{"id":82876,"date":"2002-03-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-03-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishan-chand-surendra-kumar-vs-delhi-school-teachers-on-15-march-2002"},"modified":"2017-07-08T00:45:39","modified_gmt":"2017-07-07T19:15:39","slug":"kishan-chand-surendra-kumar-vs-delhi-school-teachers-on-15-march-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishan-chand-surendra-kumar-vs-delhi-school-teachers-on-15-march-2002","title":{"rendered":"Kishan Chand Surendra Kumar vs Delhi School Teachers &#8230; on 15 March, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Delhi High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Kishan Chand Surendra Kumar vs Delhi School Teachers &#8230; on 15 March, 2002<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: AIR 2002 Delhi 330, 2002 (3) ARBLR 458 Delhi<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: D Bhandari<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: D Bhandari, V Sen<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p> Dalveer Bhandari, J. <\/p>\n<p> 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated<br \/>\n17.11.1981 passed in Suit No. 29-A of 1977 by the<br \/>\nlearned Single Judge. The appellant, M\/s Kishan Chand<br \/>\nSurendra Kumar moved a petition under Section 20 of the<br \/>\nArbitration Act in which it is incorporated that the<br \/>\nrespondent gave the contract of development of its land<br \/>\nmeasuring 666 bighas and 17 biswas situated in<br \/>\nKarkardooma, Shahdara, Delhi for the purpose of a<br \/>\nresidential colony. A cheque for Rs. 50,000\/- was<br \/>\ngiven to the appellant, but it was dishonoured.<br \/>\nSubsequently the respondent paid two cheques of Rs.<br \/>\n5,000\/- each to the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p> 2. On 19.11.1967 the appellant learnt that the<br \/>\nrespondent had entered into arrangement for development<br \/>\nof the same land with another contractor. Under these<br \/>\ncircumstances the appellant alleged that the respondent<br \/>\nhad committed breach of agreement dated 18.5.1967 and<br \/>\nasserted that the agreement contained an arbitration<br \/>\nclause. Under these circumstances the appellant moved a<br \/>\npetition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act for<br \/>\ngetting the disputes referred to an arbitration.\n<\/p>\n<p> 3. The respondent, the Delhi School Teachers<br \/>\nCooperative House Building Society denied the existence<br \/>\nof any agreement with the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p> 4. Another significant feature of this case is that<br \/>\nthe petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration was<br \/>\nwithdrawn by the appellant by moving an application<br \/>\nunder Order 23, Rule 1 read with Section 151 of Code of<br \/>\nCivil Procedure. The respondent had also signed the<br \/>\napplication. The Court dismissed the petition as<br \/>\nwithdrawn on 17.10.1968. No permission was, however,<br \/>\nsought for filing a fresh petition on the same subject<br \/>\nmatter.\n<\/p>\n<p> 5. The appellant submitted that what impelled him<br \/>\nto withdraw the petition was that an oral agreement was<br \/>\nentered into between the parties and according to which<br \/>\nthe respondent agreed to pay damages to the tune of Rs.<br \/>\n78,000\/- or allot the work as already agreed to under<br \/>\nthe agreement dated 18.5.1967. The appellant further<br \/>\nclaimed that he had executed some more work and<br \/>\nsubmitted three bills to the extent of Rs. 78,000\/- to<br \/>\nthe respondent. The appellant was paid Rs. 28,000\/-<br \/>\nunder both the agreement. The balance, however, was not<br \/>\npaid.\n<\/p>\n<p> 6. A petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration<br \/>\nAct was moved for reference of disputes between the<br \/>\nparties under both the agreements dated 18.5.1967 and<br \/>\n17.10.1968 to the Arbitrator. The respondent, however,<br \/>\ndenied existence of both the agreements and also pleaded<br \/>\nthat the petition is not maintainable as barred by time<br \/>\nand did not disclose any cause of action. The Court<br \/>\nframed issues on 24.1.1978 and partly recorded the<br \/>\nevidence.\n<\/p>\n<p> 7. The respondent moved an application that since<br \/>\nthe issues were legal and went to the root of the<br \/>\nmatter, therefore, these issues be tried as preliminary<br \/>\nissues.\n<\/p>\n<p> 8. The learned Single Judge after perusing the<br \/>\nentire documents on record and hearing the learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the parties observed that Order 23 Rule 1(4)<br \/>\nC.P.C. envisages that where a plaintiff abandons any<br \/>\nsuit or withdraws a suit or part of a claim without<br \/>\nobtaining permission from the Court to institute a fresh<br \/>\nsuit in respect of the same subject-matter or part of a<br \/>\nclaim, he shall be precluded from instituting a fresh<br \/>\nsuit in respect of them. Section 141 of the CPC<br \/>\nprovides that the procedure provided in regard to suits<br \/>\nshall be followed, as far as it can be made applicable,<br \/>\nin all proceedings in any Court of Civil jurisdiction.<br \/>\nThe Court also observed that Section 20 of the<br \/>\nArbitration Act itself requires the registration of any<br \/>\npetition under it as a suit. This petition was also<br \/>\nregistered as Suit No. 29-A of 1977.\n<\/p>\n<p> 9. It may be pertinent to mention that in the<br \/>\npresent case the appellant had withdrawn the petition<br \/>\nunder Section 20 of the Arbitration Act without<br \/>\nobtaining permission from the Court to file a fresh one.<br \/>\nThe learned Single Judge observed that in this case when<br \/>\nthe appellant shyed away and abandoned his case on the<br \/>\nvery existence of the main agreement as well as the<br \/>\narbitration clause by withdrawing that petition, he is<br \/>\nprecluded now to assert that they in fact existed.<br \/>\nOrder 23, Rule 1(4) prevents him from doing so.\n<\/p>\n<p> Order 23, Rule 1(4) of CPC reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n<p> &#8220;(4) Where the plaintiff-\n<\/p>\n<p> (a) abandons any suit or part of claim<br \/>\nunder Sub-rule (1), or  <\/p>\n<p> (b) withdraws from a suit or part of a claim<br \/>\nwithout the permission referred to in<br \/>\nSub-rule (3),  <\/p>\n<p> he shall be liable for such costs as the<br \/>\nCourt may award and shall be precluded from<br \/>\ninstituting any fresh suit in respect of<br \/>\nsuch subject-matter or such part of the<br \/>\nclaim.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> 10. According to the aforesaid provision of law the<br \/>\nconclusions arrived at by the learned Single Judge are<br \/>\nin consonance with the provisions of law. Their<br \/>\nLordships of the Supreme Court in  <a href=\"\/doc\/488698\/\">Hulas Rai Baij<br \/>\nNath v.  Firm K.B. Dass and Co.<\/a>  that &#8220;The language of Order 23, Rule 1,<br \/>\nSub-rule (1) C.P.C., gives an unqualified right to a<br \/>\nplaintiff to withdraw from a suit and if no permission<br \/>\nto file a fresh suit is sought under Sub-rule (2) of<br \/>\nthat Rule, the plaintiff becomes liable for such costs<br \/>\nas the Court may award and becomes precluded from<br \/>\ninstituting any fresh suit in respect of that<br \/>\nsubject-matter under Sub-rule (3) of that Rule.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> 11. Regarding the submission of the appellant<br \/>\npertaining to oral agreement of 17.10.1968, the learned<br \/>\nSingle Judge observed that the said agreement provided<br \/>\nfor payment of Rs. 78,000\/- to him. The damages were<br \/>\nspecifically quantified and nothing remains for the<br \/>\nArbitrator to adjudicate. The appellant had only to<br \/>\nseek recovery of that amount and he can always take<br \/>\nappropriate steps to recover the same according to law.\n<\/p>\n<p> 12. The learned Single Judge observed that the<br \/>\npetition was barred by time. The petition was filed on<br \/>\n3.1.1977 on the basis of oral agreement dated 17.10.1968<br \/>\nand the last payment was stated to have been made on<br \/>\n30.12.1973. The Court further observed that it was not<br \/>\nshown that any payment was made within three years of<br \/>\n17.10.1968 to constitute as part payment for extension<br \/>\nof limitation under Section 19 of the Limitation Act.<br \/>\nLearned Single Judge correctly interpreted the<br \/>\nprovisions of law and arrived at the correct conclusion<br \/>\nthat the petition was manifestly barred by time.\n<\/p>\n<p> 13. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition<br \/>\nand upheld all the three preliminary objections raised<br \/>\nby the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p> 14. We have carefully examined the impugned<br \/>\njudgment. In our considered opinion, the learned Single<br \/>\nJudge&#8217;s findings on all three preliminary objections are<br \/>\nbased on correct interpretation of the provisions of<br \/>\nlaw.\n<\/p>\n<p> 15. No interference is called for. The appeal is<br \/>\naccordingly dismissed. The parties are directed to bear<br \/>\ntheir own costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court Kishan Chand Surendra Kumar vs Delhi School Teachers &#8230; on 15 March, 2002 Equivalent citations: AIR 2002 Delhi 330, 2002 (3) ARBLR 458 Delhi Author: D Bhandari Bench: D Bhandari, V Sen JUDGMENT Dalveer Bhandari, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.11.1981 passed in Suit No. 29-A of [&hellip;]<\/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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-82876","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Kishan Chand Surendra Kumar vs Delhi School Teachers ... on 15 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/kishan-chand-surendra-kumar-vs-delhi-school-teachers-on-15-march-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kishan Chand Surendra Kumar vs Delhi School Teachers ... on 15 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishan-chand-surendra-kumar-vs-delhi-school-teachers-on-15-march-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-03-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-07T19:15:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kishan-chand-surendra-kumar-vs-delhi-school-teachers-on-15-march-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kishan-chand-surendra-kumar-vs-delhi-school-teachers-on-15-march-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kishan Chand Surendra Kumar vs Delhi School Teachers &#8230; on 15 March, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-03-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-07T19:15:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kishan-chand-surendra-kumar-vs-delhi-school-teachers-on-15-march-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1106,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kishan-chand-surendra-kumar-vs-delhi-school-teachers-on-15-march-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kishan-chand-surendra-kumar-vs-delhi-school-teachers-on-15-march-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kishan-chand-surendra-kumar-vs-delhi-school-teachers-on-15-march-2002\",\"name\":\"Kishan Chand Surendra Kumar vs Delhi School Teachers ... on 15 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-03-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-07T19:15:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kishan-chand-surendra-kumar-vs-delhi-school-teachers-on-15-march-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kishan-chand-surendra-kumar-vs-delhi-school-teachers-on-15-march-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kishan-chand-surendra-kumar-vs-delhi-school-teachers-on-15-march-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kishan Chand Surendra Kumar vs Delhi School Teachers &#8230; on 15 March, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"Kishan Chand Surendra Kumar vs Delhi School Teachers ... on 15 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/kishan-chand-surendra-kumar-vs-delhi-school-teachers-on-15-march-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kishan Chand Surendra Kumar vs Delhi School Teachers ... on 15 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishan-chand-surendra-kumar-vs-delhi-school-teachers-on-15-march-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-03-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-07T19:15:39+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishan-chand-surendra-kumar-vs-delhi-school-teachers-on-15-march-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishan-chand-surendra-kumar-vs-delhi-school-teachers-on-15-march-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kishan Chand Surendra Kumar vs Delhi School Teachers &#8230; on 15 March, 2002","datePublished":"2002-03-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-07T19:15:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishan-chand-surendra-kumar-vs-delhi-school-teachers-on-15-march-2002"},"wordCount":1106,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishan-chand-surendra-kumar-vs-delhi-school-teachers-on-15-march-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishan-chand-surendra-kumar-vs-delhi-school-teachers-on-15-march-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishan-chand-surendra-kumar-vs-delhi-school-teachers-on-15-march-2002","name":"Kishan Chand Surendra Kumar vs Delhi School Teachers ... on 15 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-03-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-07T19:15:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishan-chand-surendra-kumar-vs-delhi-school-teachers-on-15-march-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishan-chand-surendra-kumar-vs-delhi-school-teachers-on-15-march-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishan-chand-surendra-kumar-vs-delhi-school-teachers-on-15-march-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kishan Chand Surendra Kumar vs Delhi School Teachers &#8230; on 15 March, 2002"}]},{"@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\/82876","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=82876"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/82876\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=82876"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=82876"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=82876"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}