{"id":56872,"date":"2011-08-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-08-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/man-singh-vs-maruti-suzuki-india-ltd-anr-on-26-august-2011"},"modified":"2015-03-07T11:08:10","modified_gmt":"2015-03-07T05:38:10","slug":"man-singh-vs-maruti-suzuki-india-ltd-anr-on-26-august-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/man-singh-vs-maruti-suzuki-india-ltd-anr-on-26-august-2011","title":{"rendered":"Man Singh vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.& Anr on 26 August, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Man Singh vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.& Anr on 26 August, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: Aftab Alam, R.M. Lodha<\/div>\n
                                                                                    NON-REPORTABLE\n\n\n                     IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n\n                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n                       CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7389 OF 2011 \n\n            [ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.9211 OF 2010]\n\n\n\n\n\nMan Singh                                                            ... Appellant\n\n\n                                          Versus\n\n\n\n\n\nMaruti Suzuki India Ltd. & Another                                   ... Respondents\n\n\n\n\n\n                                       O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
1.     Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2.     The  relationship of employer and workman between  the appellant <\/p>\n
and the respondent – company was brought to end in terms of a voluntary <\/p>\n
retirement scheme (in short “VRS”) introduced by the management of the <\/p>\n
company   in   September,   2011.     The   appellant,   however,   alleged   that   he <\/p>\n
was   made   to   take   voluntary   retirement   under   duress   and,   in   reality,   his <\/p>\n
removal from service was illegal and unjustified.  On those allegations he <\/p>\n
                                              2<\/span><\/p>\n
raised   an   industrial   dispute.     The   appropriate   Government   referred   the <\/p>\n
dispute   for   adjudication   before   the   Labour   Court,   Gurgaon,  vide  order <\/p>\n
dated December 4, 2006.  The reference is in the following terms:<\/p>\n
               “Whether the termination of service of Shri Man Singh <\/p>\n
       on   the   basis   of   VRS   Scheme   by   the   Management   was <\/p>\n
       justified and correct, if not, to what relief is he entitled?”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
3.     The respondent – company challenged the competence and validity <\/p>\n
of   the   reference   in   a   Writ   Petition   (CWP   No.3358\/2009)   before   the <\/p>\n
Punjab and Haryana High Court.  On behalf of the respondent – company, <\/p>\n
it was contended that having accepted the full monetary benefits under the <\/p>\n
VRS, it was no longer open to the appellant to question or challenge his <\/p>\n
termination of service and, in any case, any adjudication  on the dispute <\/p>\n
raised by the appellant should not be allowed to proceed while he retained <\/p>\n
all the monetary benefits collected by him under the scheme. <\/p>\n
4.     A learned single Judge of the High Court upheld the respondent’s <\/p>\n
contention   and     while   disposing   of   the   Writ   Petition   by   judgment   and <\/p>\n
order dated November 23, 2009 made the  following directions:-<\/p>\n
       “To make  the  scales  even,  the  Labour  Court  will  undertake <\/p>\n
       the   adjudication   on   the   reference,   if   only   the   workman <\/p>\n
       deposits   the   amount   which   he   has   received   into   Court   with <\/p>\n
       interest   from   the   date   when   he   has   received   to   the   date   of <\/p>\n
       deposit calculated  at 7.5% per annum.   If the  deposit  is not <\/p>\n
       made within 60 days from the date when reference was issued <\/p>\n
                                           3<\/span><\/p>\n
       to   him,   the   reference   made   by   the   Government   shall   stand <\/p>\n
       annulled.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
              The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
5.     The appellant challenged the order passed by the single Judge in an <\/p>\n
intra-court appeal but a Division Bench of the High Court dismissed his <\/p>\n
appeal [(L.P.A. No.82 of 2010)(O & M)] by a brief order, dated January <\/p>\n
21, 2010.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6.     The appellant has now brought this matter to this Court.  On behalf <\/p>\n
of the appellant, it is submitted that the High Court in exercise of its writ <\/p>\n
jurisdiction could not interfere with the reference made by the appropriate <\/p>\n
Government and the direction to deposit in court the amount received by <\/p>\n
him under the VRS along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum as <\/p>\n
the   condition   for   the   reference   to   proceed,   was   quite   unreasonable, <\/p>\n
inequitable and illegal.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
7.     The submission made on behalf   of the appellant is fully answered <\/p>\n
by an earlier decision of this Court in Ramesh Chandra Sankla and others  <\/p>\n
versus  Vikram   Cement   and   others  (2008)   14   SCC   58.     In  Ramesh  <\/p>\n
Chandra Sankla a number of workmen of Vikram Cement Company who <\/p>\n
had ceased to be the employees of Company after accepting full benefits <\/p>\n
under the scheme of voluntary retirement moved the Labour Court under <\/p>\n
                                             4<\/span><\/p>\n
section 31 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 making <\/p>\n
the same allegations against the Company as the appellant in this case.  In <\/p>\n
that case, the Labour Court declined to decide certain issues framed at the <\/p>\n
instance   of   the   management   as   preliminary   issues.   The   management’s <\/p>\n
appeal against the decision of the Labour Court not to decide those issues <\/p>\n
as   preliminary   issues   was   rejected   by   the   Industrial   Court.     The   writ <\/p>\n
petition filed by the management was dismissed by a learned single Judge <\/p>\n
on the ground that the orders passed by the Labour Court and affirmed by <\/p>\n
the Industrial Court were interlocutory in nature.   The management took <\/p>\n
the   matter   before   the   Division   Bench   which   held   that   the  writ   petitions <\/p>\n
filed by the Company were under Article 227 of the Constitution and the <\/p>\n
single   Judge   was   exercising   supervisory   jurisdiction;   hence,   intra-court <\/p>\n
appeals were not maintainable and the appeals filed by the Company were <\/p>\n
liable to be dismissed on that score alone.   Even while holding that the <\/p>\n
management’s   appeals   were   liable   to   be   dismissed   as   not   maintainable, <\/p>\n
the   Division   Bench   went   on   to   hold   that   since   the   workmen   had <\/p>\n
approached the Labour Court after having received the benefits under the <\/p>\n
scheme, it would be equitable to direct the concerned employees to return <\/p>\n
the benefits so received to the employer subject to the undertaking by the <\/p>\n
                                             5<\/span><\/p>\n
Company   that   in   the   event   the   Labour   Court   allowed   the   claim   and <\/p>\n
granted benefits to the workmen, the same would be restored to them by <\/p>\n
the Company with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.  <\/p>\n
8.     The   workmen   challenged   the   order   of   the   Division   Bench   before <\/p>\n
this Court inter alia on the ground that having held that the management’s <\/p>\n
appeals were not maintainable, the Division Bench had no jurisdiction to <\/p>\n
make the impugned direction. This   Court   repelled   the   workmen’s <\/p>\n
contention   and   in   paragraphs   100   and   101   of   the   decision   held   and <\/p>\n
observed as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       “100. Even otherwise, according to the workmen, they were <\/p>\n
       compelled   to   accept   the   amount   and   they   received   such <\/p>\n
       amount   under   coercion   and   duress.     In   our   considered <\/p>\n
       opinion,   they   cannot   retain   the   benefit   if   they   want   to <\/p>\n
       prosecute claim petitions instituted by them with the Labour <\/p>\n
       Court. Hence, the order passed by the Division Bench of the <\/p>\n
       High Court as to refund of amount cannot be termed unjust, <\/p>\n
       inequitable   or   improper.     Hence,   even   if   it   is   held   that   a <\/p>\n
       “technical”   contention   raised   by   the   workmen   has   some <\/p>\n
       force,   this   Court   which   again   exercises   discretionary   and <\/p>\n
       equitable   jurisdiction   under   Article   136   of   the   Constitution, <\/p>\n
       will not interfere with a direction which is in consonance with <\/p>\n
       the doctrine of equity.   It has been rightly said that a person <\/p>\n
       “who seeks equity must do equity”. Here the workmen claim <\/p>\n
       benefits as workmen of the Company, but they do not want to <\/p>\n
       part   with   the   benefit   they   have   received   towards   retirement <\/p>\n
       and severance of relationship of master and servant. It simply <\/p>\n
       cannot   be   permitted.     In   our   judgment,   therefore,   the   final <\/p>\n
       direction issued by the Division Bench needs no interference, <\/p>\n
                                             6<\/span><\/p>\n
       particularly   when   the   Company   has   also   approached   this <\/p>\n
       Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
       101.   For   the   foregoing   reasons,   in   our   opinion,   the   order <\/p>\n
       passed by the Division Bench of the High Court deserves to <\/p>\n
       be confirmed and is hereby confirmed.   The payment which <\/p>\n
       is required to be made as per the said order should be made <\/p>\n
       by   the   applicants   intending   to   prosecute  their   claims   before <\/p>\n
       the   Labour   Court,   Mandsour.   In   view   of   the   fact,   however, <\/p>\n
       that the said period is by now over, ends of justice would be <\/p>\n
       served if we extend the time so as to enable the applicants to <\/p>\n
       refund the amount.  We, therefore, extend the time up to 31-<\/p>\n
       12-2008 to make such payment.   We may, however,  clarify <\/p>\n
       that  the claim  petitions  will  not be proceeded  with till  such <\/p>\n
       payment   is   made.     If   the   payment   is   not   made   within   the <\/p>\n
       period   stipulated   above,   the   claim   petitions   of   those <\/p>\n
       applicants   will   automatically   stand   dismissed.     The   Labour <\/p>\n
       Court will take up the claim petitions after 31-12-2008.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
The   present   case   is   squarely   covered   by   the   decision   of   this   Court   in <\/p>\n
Ramesh   Chandra   Sankla   (supra).     We,   thus,   find   no   merit   in   the <\/p>\n
submission made on behalf  of the appellant that the High Court had no <\/p>\n
jurisdiction to make a direction for refund of the entire amount received <\/p>\n
by the appellant as a condition precedent for the reference to proceed.<\/p>\n
9.     We, however, feel that the imposition of interest at the rate of 7.5% <\/p>\n
per annum was a little harsh and unwarranted.  Having regard to the fact <\/p>\n
that the appellant is no longer in service, we feel that the ends of justice <\/p>\n
would   meet  if  the   direction   for   refund   is  confined   only   to   the   principal <\/p>\n
amount received by the appellant under VRS.   We, accordingly, modify <\/p>\n
                                     7<\/span><\/p>\n
the order of the High Court to this limited extent and direct the appellant <\/p>\n
to refund the amount received by him under VRS, without any interest. In <\/p>\n
case the amount, as directed, is deposited by the appellant by November <\/p>\n
30, 2011, the reference shall proceed in accordance with law, otherwise it <\/p>\n
would stand quashed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
10.    The appeal stands disposed of subject to the above observations and <\/p>\n
directions.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                           ……………………………J.\n<\/p>\n
                                           (Aftab Alam)<\/p>\n
                                           ……………………………J.\n<\/p>\n
                                           (R.M. Lodha)<\/p>\n
New Delhi;\n<\/p>\n
August 26, 2011.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Man Singh vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.& Anr on 26 August, 2011 Bench: Aftab Alam, R.M. Lodha NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7389 OF 2011 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.9211 OF 2010] Man Singh … Appellant Versus Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. & […]<\/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-56872","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMan Singh vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.& Anr on 26 August, 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\/man-singh-vs-maruti-suzuki-india-ltd-anr-on-26-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Man Singh vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.& Anr on 26 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/man-singh-vs-maruti-suzuki-india-ltd-anr-on-26-august-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=\"2011-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-07T05:38:10+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\/man-singh-vs-maruti-suzuki-india-ltd-anr-on-26-august-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/man-singh-vs-maruti-suzuki-india-ltd-anr-on-26-august-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Man Singh vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.& Anr on 26 August, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-07T05:38:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/man-singh-vs-maruti-suzuki-india-ltd-anr-on-26-august-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1409,\"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\/man-singh-vs-maruti-suzuki-india-ltd-anr-on-26-august-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/man-singh-vs-maruti-suzuki-india-ltd-anr-on-26-august-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/man-singh-vs-maruti-suzuki-india-ltd-anr-on-26-august-2011\",\"name\":\"Man Singh vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.& Anr on 26 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-07T05:38:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/man-singh-vs-maruti-suzuki-india-ltd-anr-on-26-august-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/man-singh-vs-maruti-suzuki-india-ltd-anr-on-26-august-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/man-singh-vs-maruti-suzuki-india-ltd-anr-on-26-august-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Man Singh vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.& Anr on 26 August, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Man Singh vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.& Anr on 26 August, 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\/man-singh-vs-maruti-suzuki-india-ltd-anr-on-26-august-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Man Singh vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.& Anr on 26 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/man-singh-vs-maruti-suzuki-india-ltd-anr-on-26-august-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-07T05:38:10+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\/man-singh-vs-maruti-suzuki-india-ltd-anr-on-26-august-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/man-singh-vs-maruti-suzuki-india-ltd-anr-on-26-august-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Man Singh vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.& Anr on 26 August, 2011","datePublished":"2011-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-07T05:38:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/man-singh-vs-maruti-suzuki-india-ltd-anr-on-26-august-2011"},"wordCount":1409,"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\/man-singh-vs-maruti-suzuki-india-ltd-anr-on-26-august-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/man-singh-vs-maruti-suzuki-india-ltd-anr-on-26-august-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/man-singh-vs-maruti-suzuki-india-ltd-anr-on-26-august-2011","name":"Man Singh vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.& Anr on 26 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-07T05:38:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/man-singh-vs-maruti-suzuki-india-ltd-anr-on-26-august-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/man-singh-vs-maruti-suzuki-india-ltd-anr-on-26-august-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/man-singh-vs-maruti-suzuki-india-ltd-anr-on-26-august-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Man Singh vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.& Anr on 26 August, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/56872","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=56872"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/56872\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=56872"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=56872"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=56872"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}