/>\nSakhar Karkhana Ltd. and Anr.<\/a> (1997 (10) SCC 599). It was<br \/>\nnoted as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The learned counsel for the appellant<br \/>\ncontends that the judgment of the High<br \/>\nCourt of Bombay relied on in the<br \/>\nimpugned order dated 28.3.1995 in Writ<br \/>\nPetition No.488 of 1994 is perhaps not<br \/>\napplicable. Since the appellant has<br \/>\nworked for more than 180 days, he is to<br \/>\nbe treated as retrenched employee and if<br \/>\nthe procedure contemplated under Section<br \/>\n25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act,<br \/>\n1947 is applied, his retrenchment is<br \/>\nillegal. We find no force in this<br \/>\ncontention. <a href=\"\/doc\/589623\/\">In Morinda Coop.Sugar Mills<br \/>\nLtd. v. Ram Kishan,<\/a> in para 3, this<br \/>\nCourt has dealt with engagement of the<br \/>\nseasonal workman in sugarcane crushing;<br \/>\nin para 4 it is stated that it was not a<br \/>\ncase of retrenchment of the workman, but<br \/>\nof closure of the factory after the<br \/>\ncrushing season was over. Accordingly,<br \/>\nin para 5, it was held that it is not<br \/>\n&#8216;retrenchment&#8217; within the meaning of<br \/>\nSection 2(oo) of the Act. As a<br \/>\nconsequence the appellant is not<br \/>\nentitled to retrenchment as per clause<br \/>\n(bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Act. Since<br \/>\nthe present work is seasonal business,<br \/>\nthe principles of the Act have no<br \/>\napplication. However, this Court has<br \/>\ndirected that the respondent management<br \/>\nshould maintain a register and engage<br \/>\nthe workmen when the season starts in<br \/>\nthe succeeding years in the order of<br \/>\nseniority. Until all the employees whose<br \/>\nnames appear in the list are engaged in<br \/>\naddition to the employees who are<br \/>\nalready working, the management should<br \/>\nnot go in for fresh engagement of new<br \/>\nworkmen. It would be incumbent upon the<br \/>\nrespondent management to adopt such<br \/>\nprocedure as is enumerated above.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tRecently, the question was examined in Batala Co-<br \/>\noperative <a href=\"\/doc\/696674\/\">Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Sowaran Singh<\/a> (2005 (7)<br \/>\nSupreme 165)<br \/>\n\tSection 2(oo) of the Act reads as follows:<br \/>\n&#8220;Section 2(oo) &#8220;retrenchment&#8221; means the<br \/>\ntermination by the employer of the service<br \/>\nof a workman for any reason whatsoever,<br \/>\notherwise than as a punishment inflicted by<br \/>\nway of disciplinary action, but does not<br \/>\ninclude &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>(a) &#8230;&#8230;\n<\/p>\n<p>(b) &#8230;&#8230;\n<\/p>\n<p>(bb) termination of the service of the<br \/>\nworkman as a result of the non-removal of<br \/>\nthe contract of employment between the<br \/>\nemployer and the workman concerned on its<br \/>\nexpiry or of such contract being terminated<br \/>\nunder a stipulation in that behalf<br \/>\ncontained therein&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe decision in S.M. Nilaikar&#8217;s case (supra) has no<br \/>\napplication because in that case no period was indicated and<br \/>\nonly indication was the temporary nature of engagement.  In<br \/>\nthe instant case in all the orders of engagement, specific<br \/>\nperiods have been mentioned.  Therefore, the High Court&#8217;s<br \/>\norder does not suffer from any infirmity.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe High Court had noted that its order would not stand<br \/>\nin the way of Corporation considering the case of the<br \/>\nworkman for appointment.  It is submitted by learned counsel<br \/>\nfor the appellant that representation was made in this<br \/>\nregard which has been turned down. Learned counsel for the<br \/>\nrespondent-Corporation submitted that the representation was<br \/>\nfor a permanent absorption.  Since there was no post vacant,<br \/>\nthe representation was rejected.  The dismissal of the<br \/>\npresent appeal shall not stand on the way of the Corporation<br \/>\nengaging appellant taking into account his experience and<br \/>\nwhile considering the appellant&#8217;s case the claims of others<br \/>\nmaking similar claims shall be considered in proper<br \/>\nperspective.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAppeal is allowed. Costs made easy.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Kishore Chandra Samal vs The D.M,Orissa State Cashew &#8230; on 17 November, 2005 Author: A Pasayat Bench: Arijit Pasayat, R.V. Raveendran CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5458 of 2004 PETITIONER: Kishore Chandra Samal RESPONDENT: The D.M,Orissa State Cashew Development Corpt.Ltd. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17\/11\/2005 BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT &amp; R.V. RAVEENDRAN JUDGMENT: J [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-55010","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Kishore Chandra Samal vs The D.M,Orissa State Cashew ... on 17 November, 2005 - 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\/kishore-chandra-samal-vs-the-d-morissa-state-cashew-on-17-november-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kishore Chandra Samal vs The D.M,Orissa State Cashew ... on 17 November, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishore-chandra-samal-vs-the-d-morissa-state-cashew-on-17-november-2005\" \/>\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=\"2005-11-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-17T06:35:24+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\\\/kishore-chandra-samal-vs-the-d-morissa-state-cashew-on-17-november-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kishore-chandra-samal-vs-the-d-morissa-state-cashew-on-17-november-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kishore Chandra Samal vs The D.M,Orissa State Cashew &#8230; on 17 November, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-11-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-17T06:35:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kishore-chandra-samal-vs-the-d-morissa-state-cashew-on-17-november-2005\"},\"wordCount\":1415,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kishore-chandra-samal-vs-the-d-morissa-state-cashew-on-17-november-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kishore-chandra-samal-vs-the-d-morissa-state-cashew-on-17-november-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kishore-chandra-samal-vs-the-d-morissa-state-cashew-on-17-november-2005\",\"name\":\"Kishore Chandra Samal vs The D.M,Orissa State Cashew ... on 17 November, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-11-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-17T06:35:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kishore-chandra-samal-vs-the-d-morissa-state-cashew-on-17-november-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kishore-chandra-samal-vs-the-d-morissa-state-cashew-on-17-november-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kishore-chandra-samal-vs-the-d-morissa-state-cashew-on-17-november-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kishore Chandra Samal vs The D.M,Orissa State Cashew &#8230; on 17 November, 2005\"}]},{\"@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":"Kishore Chandra Samal vs The D.M,Orissa State Cashew ... on 17 November, 2005 - 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\/kishore-chandra-samal-vs-the-d-morissa-state-cashew-on-17-november-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kishore Chandra Samal vs The D.M,Orissa State Cashew ... on 17 November, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishore-chandra-samal-vs-the-d-morissa-state-cashew-on-17-november-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-11-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-17T06:35:24+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\/kishore-chandra-samal-vs-the-d-morissa-state-cashew-on-17-november-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishore-chandra-samal-vs-the-d-morissa-state-cashew-on-17-november-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kishore Chandra Samal vs The D.M,Orissa State Cashew &#8230; on 17 November, 2005","datePublished":"2005-11-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-17T06:35:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishore-chandra-samal-vs-the-d-morissa-state-cashew-on-17-november-2005"},"wordCount":1415,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishore-chandra-samal-vs-the-d-morissa-state-cashew-on-17-november-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishore-chandra-samal-vs-the-d-morissa-state-cashew-on-17-november-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishore-chandra-samal-vs-the-d-morissa-state-cashew-on-17-november-2005","name":"Kishore Chandra Samal vs The D.M,Orissa State Cashew ... on 17 November, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-11-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-17T06:35:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishore-chandra-samal-vs-the-d-morissa-state-cashew-on-17-november-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishore-chandra-samal-vs-the-d-morissa-state-cashew-on-17-november-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishore-chandra-samal-vs-the-d-morissa-state-cashew-on-17-november-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kishore Chandra Samal vs The D.M,Orissa State Cashew &#8230; on 17 November, 2005"}]},{"@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\/55010","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=55010"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55010\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=55010"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=55010"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=55010"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}