{"id":76216,"date":"2008-12-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-12-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-state-cooperative-vs-panchdeep-bhavan-on-5-december-2008"},"modified":"2017-01-10T12:16:23","modified_gmt":"2017-01-10T06:46:23","slug":"maharashtra-state-cooperative-vs-panchdeep-bhavan-on-5-december-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-state-cooperative-vs-panchdeep-bhavan-on-5-december-2008","title":{"rendered":"Maharashtra State Cooperative vs Panchdeep Bhavan on 5 December, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Maharashtra State Cooperative vs Panchdeep Bhavan on 5 December, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: V.R. Kingaonkar<\/div>\n
                                 (1)\n\n\n\n\n             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY\n\n                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD\n\n\n\n\n                                                                         \n                   FIRST APPEAL NO. 1557 OF 2007\n\n\n\n\n                                                \n     1. Maharashtra State Cooperative\n        Marketing Federation Limited,\n        Karnmu House, Narsi Mehta Street,\n        Post Box No. 5080 Bombay.\n     2. Maharashtra State Cooperative\n\n\n\n\n                                               \n        Marketing Federation Limited,\n        Bhagirath Granulated Fertilizers\n        Factory, Plot No.4, Aurangabad.                   APPELLANTS\n\n             VERSUS\n\n\n\n\n                                 \n     The Joint Director,\n     Employees State Insurance Corporation\n\n     Nagpur - 18\n                   \n     Panchdeep Bhavan, Ganeshpeth,\n                                                          RESPONDENT\n\n             .....\n<\/pre>\n
     Mr. V.N. Upadhye, advocate for the appellants.
\n     Mr. V.D. Sonawane, advocate for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
             …..\n<\/p>\n
                                  [CORAM: V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.]<\/p>\n
                                 DATE : 5th December, 2008\n<\/p>\n
                                 —————————-\n<\/p>\n
     ORAL JUDGEMENT :\n<\/p>\n
     1.     Substantial     question of law involved in                     this<\/p>\n
     appeal is as follows :\n<\/p>\n
            “Whether the exemption granted vide Government<\/p>\n
            Notification,     issued        under section            88     read<\/p>\n
            with   section    91A      of     the    Employees’           State<\/p>\n
            Insurance     Act,        1948,         in      respect            of<\/p>\n
            establishment        of     the     Apex        body          of     a<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:07:30 :::<\/span>
\n                                                (2)<\/span><\/p>\n
                  Cooperative             Marketing                  Federation             Limited,<\/p>\n
                  would          be applicable and valid so as to                                claim<\/p>\n
                  exemption          from          payment           of     Employees            State<\/p>\n
                  Insurance          (ESI)          contribution in                   respect             of<\/p>\n
                  other          units        of     the    Co-operative                Marketing<\/p>\n
                  Federation ?”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2.           By       consent,        the appeal is finally                        heard             at<\/p>\n
     stage of admission.\n<\/p>\n
     3.           The       appellants             filed        an        application            under<\/p>\n
     section          75    read     with           sections 77             and        78       of        the<\/p>\n
     Employees’<\/p>\n
                           State     Insurance             Act,           1948     (hereinafter<\/p>\n
     referred          to as “the ESI Act”), before the                                Industrial<\/p>\n
     Court,           Aurangabad.              The       applicant               No.        1        is     a<\/p>\n
     registered            Cooperative Society under the                              Maharashtra<\/p>\n
     Cooperative            Societies Act, 1960 and the appellant No.<\/p>\n
     2     is     a unit dealing in manufacturing                                of     granulated<\/p>\n
     fertilizers            at     its        factory           situated              within          the<\/p>\n
     industrial            area     of Chikalthana                   (Aurangabad).                   They<\/p>\n
     asserted          that the appellant No.                        2 is not required to<\/p>\n
     contribute for ESI amount under the ESI Act in as much<\/p>\n
     as the State of Maharashtra has exempted the appellant<\/p>\n
     No.          1    from       application              of        the     ESI        Act           vide<\/p>\n
     notification            dated 28th April, 1992 with effect                                      from<\/p>\n
     1st        February,         1996.        They further asserted that                             the<\/p>\n
     competent          officer          of        the     respondent                 visited         the<\/p>\n
     factory of the appellant No.                          2 and noticed nonpayment<\/p>\n
                                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:07:30 :::<\/span>
\n                                            (3)<\/span><\/p>\n
     of    contribution of the ESI amount.                   By     communication<\/p>\n
     dated 30th July, 1993, the respondent directed payment<\/p>\n
     of    certain      amounts towards contribution of the                         ESI.\n<\/p>\n
     The     appellant        No.     2 raised certain objections                   vide<\/p>\n
     communication           dated     11th       August,       1992.        It       was<\/p>\n
     asserted that the construction work at the factory was<\/p>\n
     carried     out by contractors and the employees                         engaged<\/p>\n
     for      said     work       were     under      the       domain      of        such<\/p>\n
     contractors.            It was contended that the appellant No.<\/p>\n
     2     was not the principal employer in relation to those<\/p>\n
     employees       who worked for the construction work.                            The<\/p>\n
     respondent        No.        2 – the Recovery Officer,                by      order<\/p>\n
     dated<\/p>\n
               6th August, 1993, called upon the appellant No.<\/p>\n
     2 to pay an amount of Rs.                   42,56,927\/- towards the ESI<\/p>\n
     contribution.            The     appellant No.         2     informed,         vide<\/p>\n
     letter     dated        19th     August,        1993,      that       there      was<\/p>\n
     exemption         available           from     payment        of       the       ESI<\/p>\n
     contribution          with      effect from 1st February, 1996                    in<\/p>\n
     accordance with the Government Notification dated 28th<\/p>\n
     April,     1992       and, therefore, urged for withdrawal                        of<\/p>\n
     the     notice of recovery.              Subsequently, by order dated<\/p>\n
     12-11-1993,        again        the    respondent       called        upon       the<\/p>\n
     appellant       No.       2 to make payment of Rs.                    5,19,337\/-\n<\/p>\n
     which     was     finally        determined and that             of     interest<\/p>\n
     amount     of     Rs.        22,839\/-,        for period       till        end    of<\/p>\n
     December, 1993.\n<\/p>\n
     4.        Being         aggrieved       by     the said order           and      the<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:07:30 :::<\/span>
\n                                               (4)<\/span><\/p>\n
     communication                pertaining          to         recovery            of      ESI<\/p>\n
     contribution,             the       appellants        filed        an     application<\/p>\n
     before the Industrial Tribunal seeking quashing of the<\/p>\n
     recovery          order       and the demand notice issued                       by     the<\/p>\n
     respondents.\n<\/p>\n
     5.           By       their        written       statement           (Exh-10),          the<\/p>\n
     respondents            resisted the application.                     They       asserted<\/p>\n
     that        the exemption granted vide notification referred<\/p>\n
     by the appellants is only limited to the extent of the<\/p>\n
     Head        Office      at      Mumbai       and it does           not         cover    the<\/p>\n
     factory          unit at Aurangabad.              They contended that                   the<\/p>\n
     factory<\/p>\n
                      unit at Aurangabad is a separate legal entity<\/p>\n
     and         is        liable       to     contribute          towards           the     ESI<\/p>\n
     contribution            in      respect of the employees working                          on<\/p>\n
     its Establishment.                 They came out with a case that the<\/p>\n
     appellants             have         attempted         to        misconstrue             the<\/p>\n
     Government            Notification.            They, therefore,                supported<\/p>\n
     the     order         issued in respect of recovery of                          the     ESI<\/p>\n
     contribution amount.                    It is the case of the respondent<\/p>\n
     that a separate Code was assigned to the appellant No.<\/p>\n
     2     and        the appellant No.             2 was required             to      furnish<\/p>\n
     details          of    the      wages      and    deductions              of     the    ESI<\/p>\n
     contribution.                The     appellant No.            2 did       not      submit<\/p>\n
     proper returns.               The appellant No.               2 had paid certain<\/p>\n
     contribution amount in the past but failed to pay such<\/p>\n
     amounts          as required under section 40 of the ESI                               Act.\n<\/p>\n
     They        contended         that       the application             is     devoid        of<\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:07:30 :::<\/span>
\n                                                (5)<\/span><\/p>\n
     substance and, therefore, liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
     6.         The           learned     Member of the             Industrial           Court<\/p>\n
     framed        issues        below Exh-2.        The appellants                 did     not<\/p>\n
     adduce        any        oral    evidence.          The      respondents             filed<\/p>\n
     affidavit           of     DW Madhav Tukaram Kawade in support                           of<\/p>\n
     defence.        He is Insurance Inspector.                      He was subjected<\/p>\n
     to cross-examination during trial.\n<\/p>\n
     7.         Heard learned counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n
     8.         Before I embark upon the exercise of examining<\/p>\n
     legal<\/p>\n
               aspects of the matter, it would be                             appropriate<\/p>\n
     to     deal with the legal status of the appellants.                                   The<\/p>\n
     appellant            No.        1    is     Marketing          Federation             duly<\/p>\n
     registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies<\/p>\n
     Act,     1960.           The appellant No.          1 is the Apex body                   of<\/p>\n
     several        units, including the appellant No.                            2,     which<\/p>\n
     are     affiliated to it.                 The appellant No.              1 and other<\/p>\n
     affiliated           units work in a league.                   There is a            Joint<\/p>\n
     45th     Annual Report for 2003-2004 placed on record.                                     A<\/p>\n
     bare     perusal           of the Annual Report reveals                      that      the<\/p>\n
     financial           transactions           of the    appellants              alongwith<\/p>\n
     other units, which are affiliated to the appellant No.<\/p>\n
     1,     have     been included in the Report.                        The      appellant<\/p>\n
     No.     1 is the controlling body of all the units of the<\/p>\n
     Marketing           Federation.           The appellant No.              1 is having<\/p>\n
     financial           control         over the units.            Needless to            say,<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:07:30 :::<\/span>
\n                                           (6)<\/span><\/p>\n
     the     appellant No.            1 has financial and administrative<\/p>\n
     control        over the other units of the appellant No.                           1.\n<\/p>\n
     The     appellant          No.     1 and other units may be               of     the<\/p>\n
     factory        which manufactures cattlefeed in the name and<\/p>\n
     style        “Vaibhav       Pashu Khadya” or may be               the     factory<\/p>\n
     which        manufactures granulated fertilizers in the name<\/p>\n
     and      style       “Bhagirath           Danedar      Mishra      Khat”         are<\/p>\n
     functional at different places, but are annexed to the<\/p>\n
     apex     body i.e.          the appellant No.          1 for the          purpose<\/p>\n
     of financial and administrative control.\n<\/p>\n
     9.           Mr.         V.D.    Sonawane, learned counsel for                   the<\/p>\n
     respondents, strenuously argued that the appellant No.<\/p>\n
     2 is completely separate entity and is responsible for<\/p>\n
     the internal affairs of the factory unit at Aurangabad<\/p>\n
     and, therefore, cannot claim exemption from payment of<\/p>\n
     ESI      contribution              only      because      the        Government<\/p>\n
     Notification             provides    such kind of exemption to                   the<\/p>\n
     Head     Office at Mumbai.             He would further submit                  that<\/p>\n
     when     the       separate        Code number was assigned               to     the<\/p>\n
     appellant          No.      2 after due inquiry, as               contemplated<\/p>\n
     under        the ESI Regulation No.             10B, now it is not open<\/p>\n
     to     the appellant No.             2 to turn volte-face and                  claim<\/p>\n
     such     exemption.              He would submit that the               appellant<\/p>\n
     No.      2     never made representation for such                       exemption<\/p>\n
     under        the Government Notification and made no efforts<\/p>\n
     to     ask     for exemption as provided under the law.                            He<\/p>\n
     would        point out that previously, the appellant No.                            2<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:07:30 :::<\/span>
\n                                        (7)<\/span><\/p>\n
     had     paid     the    contribution          in respect        of     the     ESI<\/p>\n
     contribution.            According       to      Mr.      Sonawane,            the<\/p>\n
     appellant No.          2 acquiesced the legal position in view<\/p>\n
     of the payment for subsequent period.                     Hence, he urged<\/p>\n
     for dismissal of the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     10.       The     expression        “Federal Society” is                defined<\/p>\n
     under     section       2 (13) of the Maharashtra                 Cooperative<\/p>\n
     Societies       Act,     1960.    There is no dispute about                    the<\/p>\n
     fact      that     both     the     appellants          are          registered<\/p>\n
     Cooperative       Societies       under       the provisions            of     the<\/p>\n
     Maharashtra       Cooperative       Societies          Act,      1960.         The<\/p>\n
     expression<\/p>\n
                      “Federal Society” is defined under section<\/p>\n
     2     (13) with reference to the federation of                       societies<\/p>\n
     dealing        in various kinds of business.                The      provision<\/p>\n
     reads as follows :\n<\/p>\n
               “2(13)       ‘federal society’ means a society –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               (a)          not less than five members of which<\/p>\n
               are themselves societies, and<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
               (b)          in   which       the    voting rights            are      so<\/p>\n
               regulated that the members which are societies<\/p>\n
               have      not less than four -fifths of the                        total<\/p>\n
               number of votes in the general meeting of such<\/p>\n
               society;”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     11.       The     State     Government         has     notified         certain<\/p>\n
     classes        of the societies.         One of the classes of such<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:07:30 :::<\/span>
\n                                              (8)<\/span><\/p>\n
     federal      society is the Maharashtra State                         Cooperative<\/p>\n
     Marketing Society, which includes –\n<\/p>\n
                 (i)          Agricultural Marketing Societies;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 (ii)         Agricultural Processing Societies<\/p>\n
                              other than sugar factories; and<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                 (iii)        Non-credit resources societies.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     12.         It      would      be       manifestly          clear       that        the<\/p>\n
     Maharashtra         State Cooperative Marketing Society would<\/p>\n
     include      the        above three (3) kinds of                 the      societies<\/p>\n
     dealing      in the activities, which are envisaged                               under<\/p>\n
     sub-category
\n                          ig (i)    to       (iii).         Section         90    of     the<\/p>\n
     Maharashtra         Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 lays down<\/p>\n
     the    power to levy supervision charges on constitution<\/p>\n
     of    a    Federal Authority as recognized under the                               Act.<\/p>\n
\n\n     The    vires       of     Section        90      was    subject         matter        of\n      \n\n\n     challenge         in \"Shetkari\n<\/pre>\n
                           Shetkari Sahakari Ginning and Oil Mills<\/p>\n
     Society     Ltd.,        Katol,         District Nagpur v.                State       of<\/p>\n
     Maharashtra        and another”, 2005 (4) Mah.L.J.                          319.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                 319       It\n\n\n\n\n\n     has   been       held that Section 90 is not ultra vires                              to\n\n     the       provisions          of        the   Maharashtra             Cooperative\n\n     Societies Act.\n\n\n\n\n\n     13.        The     meaning         of    the word         \"federal\"          in     the\n\n     context      of the structure of the appellants need to be\n\n     ascertained.            The Black's Law Dictionary defines                          the\n\n<\/pre>\n
     word “federation” as stated below :\n<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:07:30 :::<\/span>
\n                                      (9)<\/span><\/p>\n
                “Federation.         A joining together of states or<\/p>\n
                nations in a league or association, the league<\/p>\n
                itself.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     14.        The word “Federation” is defined in the Law of<\/p>\n
     Lexicon as follows :\n<\/p>\n
                “Federation.         Government         based          on     federal<\/p>\n
                principles;         group     of states           for       political<\/p>\n
                purposes;         federated            society.               It      is<\/p>\n
                Federation     of     various          States,          which      were<\/p>\n
                designated     under        the   constitution              for     the<\/p>\n
                purpose      of     efficient          administration               and<\/p>\n
                governance     of     the     country.             A     Union        of<\/p>\n
                societies      or organisations;             a political unit<\/p>\n
                with   a    central government and consisting                         of<\/p>\n
                several States each of which claims control of<\/p>\n
                its internal affairs.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     15.        Mr.    Sonawane       invited      my attention               to    the<\/p>\n
     decision     of a Division Bench of Madras High Court                            in<\/p>\n
     “M.\n<\/p>\n
      M.   Karunnanidhi        v.    The Union of India”                  AIR      1977<\/p>\n
     MADRAS   192.\n<\/p>\n
              192      A Division Bench of Madras                      High       Court<\/p>\n
     considered        legal      import          of        the         expression<\/p>\n
     “”federation”     in the context of the subject matter of<\/p>\n
     challenge    in   respect of notification issued                        by     the<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:07:30 :::<\/span>
\n                                             (10)<\/span><\/p>\n
     Department       of     Personnel and Administration                          Reforms,<\/p>\n
     Government        of         India,       under        section            3    of     the<\/p>\n
     Commissions       of     Inquiry         Act,         1952.          It       would    be<\/p>\n
     appropriate       to     refer to certain observations of                             the<\/p>\n
     learned    Judges of the Division Bench in this context.\n<\/p>\n
     It is observed :\n<\/p>\n
               “We         feel        that        the     words          ‘federation’,<\/p>\n
               ‘autonomy’              and    ‘federating              States’            have<\/p>\n
               varying       meanings             and what a particular                  word<\/p>\n
               means        will       depend       upon      the      context.            For<\/p>\n
               example,            there      may     be        a    federation             of<\/p>\n
               independent             States,       as it is in the case                   of<\/p>\n
               United       States of America.                  As the name itself<\/p>\n
               denotes,       it        is a union of States, either                        by<\/p>\n
               treaty       or      by       legislation by            the         concerned<\/p>\n
               States.           In those cases, the federating units<\/p>\n
               gave        certain powers to the federal Government<\/p>\n
               and     retained          some.       To apply the meaning                   of<\/p>\n
               the     word        ‘federation’ or ‘autonomy’ used                          in<\/p>\n
               the     context of the American Constitution,                                to<\/p>\n
               our Constitution will be totally misleading.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     16.       The concept of ‘federalism’ in relation to the<\/p>\n
     Central    Government             and State Government would                        defer<\/p>\n
     from      one     nation          to         another.          The    concept          of<\/p>\n
     ‘federation       of cooperative societies’ will also                               vary<\/p>\n
     from      one    kind        of        the     organisation           to       another,<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:07:30 :::<\/span>
\n                                              (11)<\/span><\/p>\n
     depending            upon     nature      of         functioning             and        the<\/p>\n
     supervisory powers available to the Apex Body.                                    In the<\/p>\n
     present        case, it is explicit that various Cooperative<\/p>\n
     Societies work in a league and their financial control<\/p>\n
     is     with the appellant No.                  1.    Not only that, all the<\/p>\n
     units     are jointly assessed for their performance.                                      A<\/p>\n
     Joint     Annual        Report is submitted in respect                          of     the<\/p>\n
     financial        activities of all the units including                                that<\/p>\n
     of the appellant No.                2.    The appellant No.                  1 and all<\/p>\n
     the     other        units       work    in     a     league.           To     put       it<\/p>\n
     differently,           it may be said that the appellant No.                               1<\/p>\n
     and other units like the appellant No.                              2 form a chain<\/p>\n
     of     business<\/p>\n
                            notwithstanding              the        fact      that         their<\/p>\n
     activities are multifarious.\n<\/p>\n
     17.        Though        the      appellant No.              2 might have             paid<\/p>\n
     contribution           afterwards         for certain period, yet,                       it<\/p>\n
     would     not        cause estoppel by conduct when                        the       legal<\/p>\n
     plea     of     exemption          is    put        forth      in     view       of     the<\/p>\n
     Government           Notification         referred by the                appellants.\n<\/p>\n
     The     Government          Notification            relied          upon       by       the<\/p>\n
     appellants           (P-17)      purports       to         show       that       in     the<\/p>\n
     exercise        of     powers conferred under section                          88     read<\/p>\n
     with     section 91A of the ESI Act, the State Government<\/p>\n
     has      exempted            “the        persons            employed           in       the<\/p>\n
     establishments              of    Maharashtra              State         Cooperative<\/p>\n
     Marketing        Federation         Limited, Kanmoor                  House,        Narsi<\/p>\n
     Mehta,        Bombay        400009”      from       the      operation           of     the<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:07:30 :::<\/span>
\n                                         (12)<\/span><\/p>\n
     provisions        of    the said Act.           The prior        notification<\/p>\n
     dated     28th        April, 1992 (P-15) purports to show                      that<\/p>\n
     the     exemption       was     granted prospectively                upto      31st<\/p>\n
     March,     1993.       Significantly, the State Government                        is<\/p>\n
     empowered        to    grant such exemption in an                 appropriate<\/p>\n
     case under sections 87 and 88 of the ESI Act.                            Section<\/p>\n
     88 reads as follows :\n<\/p>\n
                “88.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 88.         Exemption       of   persons         or     class         of<\/p>\n
               persons                 The     appropriate               Government<\/p>\n
               may,        by notification in the Official                    Gazette<\/p>\n
               and     subject to such conditions as it may deem<\/p>\n
               fit<\/p>\n
                       to impose, exempt any person or class                           of<\/p>\n
               persons         employed         in          any       factory          or<\/p>\n
               establishment           or      class     of       factories            or<\/p>\n
               establishments          to which this Act applies from<\/p>\n
               the operation of this Act.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     18.       A     plain     reading of section 88 would make                        it<\/p>\n
     amply     clear that the State Government is empowered to<\/p>\n
     exempt     “class       of persons employed in any factory                        or<\/p>\n
     establishment,            or       class          of         factories            or<\/p>\n
     establishments,          to    which the Act is applicable.”                      It<\/p>\n
     does     not    restrict application of the exemption to                            a<\/p>\n
     particular       place.         Section      88 does not refer               to     a<\/p>\n
     place     pertaining          to exemption.       However, section                87<\/p>\n
     refers     to    the exemption in respect of                   any      specific<\/p>\n
     area.\n<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:07:30 :::<\/span>
\n                                           (13)<\/span><\/p>\n
     19.      The scheme of the ESI Act, 1948 is elaborately<\/p>\n
     discussed     and     stated         in “Transport
\n                                              Transport           Corporation           of<\/p>\n
     India   v.     Employees’ State Insurance                     Corporation            &<\/a><\/p>\n
     another” 2001 I CLR 38.\n<\/p>\n
                         38               The Apex Court held that once<\/p>\n
     it is found that the employees of the branch office of<\/p>\n
     an Undertaking dealing in transport of goods are doing<\/p>\n
     the   same work which is the main work of the principal<\/p>\n
     establishment       at     the       main    office       covered         by     the<\/p>\n
     exemption,     then        the exemption would be available                        to<\/p>\n
     such a branch office too.              The Apex Court observed :\n<\/p>\n
             “In<\/p>\n
                     our        view, the aforesaid observations                        on<\/p>\n
             the     scheme         of     the     Act      for      covering         the<\/p>\n
             activities            of head office and branches of the<\/p>\n
             establishment            are    well        sustained.            In     the<\/p>\n
             light         of      the      statutory         scheme         envisaged<\/p>\n
             thereunder,           there     is     no        escape         from     the<\/p>\n
             conclusion that each branch, having functional<\/p>\n
             integrality             and    being         under        the       direct<\/p>\n
             supervision           and control of the parent office,<\/p>\n
             would         be      part     and     parcel         of     the        main<\/p>\n
             establishment and all such branches have to be<\/p>\n
             treated as miniatures of the main office. They<\/p>\n
             cannot      be considered as separate                      independent<\/p>\n
             entities         on     the factual data in the                   present<\/p>\n
             case     on which there is no dispute between the<\/p>\n
             parties.           As discussed by us earlier there is<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:07:30 :::<\/span>
\n                                            (14)<\/span><\/p>\n
                  no      escape from the conclusion that the Bombay<\/p>\n
                  branch      is an appendage and part and parcel of<\/p>\n
                  the      main establishment at Secunderabad and is<\/p>\n
                  almost a shortened mirror image thereof.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     20.          Mr.       Upadhye    also       seeks      to     rely       on     “M\/s
\n                                                                                       M\/s<\/p>\n
     Southern        Agencies,       Rajamundry       vs.         Andhra        Pradesh<\/p>\n
     Employees’           State Insurance Corporation” 2001 (88) FLR<\/p>\n
     347.
\n     347       It has been held that the administrative office<\/p>\n
     is    nothing but a controlling office to supervise                               the<\/p>\n
     sales        and      would    fall     within        the      definition           of<\/p>\n
     expression ‘shop’.<\/p>\n
\n                           \n     21.       Mr.        Sonawane relied upon certain observations\n                          \n     in      \"All\n              All        India   I.T.D.C.         Employees'             Union         vs.\n\n<\/pre>\n
     Employees’ State Insurance Corporatin and others” 2000<\/p>\n
     (84)    FLR 869.\n<\/p>\n
                 869         The Apex Court held that remedy by way<\/p>\n
     of    writ      petition       was not proper since                the     dispute<\/p>\n
     could     be        resolved   by filing       an       application            under<\/p>\n
     section        91     of the ESI Act.        With due          respect,          this<\/p>\n
     authority         has no bearing on the issue involved in the<\/p>\n
     present case.\n<\/p>\n
     22.       A       cumulative     consideration of                the      relevant<\/p>\n
     aspects        would     make it manifest that               the       appellants<\/p>\n
     work conjointly and are members of a league formulated<\/p>\n
     under     the        provisions of the Maharashtra                  Cooperative<\/p>\n
     Societies         Act, 1960.     One can not be oblivious of the<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:07:30 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  (15)<\/span><\/p>\n
     intention            of        the     legislature           in       enacting           the<\/p>\n
     Maharashtra              Cooperative Societies Act.                     The      internal<\/p>\n
     cooperation              and     the motto “all for one and                      one     for<\/p>\n
     all”     is the backbone of the cooperative movement.                                      It<\/p>\n
     is of common knowledge that the Government is expected<\/p>\n
     to      endeavour               for     giving        booster         dose       to      the<\/p>\n
     cooperative              movement       in     the State.             The      exemption<\/p>\n
     granted           from the operation of the ESI Act is one kind<\/p>\n
     of     the        endeavour           of the State         Government            to     give<\/p>\n
     helping           hand     to        the appellants.           It is        within       the<\/p>\n
     powers of the State Government to grant exemption from<\/p>\n
     operation           of the ESI Act.                There cannot be duality of<\/p>\n
     opinion           that<\/p>\n
                                the        ESI    Act is     a      social         beneficial<\/p>\n
     legislation.              At the same time, in parallel field, the<\/p>\n
     cooperative              sector also is being given due support by<\/p>\n
     way     of        subsidies or exemptions as permissible                              under<\/p>\n
     the     Government policies.                   It is also a social welfare<\/p>\n
     legislation.               In        keeping with such intention of                      the<\/p>\n
     Government           while issuing notification in question,                                 I<\/p>\n
     am     of     the        opinion        that        mere     reference           in      the<\/p>\n
     Government Notification that it would be applicable to<\/p>\n
     the     appellant              No.     1, with reference to the                   address<\/p>\n
     given        of     the Head Office, would not                      disentitle           the<\/p>\n
     appellant           No.         2 from claiming such exemption.                          Nor<\/p>\n
     the     fact that in the past contribution of the                                   E.S.I.\n<\/p>\n
     amount        was made by the appellant No.                         2 will        operate<\/p>\n
     as      estoppel           from        seeking        exemption           from         legal<\/p>\n
     liability to pay the same.                         It cannot be said that the<\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:07:30 :::<\/span>
\n                                              (16)<\/span><\/p>\n
     appellant          No.       2     is    a     completely         separate          and<\/p>\n
     segregated         unit     without          having any nexus             with      the<\/p>\n
     business         of the appellant No.             1.      Taking a composite<\/p>\n
     view of the financial activities of the appellants and<\/p>\n
     the     fact      that they are in league with each other                             in<\/p>\n
     the     cooperative         business,          I have no          hesitation          in<\/p>\n
     holding          that      the     exemption       granted              under       the<\/p>\n
     Government         Notification,             referred        to      hereinabove,<\/p>\n
     would       be     equally available to the appellant                        No.        2<\/p>\n
     likewise         that of the appellant No.                  1.     In this         view<\/p>\n
     of    the        matter,     the        impugned       judgement          is     quite<\/p>\n
     unsustainable and will have to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
     23.         In     the     result, the appeal is                  allowed.          The<\/p>\n
     impugned         judgement        is     set     aside.           The       recovery<\/p>\n
     orders\/certificate               challenged       by the          appellants          is<\/p>\n
     quashed and the application filed by them be deemed as<\/p>\n
     allowed.         No costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                                       [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ]
\n                                                             JUDGE<\/p>\n
     NPJ\/FA1557-07<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:07:30 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Maharashtra State Cooperative vs Panchdeep Bhavan on 5 December, 2008 Bench: V.R. Kingaonkar (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 1557 OF 2007 1. Maharashtra State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited, Karnmu House, Narsi Mehta Street, Post Box No. 5080 Bombay. 2. Maharashtra State Cooperative […]<\/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-76216","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMaharashtra State Cooperative vs Panchdeep Bhavan on 5 December, 2008 - 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\/maharashtra-state-cooperative-vs-panchdeep-bhavan-on-5-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Maharashtra State Cooperative vs Panchdeep Bhavan on 5 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-state-cooperative-vs-panchdeep-bhavan-on-5-december-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-12-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-10T06:46:23+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maharashtra-state-cooperative-vs-panchdeep-bhavan-on-5-december-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maharashtra-state-cooperative-vs-panchdeep-bhavan-on-5-december-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Maharashtra State Cooperative vs Panchdeep Bhavan on 5 December, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-10T06:46:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maharashtra-state-cooperative-vs-panchdeep-bhavan-on-5-december-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2916,\"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\\\/maharashtra-state-cooperative-vs-panchdeep-bhavan-on-5-december-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maharashtra-state-cooperative-vs-panchdeep-bhavan-on-5-december-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maharashtra-state-cooperative-vs-panchdeep-bhavan-on-5-december-2008\",\"name\":\"Maharashtra State Cooperative vs Panchdeep Bhavan on 5 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-10T06:46:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maharashtra-state-cooperative-vs-panchdeep-bhavan-on-5-december-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maharashtra-state-cooperative-vs-panchdeep-bhavan-on-5-december-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maharashtra-state-cooperative-vs-panchdeep-bhavan-on-5-december-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Maharashtra State Cooperative vs Panchdeep Bhavan on 5 December, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Maharashtra State Cooperative vs Panchdeep Bhavan on 5 December, 2008 - 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\/maharashtra-state-cooperative-vs-panchdeep-bhavan-on-5-december-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Maharashtra State Cooperative vs Panchdeep Bhavan on 5 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-state-cooperative-vs-panchdeep-bhavan-on-5-december-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-12-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-10T06:46:23+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-state-cooperative-vs-panchdeep-bhavan-on-5-december-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-state-cooperative-vs-panchdeep-bhavan-on-5-december-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Maharashtra State Cooperative vs Panchdeep Bhavan on 5 December, 2008","datePublished":"2008-12-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-10T06:46:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-state-cooperative-vs-panchdeep-bhavan-on-5-december-2008"},"wordCount":2916,"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\/maharashtra-state-cooperative-vs-panchdeep-bhavan-on-5-december-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-state-cooperative-vs-panchdeep-bhavan-on-5-december-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-state-cooperative-vs-panchdeep-bhavan-on-5-december-2008","name":"Maharashtra State Cooperative vs Panchdeep Bhavan on 5 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-12-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-10T06:46:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-state-cooperative-vs-panchdeep-bhavan-on-5-december-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-state-cooperative-vs-panchdeep-bhavan-on-5-december-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-state-cooperative-vs-panchdeep-bhavan-on-5-december-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Maharashtra State Cooperative vs Panchdeep Bhavan on 5 December, 2008"}]},{"@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\/76216","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=76216"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76216\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=76216"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=76216"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=76216"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}