{"id":67339,"date":"2011-03-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-03-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/superintending-engineer-vs-dead-through-l-rs-1975-4-on-16-march-2011"},"modified":"2018-10-02T12:03:23","modified_gmt":"2018-10-02T06:33:23","slug":"superintending-engineer-vs-dead-through-l-rs-1975-4-on-16-march-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/superintending-engineer-vs-dead-through-l-rs-1975-4-on-16-march-2011","title":{"rendered":"Superintending Engineer vs Dead) Through L.Rs.; (1975) 4 … on 16 March, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Superintending Engineer vs Dead) Through L.Rs.; (1975) 4 … on 16 March, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: S.A. Bobde, S.B. Deshmukh<\/div>\n
                                                     1\n\n                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                         NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                                 \n                        Letters Patent Appeal No. 372\/2009 in\n                            Writ Petition No. 653\/2005 (D)\n\n\n\n\n                                                                         \n    1.    Superintending Engineer,\n          Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution\n\n\n\n\n                                                                        \n          Company Ltd. (O & M) Circle Chandrapur,\n          Dist. Chandrapur (Earlier Superintending\n          Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity\n          Board (O & M) Circle, Chandrapur,\n          Dist. Chandrapur.\n\n\n\n\n                                                         \n    2.    Chief Engineer, Maharashtra State\n                                       \n          Electricity Distribution Company Ltd.\n          Urban Zone, Gaddigodam, Sadar,\n          Nagpur (Earlier Chief Engineer\n                                      \n          Maharashtra State Electricity Board,\n          Gaddigodam, Sadar, Nagpur)                                        .....APPELLANTS\n\n\n                                ...V E R S U S...\n             \n          \n\n\n\n          Sukhdeo Ramchandra Dhakite,\n          aged about 63 years, Occ. Retired,\n          Divisional Accountant, r\/o 13, Siddhardha\n          Society, Takli Sim, Hingana Road, Nagpur.                         ....RESPONDENTS\n\n\n\n\n\n    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n    Mr. A. D. Mohogaonkar, Advocate for appellants.\n    Mr. M. V. Mohokar, Advocate for respondent.\n    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n\n    CORAM:- S.A.BOBDE AND S. B. DESHMUKH, JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
    DATED:- 16th March, 2011<\/p>\n
                                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:06:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                            2<\/span><\/p>\n
    ORAL JUDGMENT (Per:- S. A. Bobde, J.)<\/p>\n
    1.             Heard. Admit. Taken up for final hearing by consent of<\/p>\n
    the parties.\n<\/p>\n
    2.             This appeal is against the judgment of the learned Single<\/p>\n
    Judge holding that Complaint ULP No. 357\/1994 filed by respondent-\n<\/p>\n
    Sukhdeo Ramchandra Dhakite, complaining illegal punishment having<\/p>\n
    been imposed on him, will have to be tried even though in another<\/p>\n
    Complaint ULP No. 442\/1996 between the same parties, status of<\/p>\n
    Sukhdeo on the same post of Divisional Accountant had been gone into<\/p>\n
    and it has been found that he is not a workman. While Sukhdeo was<\/p>\n
    working as Divisional Accountant at Nagpur, he preferred a complaint<\/p>\n
    under the MRTU & PULP Act bearing ULP No. 442\/1996 before the<\/p>\n
    Industrial Court, Nagpur (hereinafter          described as ‘the Nagpur<\/p>\n
    complaint’) complaining that the punishment of reversion imposed on<\/p>\n
    him was illegal.    In the Nagpur complaint, the appellants before us,<\/p>\n
    raised a dispute that Sukhdeo is not a workman.                   This issue was<\/p>\n
    enquired   into    in   detail   by   the   Industrial    Court      which,       upon<\/p>\n
    consideration of the entire law on the subject and with a well reasoned<\/p>\n
    order, came to the conclusion that the nature of duties performed by<\/p>\n
    Sukhdeo as Divisional Accountant show that he was not a workman. In<\/p>\n
    particular, the Industrial Court held that Sukhdeo, as a Divisional<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:06:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                        3<\/span><\/p>\n
    Accountant, was called upon to maintain monthly, quarterly, half<\/p>\n
    yearly and yearly statements and cash budget. He was required to<\/p>\n
    check the bills and other statements prepared by the L.D.C.,U.D.C. and<\/p>\n
    a Divisional Accountant. Under the powers delegated by the Board he<\/p>\n
    was empowered to write annual confidential reports of subordinate<\/p>\n
    cadres covering Class-III and Class-IV categories. The Industrial Court<\/p>\n
    further noticed that the post on which Sukhdeo was working had the<\/p>\n
    powers to audit the bills to the extent of Rs.5,00,000\/- and he had to<\/p>\n
    prepare budget etc. Accordingly, the Court found that the functions of<\/p>\n
    the post of Divisional Accountant are supervisory in nature and hence<\/p>\n
    Sukhdeo, being a Divisional Accountant, was not a workman.\n<\/p>\n
    The Present Dispute:\n<\/p>\n
    3.            It appears that Sukhdeo had filed another complaint<\/p>\n
    while he was at Gadchiroli on the same post, which has given rise to<\/p>\n
    the present dispute. That complaint being ULP No. 357\/1994 had not<\/p>\n
    been decided when the aforesaid complaint No. 442\/1996 was<\/p>\n
    decided. In this complaint, which was pending, the appellants herein<\/p>\n
    filed an application for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that it<\/p>\n
    has already been held in complaint ULP No.442\/1996 that while<\/p>\n
    Sukhdeo was working at Nagpur on the post of Divisional Accountant it<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:06:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                             4<\/span><\/p>\n
    has been held that the Divisional Accountant is not a workman. This<\/p>\n
    application was, however, dismissed by the learned Industrial Court on<\/p>\n
    the ground that the preliminary issues will have to be framed and<\/p>\n
    decided in this case also. Accordingly, the Industrial Court refused to<\/p>\n
    dismiss   the    complaint.   Against       the   said   order,    the     appellants<\/p>\n
    approached the learned Single Judge of this Court, who agreed that<\/p>\n
    the nature of the duties performed by Sukdheo as Divisional<\/p>\n
    Accountant, Nagpur had already been decided and the nature of<\/p>\n
    duties, which may have been performed by him when he was<\/p>\n
    functioning as Divisional Accountant At Gadchiroli, would have to be<\/p>\n
    gone into and that the employer would have to lead proper evidence<\/p>\n
    to show that the facts considered in Complaint ULP No. 442\/1996 were<\/p>\n
    not different.\n<\/p>\n
                     The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed<\/p>\n
    by the appellants. Hence, this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
    4.               Mr. Mohogaonkar, the learned counsel for the appellants,<\/p>\n
    submitted that the post on which Sukhdeo was working at Nagpur<\/p>\n
    when Complaint ULP No. 442\/1996 was filed and the post on which<\/p>\n
    Sukhdeo was working at Gadchiroli, when Complaint ULP No.357\/1994<\/p>\n
    was filed is the same i.e. Divisional Accountant. Indeed, according to<\/p>\n
    the learned counsel, the said posts are the same throughout the MSEB.\n<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:06:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                         5<\/span><\/p>\n
    Since the matter has been gone into in detail and it has been found<\/p>\n
    that the duties of the post of Divisional Accountant are such that the<\/p>\n
    incumbent cannot be held to be a workman, there is no reason for the<\/p>\n
    Court to go through the same exercise only because the other<\/p>\n
    complaint namely ULP No. 357\/1994 was filed in relation to the same<\/p>\n
    post at Gadchiroli.\n<\/p>\n
    5.            Mr. Mohokar, the learned counsel for the Sukhdeo, on<\/p>\n
    the other hand, submitted that the nature of duties are different in that<\/p>\n
    while Sukhdeo was working at Gadchiroli, which is the subject matter<\/p>\n
    of Complaint ULP No. 357\/1994, he did not have to perform certain<\/p>\n
    administrative duties, which he had to perform at Nagpur when<\/p>\n
    Complaint No. 442\/1996 was filed. Further, according to the learned<\/p>\n
    counsel for the respondent, at Nagpur the powers of audit were on<\/p>\n
    higher side in comparison to the powers of audit at Gadchiroli.\n<\/p>\n
    6.            We see no merit in the contention raised by learned<\/p>\n
    counsel for respondent. No difference is pointed out between the<\/p>\n
    nature of duties of the same post at different places.        On the other<\/p>\n
    hand, it appears from paragraph 11 of the order of the Industrial Court<\/p>\n
    in Complaint ULP No. 442\/1996 that pertaining to the duties performed<\/p>\n
    at Nagpur Sukhdeo had admitted in his complaint that when he was<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:06:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                           6<\/span><\/p>\n
    working at Gadchiroli as Divisional Accountant, the posts viz. Lower<\/p>\n
    Divisional Clerk, Upper Divisional Clerk, Cashier, Assistant Accountant<\/p>\n
    were under him and further while working in the Division Office posts<\/p>\n
    of   L.D.C.,   U.D.C.,   Cashier,   Assistant   Accountant      were      treated<\/p>\n
    subordinates to him because they prepare bills, keep records of<\/p>\n
    revenue etc. It is obvious that these are the essential duties of the<\/p>\n
    Divisional Assistant. Certainly, these duties were attached to the said<\/p>\n
    post at Gadchiroli also and it is not Sukhdeo’s case that those duties<\/p>\n
    were absent at Nagpur. Applying the principle that the issue; whether<\/p>\n
    a person is Workman or not; has to be decided on the true nature of<\/p>\n
    the dominant duties and since the dominant duties have been held to<\/p>\n
    be supervisory in the said post at Nagpur and since it has been<\/p>\n
    brought in evidence that such duties were also attached to the post of<\/p>\n
    Divisional Accountant when he was working at Gadchiroli, we see no<\/p>\n
    reason why the matter should be tried again.         It is also settled law,<\/p>\n
    vide The Punjab Co-operative Bank Ltd. ..vs.. R. S. Bhatia<\/p>\n
    (Dead) through L.Rs.; (1975) 4 Supreme Court Cases 696, that<\/p>\n
    in the subsequent proceedings between the same parties an issue<\/p>\n
    already decided must be taken barred by principle of res judicata. In<\/p>\n
    that case, it was found that the issue; whether respondent was<\/p>\n
    working or not; had already been decided earlier. The Supreme Court<\/p>\n
    observed as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:06:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                            7<\/span><\/p>\n
             “5. …..A decision given by the competent Labour Court in
\n             that regard has rightly been held as a bar on the principles<\/p>\n
             of res judicata in the trial of the same issue in the present<\/p>\n
             proceeding.   Moreover, we find that even apart from the
\n             previous order operating as res judicata, practically there
\n             was no evidence on behalf of the appellant in support of its<\/p>\n
             case that the respondent was not a workman.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    7.               In this view of the matter, judgment and order of the<\/p>\n
    learned Single Judge is set aside. The application of the appellants for<\/p>\n
    dismissal of the complaint at Exh.-23 before the Industrial Court in<\/p>\n
    Complaint ULP No. 357\/1994 is allowed.\n<\/p>\n
                     Order accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
                     At this stage, Mr. Mohokar, the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
    respondent, prays for continuation of interim order dated 17.03.1998<\/p>\n
    passed by Member, Industrial Court, Nagpur.           However, we do not<\/p>\n
    consider it appropriate to do so. That interim order was made because<\/p>\n
    no written statement was filed and the Industrial Court considered it<\/p>\n
    appropriate to stay the recovery on the basis that Sukhdeo was still in<\/p>\n
    service.     That is not the situation now.      Admittedly, Sukhdeo has<\/p>\n
    already retired from service.       Hence, prayer for continuation of the<\/p>\n
    interim relief is rejected.\n<\/p>\n
                            JUDGE                           JUDGE\n\n    kahale\n\n\n\n\n                                                         ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:06:44 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Superintending Engineer vs Dead) Through L.Rs.; (1975) 4 … on 16 March, 2011 Bench: S.A. Bobde, S.B. Deshmukh 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No. 372\/2009 in Writ Petition No. 653\/2005 (D) 1. Superintending Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (O […]<\/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-67339","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSuperintending Engineer vs Dead) Through L.Rs.; (1975) 4 ... on 16 March, 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\/superintending-engineer-vs-dead-through-l-rs-1975-4-on-16-march-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Superintending Engineer vs Dead) Through L.Rs.; (1975) 4 ... on 16 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/superintending-engineer-vs-dead-through-l-rs-1975-4-on-16-march-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=\"2011-03-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-02T06:33:23+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\\\/superintending-engineer-vs-dead-through-l-rs-1975-4-on-16-march-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/superintending-engineer-vs-dead-through-l-rs-1975-4-on-16-march-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Superintending Engineer vs Dead) Through L.Rs.; (1975) 4 … on 16 March, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-02T06:33:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/superintending-engineer-vs-dead-through-l-rs-1975-4-on-16-march-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1345,\"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\\\/superintending-engineer-vs-dead-through-l-rs-1975-4-on-16-march-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/superintending-engineer-vs-dead-through-l-rs-1975-4-on-16-march-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/superintending-engineer-vs-dead-through-l-rs-1975-4-on-16-march-2011\",\"name\":\"Superintending Engineer vs Dead) Through L.Rs.; (1975) 4 ... on 16 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-02T06:33:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/superintending-engineer-vs-dead-through-l-rs-1975-4-on-16-march-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/superintending-engineer-vs-dead-through-l-rs-1975-4-on-16-march-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/superintending-engineer-vs-dead-through-l-rs-1975-4-on-16-march-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Superintending Engineer vs Dead) Through L.Rs.; (1975) 4 … on 16 March, 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":"Superintending Engineer vs Dead) Through L.Rs.; (1975) 4 ... on 16 March, 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\/superintending-engineer-vs-dead-through-l-rs-1975-4-on-16-march-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Superintending Engineer vs Dead) Through L.Rs.; (1975) 4 ... on 16 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/superintending-engineer-vs-dead-through-l-rs-1975-4-on-16-march-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-03-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-02T06:33:23+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\/superintending-engineer-vs-dead-through-l-rs-1975-4-on-16-march-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/superintending-engineer-vs-dead-through-l-rs-1975-4-on-16-march-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Superintending Engineer vs Dead) Through L.Rs.; (1975) 4 … on 16 March, 2011","datePublished":"2011-03-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-02T06:33:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/superintending-engineer-vs-dead-through-l-rs-1975-4-on-16-march-2011"},"wordCount":1345,"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\/superintending-engineer-vs-dead-through-l-rs-1975-4-on-16-march-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/superintending-engineer-vs-dead-through-l-rs-1975-4-on-16-march-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/superintending-engineer-vs-dead-through-l-rs-1975-4-on-16-march-2011","name":"Superintending Engineer vs Dead) Through L.Rs.; (1975) 4 ... on 16 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-03-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-02T06:33:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/superintending-engineer-vs-dead-through-l-rs-1975-4-on-16-march-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/superintending-engineer-vs-dead-through-l-rs-1975-4-on-16-march-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/superintending-engineer-vs-dead-through-l-rs-1975-4-on-16-march-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Superintending Engineer vs Dead) Through L.Rs.; (1975) 4 … on 16 March, 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\/67339","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=67339"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67339\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=67339"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=67339"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=67339"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}