{"id":67666,"date":"2009-09-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-nandkishore-laxminarayan-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-september-2009"},"modified":"2016-09-13T20:25:24","modified_gmt":"2016-09-13T14:55:24","slug":"shri-nandkishore-laxminarayan-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-nandkishore-laxminarayan-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"Shri Nandkishore Laxminarayan … vs The Union Of India on 30 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Shri Nandkishore Laxminarayan … vs The Union Of India on 30 September, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: P. R. Borkar<\/div>\n
                                      (1)\n\n\n\n\n                                                                         \n                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                           BENCH AT AURANGABAD\n\n\n\n\n                                                 \n                      WRIT PETITION NO. 4185 OF 1996\n\n\n\n\n                                                \n    Shri Nandkishore Laxminarayan Agarwal                 ..       Petitioner\n    Aged 33 years, R\/o. Plot No. EG-1,\n    Suraj Apartment, Mustgad, Jalna, \n    through Power of Attorney \n    Ghanshyam Dhanraj Gupta, Aged. 39 years,\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n    R\/o. As Above.\n                          ig          Versus\n                        \n    1.   The Union of India,                              ..       Respondents\n         through the Standing Counsel,\n         High Court of Judicature of Bombay,\n         At Aurangabad.\n          \n\n\n    2.   The Asst. Regional Provident Fund\n         Commissioner, N-1, Cidco, Aurangabad.\n       \n\n\n\n    3.   The Jalna People Co-operative Bank Ltd.,\n         Kavi Ramkrishna Shola Chowk, Sadar Bazar,\n         Jalna - 431 203, through the \n\n\n\n\n\n         Special Recovery Officer, Class-I.\n\n    4.   M\/s. Mahendra Re-rolls Industries,\n         through : the Partner Shri Badri Vishal\n         Pitty, Pitty Complex, Nehru Road,\n         Saraf, Jalna.\n\n\n\n\n\n         [Res. Nos. 3 & 4 deleted as per order\n         dated 11.10.1996]\n\n    Shri   Yugant   Marlapalle   h\/f.   Shri   T.K.   Prabhakaran,   Advocate \n    for the petitioner.\n    Shri K.B. Choudhari, Advocate for respondent No.2.\n\n\n\n\n                                                 ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:08:27 :::\n                                          (2)\n\n\n\n\n                                                                            \n                                                    \n                                               CORAM :       P.R. BORKAR,J.\n<\/pre>\n
                                               DATED :       30.09.2009\n\n    ORAL JUDGMENT :-\n\n\n\n\n                                                   \n<\/pre>\n
    1.          This is a writ petition which challenges the order <\/p>\n
    of   attachment   passed   by   the   Assistant   Commissioner   and <\/p>\n
    Recovery   Officer,   Employees   Provident   Fund   Organization, <\/p>\n
    Maharashtra   and   Goa.     By   its   order   dated   14.08.1996,   it <\/p>\n
    attached   the   property   of   respondent  No.4   that   was   purchased <\/p>\n
    by present petitioner in the auction sale held by respondent <\/p>\n
    No.3 Bank on 23.07.1996.   The petitioner paid amount of Rs.\n<\/p>\n
    31,35,000\/-.   As per the attachment order the attachment was <\/p>\n
    for   a   sum   of   Rs.   3,63,230\/-.     Said   amount   is   said   to   be <\/p>\n
    deposited   under   protest   on   20.08.1996.     According   to   the <\/p>\n
    petitioner,   issuance   of   recovery   certificate   and   attachment <\/p>\n
    by   the   order   dated   14.08.1996   is   illegal   and   needs   to   be <\/p>\n
    quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n
    2.          Heard   learned   advocate   Shri   Marlapalle   for   the <\/p>\n
    petitioner.     He   has   argued   that,   what   were   purchased   were <\/p>\n
    dead assets.   The factory was closed long back and therefore <\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:08:27 :::<\/span>
\n                                        (3)<\/span><\/p>\n
    it is not an establishment and Section 17-B of the Employees <\/p>\n
    of the Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, <\/p>\n
    (for short “E.P.F. Act”), is not applicable.  Section 17-B of <\/p>\n
    the E.P.F. Act is as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
                          “17-B.   Liability   in   case   of   transfer   of
\n               establishment. – Where an employer, in relation to <\/p>\n
               an   establishment,   transfers   that   establishment   in
\n               whole or in part, by  sale,  gift,  lease  or licence <\/p>\n
               or in any other manner whatsoever, the employer and
\n               the   person   to   whom   the   establishment   is   so
\n               transferred   shall   jointly   and   severally   be   liable
\n               to pay the contribution and other sums due from the <\/p>\n
               employer   under   any   provision     of   this   Act   or   the
\n               Scheme   or   the   Pension   Scheme   or   the   Insurance
\n               Scheme,   as   the   case   may   be,   in   respect   of   the
\n               period up to the date of such transfer:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                         Provided   that   the   liability   of   the
\n               transferee   shall   be   limited   to   the   value   of   the <\/p>\n
               assets obtained by him by such transfer.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    3.         The   words   used   is   not   ’employer’   so   far   as <\/p>\n
    transferee is concerned, but the word ‘person’ is used with <\/p>\n
    reference to transferee. The transfer can be of whole of the <\/p>\n
    establishment   or   part   and   the   liability   of   transferor   and <\/p>\n
    transferee of establishment is said to be joint and several.\n<\/p>\n
    Admittedly,   amount   of   Rs.   3,63,230\/-   was   due   towards <\/p>\n
    contribution of employees of respondent No.4.\n<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:08:27 :::<\/span>
\n                                         (4)<\/span><\/p>\n
    4.          The learned advocate for the petitioner argued that <\/p>\n
    ‘industrial   establishment’   is   defined   under   Section   25-L   of <\/p>\n
    the   Industrial   Disputes   Act,   but   as   the   definition   of <\/p>\n
    ‘industrial   establishment’   under   Section   25-L   of   the <\/p>\n
    Industrial   Disputes   Act   states   that   ‘industrial <\/p>\n
    establishment’   means   a   factory   as   defined   in   clause   (m)   of <\/p>\n
    Section   2   of   the   Factories   Act,   1948.     Under   the   Factories <\/p>\n
    Act, ‘factory’   is defined under clause (m) of Section 2 as <\/p>\n
    any   premises   including   precincts   thereof   where   10   or   more <\/p>\n
    workers   are   working,   or   were   working   at   any   day   of   the <\/p>\n
    preceding   twelve   months,   and   in   any   part   of   which   a <\/p>\n
    manufacturing   process   is   being   carried   on   with   the   aid   of <\/p>\n
    power, or is ordinarily so carried on, or whereon twenty or <\/p>\n
    more workers are working, or were working on any day of the <\/p>\n
    preceding   twelve   months,   and   in   any   part   of   which   a <\/p>\n
    manufacturing process is being carried on without the aid of <\/p>\n
    power, or is ordinarily so carried on.\n<\/p>\n
    5.          So, it is argued that manufacturing process should <\/p>\n
    be   carried   on.     When   the   factory   assets   were   purchased   it <\/p>\n
    were junk assets\/dead assets.   No manufacturing activity was <\/p>\n
    going   on.     If,   we   consider   provisions   of   the   E.P.F.   Act, <\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:08:27 :::<\/span>
\n                                         (5)<\/span><\/p>\n
    particularly Section 1 (3), idea is not only applying the Act <\/p>\n
    to a factory, but also to other establishments employing ten <\/p>\n
    or more persons.   As preamble discloses, the Act is enacted <\/p>\n
    to   provide   for   the   institution   of   Provident   Funds,   Pension <\/p>\n
    Fund   and   deposit-linked   insurance   fund   for   employees   in <\/p>\n
    factories   and   other   establishments.     In   the   statement   of <\/p>\n
    objects and reasons, the situation in which the Act came into <\/p>\n
    force   are   discussed.     One   thing   is   clear   that   under   the <\/p>\n
    E.P.F.   Act,   employer   is   also   liable   to   contribute   to   the <\/p>\n
    Provident Fund along with employees or workmen and the funds <\/p>\n
    so   collected   by   the   employer   are   to   be   remitted   to   the <\/p>\n
    Provident   Fund   authorities   as   per   Section   38   of   the   Act.\n<\/p>\n
    Section   17-B   of   the   E.P.F.   Act   is   made   for   protecting   the <\/p>\n
    interest of employees.\n<\/p>\n
    6.          In the facts and circumstances of the case, it does <\/p>\n
    not appear from reading provisions of the E.P.F. Act that a <\/p>\n
    factory should be running when attachment or other steps for <\/p>\n
    recovery   of   contribution   payable   under   the   E.P.F.   Act   are <\/p>\n
    contemplated   by   the   authorities.     There   is   no   express <\/p>\n
    provision in the Act, which lays down as pre-condition that <\/p>\n
    the   factory   must   be   running   before   the   Provident   Fund <\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:08:27 :::<\/span>
\n                                          (6)<\/span><\/p>\n
    Authorities would resort to attachment of property.\n<\/p>\n
    7.          In  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  case, in  my <\/p>\n
    opinion,   this   is   not   a   case   where   any   interference   in   the <\/p>\n
    extra-ordinary   jurisdiction,   under   Articles   226   and   227   of <\/p>\n
    the   Constitution   of   India,   is   called   for.     However,   it   is <\/p>\n
    made   clear   that   if   the   amount   of   Rs.   3,63,230\/-   is   already <\/p>\n
    deposited under protest, present petitioner will be entitled <\/p>\n
    to reimbursement from previous employer of respondent No.2.\n<\/p>\n
    8.          With   these   observations,   this   writ   petition   is <\/p>\n
    dismissed.  Rule discharged.\n<\/p>\n
                                                     [P.R. BORKAR,J.]<\/p>\n
    snk\/2009\/SEP09\/wp4185.96<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:08:27 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Shri Nandkishore Laxminarayan … vs The Union Of India on 30 September, 2009 Bench: P. R. Borkar (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4185 OF 1996 Shri Nandkishore Laxminarayan Agarwal .. Petitioner Aged 33 years, R\/o. Plot No. EG-1, Suraj Apartment, Mustgad, Jalna, […]<\/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-67666","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nShri Nandkishore Laxminarayan ... vs The Union Of India on 30 September, 2009 - 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\/shri-nandkishore-laxminarayan-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri Nandkishore Laxminarayan ... vs The Union Of India on 30 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-nandkishore-laxminarayan-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-september-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-13T14:55:24+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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-nandkishore-laxminarayan-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-nandkishore-laxminarayan-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri Nandkishore Laxminarayan … vs The Union Of India on 30 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-13T14:55:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-nandkishore-laxminarayan-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":887,\"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\\\/shri-nandkishore-laxminarayan-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-nandkishore-laxminarayan-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-nandkishore-laxminarayan-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-september-2009\",\"name\":\"Shri Nandkishore Laxminarayan ... vs The Union Of India on 30 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-13T14:55:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-nandkishore-laxminarayan-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-nandkishore-laxminarayan-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-nandkishore-laxminarayan-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri Nandkishore Laxminarayan … vs The Union Of India on 30 September, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Shri Nandkishore Laxminarayan ... vs The Union Of India on 30 September, 2009 - 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\/shri-nandkishore-laxminarayan-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri Nandkishore Laxminarayan ... vs The Union Of India on 30 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-nandkishore-laxminarayan-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-13T14:55:24+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-nandkishore-laxminarayan-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-nandkishore-laxminarayan-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri Nandkishore Laxminarayan … vs The Union Of India on 30 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-13T14:55:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-nandkishore-laxminarayan-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-september-2009"},"wordCount":887,"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\/shri-nandkishore-laxminarayan-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-nandkishore-laxminarayan-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-nandkishore-laxminarayan-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-september-2009","name":"Shri Nandkishore Laxminarayan ... vs The Union Of India on 30 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-13T14:55:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-nandkishore-laxminarayan-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-nandkishore-laxminarayan-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-nandkishore-laxminarayan-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri Nandkishore Laxminarayan … vs The Union Of India on 30 September, 2009"}]},{"@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\/67666","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=67666"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67666\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=67666"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=67666"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=67666"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}