{"id":78991,"date":"2009-07-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-asokan-on-21-july-2009"},"modified":"2016-04-15T00:32:01","modified_gmt":"2016-04-14T19:02:01","slug":"in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-asokan-on-21-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-asokan-on-21-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"In The High Court Of Judicature At … vs Asokan on 21 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
In The High Court Of Judicature At … vs Asokan on 21 July, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: A. B. Chaudhari<\/div>\n
                                 1\n\n             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                      NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR\n\n\n\n\n                                                                         \n                    FIRST APPEAL NO.290\/2004\n\n\n\n\n                                                 \n    APPELLANTS:-    1. Smt. Shakuntala wd\/o Mulchand Yadav\n                       Age 40 years, Occ. : house-wife.\n\n\n\n\n                                                \n                    2. Ku. Rupali d\/o Mulchand Yadav\n                       Age 19 years, Occ. Student.\n\n                    3. Ku. Deepali d\/o Mulchand Yadav\n\n\n\n\n                                    \n                       Age 17 years, Occ. Student.\n\n                    4. Pawan s\/o Mulchand Yadav\n                        \n                       Age 15 yars, Occ. Student.\n\n                    5. Yogesh s\/o Mulchand Yadav\n                       \n                       Age 13 years, Occ.: Student.\n\n                    6. Brijlal Ramfal Yadav\n                       Age 73 years, Occ. : Retired.\n          \n\n\n                      Appellants No. 3 to 5 are minors and hence\n       \n\n\n\n                      through their natural guardian mother\n                      i.e. applicant No.1.\n\n                      All the appellants No.1 to 6 are R\/o\n\n\n\n\n\n                      Dhamodiya Plot No.12, Paratwad,\n                      Tq. Achalpur, Dist. Amravati.\n\n\n                             ...V E R S U S...\n\n\n\n\n\n    RESPONDENTS:-   1. Deputy Conservator of Forest\n                       East Melghat Division, Head Quarter -\n                       Chikhaldara, Tq. Chikhaldara,\n                       Dist. Amravati - 444608.\n\n\n\n\n                                                 ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:48:44 :::\n                                              2\n\n                            2. Conservator of Forest,\n                               Amravati Circle, Amravati Office,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                      \n                               Camp Amravati, Tq. & Distt. Amravati.\n\n\n\n\n                                                             \n    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n              [Shri S.A. Marathe, Adv. for appellants]\n              [Shri M.P. Badar, Adv. for respondents]\n    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                                                            \n                                     CORAM:-        A.B. CHAUDHARI, J.\n\n    Date of reserving the judgment :                15.07.2009.\n    Date of pronouncing the judgment :              21.07.2009\n\n\n\n\n                                                \n    JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
    1.          Being aggrieved by the order dated 23.3.2004, made by<\/p>\n
    the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Amravati in<\/p>\n
    W.C.A. No.3\/2002, rejecting the application (Exh.1), the present<\/p>\n
    appeal was filed in this Court by the claimants.\n<\/p>\n
    2.          Heard learned Counsel for appellants, who argued that<\/p>\n
    the appellants were entitled to compensation to the tune of<\/p>\n
    Rs.3,32,580\/- as claimed in the application but the Commissioner<\/p>\n
    for Workmen’s Compensation upheld the stand of the respondents<\/p>\n
    that amount of Rs.1,69,510\/- only was payable as the amendment<\/p>\n
    to Sections 4 and 4-A of the Workmen’s Compensation Act,1923,<\/p>\n
    made by Act No.30 of 1995 w.e.f. 15.9.1995 was not applicable in<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:48:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                         3<\/span><\/p>\n
    the case of the appellants, which is contrary to the judgment of<\/p>\n
    Kerala High Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company<\/p>\n
    Ltd…Versus…Asokan, reported in 1997 (1) CLR 1039, in which<\/p>\n
    reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil<\/p>\n
    Appeal Nos.16904 to 16909, decided on 6.11.1996 between New<\/p>\n
    India Assurance Co. Ltd. …Versus…V.K. Neelakandan and others.\n<\/p>\n
    He then submits that the issue is covered by the said supreme<\/p>\n
    Court judgment, dated 6.11.1996 and accordingly this Court<\/p>\n
    should dispose of the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n
    3.        Per contra, learned Counsel for respondents opposed the<\/p>\n
    appeal and argued that the amendment by Act No.30 of 1995<\/p>\n
    effective from 15.9.1995 cannot have retrospective application<\/p>\n
    and therefore, the amount payable under Sections 4 and 4-A of<\/p>\n
    the   Workmen’s       Compensation        Act     cannot        be       claimed<\/p>\n
    retrospectively by virtue of amendment of 1995. I had adjourned<\/p>\n
    the matter to enable learned Counsel for respondents to find out if<\/p>\n
    there is any judgment contrary to the one in the case of Oriental<\/p>\n
    Insurance Company Limited…Versus…Asokan, cited supra, and the<\/p>\n
    Supreme Court judgment in the case of New India Assurance Co.\n<\/p>\n
    Ltd…Versus…V.K.   Neelakandan       and     others.        However,          on<\/p>\n
    15.7.2009 when the case was heard finally, learned Counsel for<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:48:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                        4<\/span><\/p>\n
    respondents stated at the bar that there is no contrary judgment<\/p>\n
    of any High Court or the Hon’ble Supreme Court.\n<\/p>\n
    Following substantial question of law arises for my determination.\n<\/p>\n
              Whether the amendment of Sections 4 and 4-A of the<\/p>\n
    Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, made by Act No.30 of 1995<\/p>\n
    w.e.f. 15.9.1995, enhancing the amount of compensation and rate<\/p>\n
    of interest, would be attracted to cases where the claims in<\/p>\n
    respect of death or permanent disablement resulting from an<\/p>\n
    accident caused during the course of employment, took place<\/p>\n
    prior to 15.9.1995 ?\n<\/p>\n
    4.        I have gone through the impugned order in the present<\/p>\n
    appeal and the said judgment of Kerala High Court cited by<\/p>\n
    learned Counsel for appellants. In the absence of any assistance<\/p>\n
    from both the learned Counsel for the rival parties, I found that<\/p>\n
    following is the existing legal position.\n<\/p>\n
    5.        In   Pratap    Narain    Singh    Deo…Versus…Srinivas<\/p>\n
    Sabata and another, reported in 1976 (1) Supreme Court<\/p>\n
    Cases 289, the four-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court<\/p>\n
    held that the employer became liable to pay compensation as<\/p>\n
    soon as personal injury was caused to the workman by the<\/p>\n
    accident which admittedly arose out of and in the course of<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:48:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                       5<\/span><\/p>\n
    employment.     There was no suspension of the compensation<\/p>\n
    pending settlement.     In the aforesaid judgment, thus, it was<\/p>\n
    clearly held that what was relevant was the date of accident for<\/p>\n
    calculating the amount of compensation and not the date of<\/p>\n
    adjudication while interpreting unamended provisions of Section<\/p>\n
    4-A.   In New India Assurance Company Limited…Versus…V.K.\n<\/p>\n
    Neelakandan and others (Civil Appeal Nos.16904 to 16909 of 1996,<\/p>\n
    decided on 6.11.1996) [judgment quoted at page No.256 in 1999<\/p>\n
    (8) Supreme Court Cases, 254] the two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble<\/p>\n
    Supreme Court found that the wages of the workmen on the date<\/p>\n
    of accident though were @ Rs.1,000\/- per month, what was<\/p>\n
    relevant was the date of adjudication on which date the workmen<\/p>\n
    would have drawn wages @ Rs.1800\/- per month and therefore,<\/p>\n
    the Supreme Court took into account wages @ Rs.1800\/- per<\/p>\n
    month i.e. on the date of adjudication and accordingly granted the<\/p>\n
    compensation. Thus, the Supreme Court in that judgment held<\/p>\n
    that since rights of the workmen were being determined, the<\/p>\n
    relevant date would be the date of adjudication and not the date<\/p>\n
    of accident since the Act is a special legislation for the benefit of<\/p>\n
    labour. In the decision in the case of Oriental Insurance Company<\/p>\n
    Ltd. ..Versus…Asokan, cited supra, the Division Bench of the Kerala<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:48:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                          6<\/span><\/p>\n
    High Court relied on the said observation of the Supreme Court in<\/p>\n
    the   case    of   New     India    Assurance   Co.    Ltd…Versus…V.K.\n<\/p>\n
    Neelakandan and others and held that the date of adjudication<\/p>\n
    and not the date of accident was relevant for applying the<\/p>\n
    amendment.\n<\/p>\n
    6.        In United India Insurance Co. Ltd….Versus…Alavi,<\/p>\n
    reported in 1998 (1) KLT 951, the Full Bench of Kerala High Court<\/p>\n
    held thus :\n<\/p>\n
                        “There is nothing to indicate that the
\n            amended provisions would operate retrospectively.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            In fact S. 1 (2) of Act 30 of 1995 itself says that the
\n            amended provisions would come into force on such
\n            date or dates as the Central Government may by<\/p>\n
            notification in the Official Gazette, appoint and<\/p>\n
            different dates may be appointed for different
\n            provisions of this Act. In fact, Legislature has left it
\n            to the Central Government to fix the dates from<\/p>\n
            which various provisions have come into effect.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            Further, when an Amendment Act proposes to give
\n            different dates of commencement to different
\n            Sections,     there    is    a   presumption         against<\/p>\n
            retrospectivity.    If the Legislature wanted to have
\n            the provisions of the Act to operate retrospectively
\n            the same         would have been provided in the
\n            Amendment Act itself.        It is a well settled rule of<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:48:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                 7<\/span><\/p>\n
    construction that no provisions in a statute should<\/p>\n
    be given retrospective effect unless the Legislature
\n    by express terms or by necessary implication has<\/p>\n
    made it retrospective, and that when a provision is
\n    made retrospective, care should be taken not to
\n    extend its retrospective effect beyond what was<\/p>\n
    intended.     The general presumption is that every
\n    statute is prima facie prospective unless it is
\n    expressly or by necessary implication made to have<\/p>\n
    retrospective effect.      Right to claim compensation
\n    as well as the obligation to pay the same are<\/p>\n
    created by the statute itself. It is well settled rule of
\n    interpretation that if the law is procedural, there is,<\/p>\n
    no doubt, a presumption that it applies to pending
\n    proceeding. If the law is substantive in nature, the
\n    normal presumption against retrospectivity still<\/p>\n
    holds good, subject to the principle that the court<\/p>\n
    must look to the question whether the rights of the
\n    parties at the commencement of the proceedings
\n    were intended to be modified either expressly or by<\/p>\n
    necessary implication.\n<\/p>\n
                If the amended provisions are given effect
\n    to   in     the   matter     of   awarding      enhanced<\/p>\n
    compensation even with regard to the accident
\n    which occurred prior to 15.9.1995, that will affect
\n    the existing rights and obligations of the parties.
\n    Suppose an accident occurred prior to 15.9.1995,<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:48:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                  8<\/span><\/p>\n
    and the claim was decided prior to the said date,<\/p>\n
    the law applicable is the unamended provisions of
\n    the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. But if the<\/p>\n
    claim could not be settled prior to 15.9.1995 going
\n    by the Division Bench decision in Asokan’s case,
\n    those claimants would get the benefits of the<\/p>\n
    Amendment Act. In other words, the benefit would
\n    depend on when the case is decided, either prior to
\n    15.9.1995 or subsequent.             This was never the<\/p>\n
    intention of the Legislature.              If the Legislature
\n    wanted   to    give
\n                     ig    the       benefit        to        all   pending
\n    proceedings the same could have been provided in
\n    the Amendment Act itself.            There must be some<\/p>\n
    provision in the statute which either expressly or by
\n    necessary implication would lead to an interference
\n    that the rights and liabilities of the parties were<\/p>\n
    intended to be altered. We do not find anything in<\/p>\n
    the Amendment Act which seeks to alter the liability
\n    of employer as it stood on the date of accident. The
\n    amended provisions may be beneficial to the<\/p>\n
    victims or their legal representatives or the Act may
\n    be   a   welfare      legislation,     but           it     does      not
\n    automatically lead to the inference that such<\/p>\n
    provisions    are   retrospective          in    nature.             The
\n    amended provisions of S. 4 and 4A were intended to
\n    operate only prospectively, that too from the dates
\n    fixed by the Central Government in accordance with<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:48:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                       9<\/span><\/p>\n
            S. 1 (2) of Act 30 of 1995.”\n<\/p>\n
    7.       The judgment in the case of Oriental Insurance Company<\/p>\n
    Ltd….Versus…Asokan, cited supra, was therefore, overruled by the<\/p>\n
    Full Bench of Kerala High Court. In Kerala State Electricity<\/p>\n
    Board    and    another…Versus…Valsala          K.      and      another,<\/p>\n
    reported in 1999 (8) Supreme Court Cases 254, a three-Judge<\/p>\n
    Bench of the Supreme Court considered the conflicting judgments<\/p>\n
    and after framing question, which I have framed earlier in<\/p>\n
    paragraph No.1, it answered the same in negative. It would be<\/p>\n
    useful to quote paragraph Nos.2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 from the said<\/p>\n
    judgment.\n<\/p>\n
                         “2.      Various High Courts in the<\/p>\n
             country,    while   dealing   with   the      claim    for
\n             compensation under Workmen’s Compensation
\n             Act have uniformly taken the view that the<\/p>\n
             relevant date for determining the rights and
\n             liabilities of the parties is the date of the
\n             accident.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                         3.       A four-Judge Bench of this
\n             Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas
\n             Sabata<\/a> speaking through Shinghal, J. has held
\n             that   an    employer   becomes      liable     to    pay<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:48:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                10<\/span><\/p>\n
     compensation as soon as the personal injury is<\/p>\n
     caused to the workman by the accident which
\n     arose out of and in the course of employment.\n<\/p>\n
     Thus, the relevant date for determination of the
\n     rate of compensation is the date of the accident
\n     and not the date of adjudication of the claim.\n<\/p>\n
               4.        A two-Judge Bench of this
\n     Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. V.K.
\n     Neelakandan<\/a> however, took the view that the<\/p>\n
     Workmen’s Compensation Act being a special
\n     legislation for the benefit of the workmen, the<\/p>\n
     benefit as available on the date of adjudication
\n     should be extended to the workmen and not the<\/p>\n
     compensation which was payable on the date of
\n     the   accident.     The        two-Judge      Bench          in
\n     Neelakandan case however, did not take notice of<\/p>\n
     the judgment of the larger Bench in Pratap Narain<\/p>\n
     Singh Deo case as it presumably was not brought
\n     to the notice of their Lordships. Be that as it may,
\n     in view of the categorical law laid down by the<\/p>\n
     larger Bench in Pratap Singh Deo case the view
\n     expressed      by   the        two-Judge      Bench          in
\n     Neelakandan case is not correct.\n<\/p>\n
               5.        Our attention has also been
\n     drawn to a judgment of the Full Bench of the
\n     Kerala High Court in United India Insurance Co.
\n     Ltd v. Alavi wherein the Full Bench precisely<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:48:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                       11<\/span><\/p>\n
             considered the same question and examined both<\/p>\n
             the above-noted judgments. It took the view that
\n             the injured workman becomes entitled to get<\/p>\n
             compensation the moment he suffers personal
\n             injuries   of   the   types   contemplated     by      the
\n             provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act<\/p>\n
             and it is the amount of compensation payable on
\n             the date of the accident and not the amount of
\n             compensation      payable     on   account      of     the<\/p>\n
             amendment made in 1995, which is relevant.
\n             The decision of the Full Bench of the Kerala High<\/p>\n
             Court, to the extent it is in accord with the
\n             judgment of the larger Bench of this Court in<\/p>\n
             Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata<\/a> lays
\n             down the correct law and we approve it.\n<\/p>\n
                        6.         Having answered the question<\/p>\n
             posed in the earlier part of the judgment in the<\/p>\n
             negative, we shall take up this batch of special
\n             leave petitions for consideration.”\n<\/p>\n
    8.       Perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs in the said judgment<\/p>\n
    of the Supreme Court clearly show that they held that the case of<\/p>\n
    New India Assurance Co. Ltd…Versus…V.K. Neelakandan and<\/p>\n
    others was not correctly decided but the judgment in the case of<\/p>\n
    Pratap Narain Singh Deo…Versus…Srinivas Sabata and another,<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:48:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                       12<\/span><\/p>\n
    cited supra, being of the larger Bench of the Supreme Court i.e.<\/p>\n
    being of four Judges, the same was approved so also the Full<\/p>\n
    Bench judgment of Kerala High Court. It is, thus, clear that the<\/p>\n
    three-Judge Full Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Kerala<\/p>\n
    State Electricity Board and another…Versus…Valsala K. and<\/p>\n
    another, cited supra, in clear terms clarified the legal position that<\/p>\n
    the relevant date for applying amendment would be the date of<\/p>\n
    accident and consequently, the amendment made by Act No.30 of<\/p>\n
    1995 w.e.f. 15.9.1995 cannot be made applicable to the claims<\/p>\n
    arising out the accident caused prior to 15.9.1995. Thus, following<\/p>\n
    the law laid down as above, I have no other alternative but to<\/p>\n
    dismiss the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
    9.        It is unfortunate that both the learned Counsel for the<\/p>\n
    rival parties did not at all assist the Court properly in the matter<\/p>\n
    by pointing out the correct legal position.       In the result, first<\/p>\n
    appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                                        JUDGE<\/p>\n
    ssw<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:48:44 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court In The High Court Of Judicature At … vs Asokan on 21 July, 2009 Bench: A. B. Chaudhari 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO.290\/2004 APPELLANTS:- 1. Smt. Shakuntala wd\/o Mulchand Yadav Age 40 years, Occ. : house-wife. 2. Ku. Rupali d\/o Mulchand Yadav […]<\/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-78991","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nIn The High Court Of Judicature At ... vs Asokan on 21 July, 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\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-asokan-on-21-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"In The High Court Of Judicature At ... vs Asokan on 21 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-asokan-on-21-july-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=\"2009-07-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-14T19:02:01+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-asokan-on-21-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-asokan-on-21-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"In The High Court Of Judicature At … vs Asokan on 21 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-14T19:02:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-asokan-on-21-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2143,\"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\\\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-asokan-on-21-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-asokan-on-21-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-asokan-on-21-july-2009\",\"name\":\"In The High Court Of Judicature At ... vs Asokan on 21 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-14T19:02:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-asokan-on-21-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-asokan-on-21-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-asokan-on-21-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"In The High Court Of Judicature At … vs Asokan on 21 July, 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":"In The High Court Of Judicature At ... vs Asokan on 21 July, 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\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-asokan-on-21-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"In The High Court Of Judicature At ... vs Asokan on 21 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-asokan-on-21-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-14T19:02:01+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-asokan-on-21-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-asokan-on-21-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"In The High Court Of Judicature At … vs Asokan on 21 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-14T19:02:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-asokan-on-21-july-2009"},"wordCount":2143,"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\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-asokan-on-21-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-asokan-on-21-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-asokan-on-21-july-2009","name":"In The High Court Of Judicature At ... vs Asokan on 21 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-14T19:02:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-asokan-on-21-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-asokan-on-21-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-high-court-of-judicature-at-vs-asokan-on-21-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"In The High Court Of Judicature At … vs Asokan on 21 July, 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\/78991","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=78991"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/78991\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=78991"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=78991"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=78991"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}