{"id":84418,"date":"1979-03-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1979-03-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bal-kishan-thaper-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-9-march-1979-2"},"modified":"2018-02-17T14:26:06","modified_gmt":"2018-02-17T08:56:06","slug":"bal-kishan-thaper-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-9-march-1979-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bal-kishan-thaper-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-9-march-1979-2","title":{"rendered":"Bal Kishan Thaper vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 9 March, 1979"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Bal Kishan Thaper vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 9 March, 1979<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nBAL KISHAN THAPER\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT09\/03\/1979\n\nBENCH:\n\n\nACT:\n     Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954)-\nS. 2(ix)  (a) and  (g) Scope  of-outer label  described\t the\ncontents  as  \"as  sweet  as  sacharin\"-Whether\t a  case  of\nmisbranding.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The appellant  was\t a  manufacturer  of  a\t preparation\ncalled Para  Excellent and  Para Asli The outer label of the\npackage describe  the contents\tas \"as\tsweet as saccharin\".\nUnder the  directions for  use it was mentioned on the label\nthat the preparation was para saccharin.\n     The appellant  was prosecuted  under s.2(ix)(a) and (g)\nof the\tPrevention of  Food Adulteration Act for misbranding\nthe goods and for selling it as saccharin.\n     While the\ttrial  court  convicted\t and  sentenced\t the\nappellant to  imprisonment and\ta fine\ton the\tground\tthat\nthough a  case of misbranding under s. 2(ix) (a) and (g) had\nnot been made out, it was a case of misbranding contemplated\nby s.  2(ix) (k),  the High Court, in revision, enhanced the\nsentence and  fine under  ss. 7 and 16 read with s. 2(ix)(a)\nand (g) of the Act.\n     On behalf\tof the\tprosecution it\twas contended in the\nappellant's appeal  to this  Court that\t the use of the word\nsaccharin gave\tthe  impression\t that  the  preparation\t was\nsaccharin or  something akin  to it and it was, therefore, a\ncase of misbranding punishable under the Act.\n     Allowing the appeal.\n^\n     HELD :1.  There is\t nothing on the facts of the case to\nshow that  the\tappellant  in  any  way\t tried\tto  give  an\nimpression to  the purchasers  that either saccharin or some\npreparation of the type of saccharin was being sold so as to\namount to misbranding as contemplated by s. 2(iv)(a) and (g)\nof the Act. Nor was there an attempt to sell the preparation\nas saccharin  or some  kind of\tsaccharin.  When  the  label\ndescribed that\tthe preparation was as sweet as saccharin it\nmerely laid  emphasis on  the sweetness\t of the\t preparation\nwhen compared  to the  sweetness of the saccharin. Similarly\nwhen the  label described  the preparation was not as bitter\nas saccharin  it was  intended to convey that it was neither\nsomething like saccharin nor saccharin itself in any form or\nof any type. [553 C-D]\n     2. Nor again was there any evidence of intention on the\npart of\t the appellant to sell a preparation which resembles\nsaccharin in  any respect.  The words \"as sweet as saccarin\"\nwere merely  meant to  convey one  of the  qualities of\t the\npreparation itself and not the quality of saccharin. That by\nitself would  not attract  the provisions  of s. 2(ix)(a) of\nthe Act. [554 B]\n     3. The  use of  the word para saccharin appears to be a\nmistake. In the Hindi portion of the directions contained in\nthe label the words \"para Saccharin\" were not used. Secondly\nthe word \"para saccharin\" would not indicate that\n552\nthe preparation\t sold was  saccharin in\t any form  or of any\nkind. It  was just  a way of describing the contents because\nthe  preparation   was\t\"as   sweet   as   saccharin.'\t The\nmanufacturer wanted to convey that the preparation wasa also\nmuch sweeter than sugar and could be used for preparing soda\nwater. [554 C-D]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>     CRIMINAL APPELLATE\t JURISDICTION: Criminal\t Appeal\t No.<br \/>\n105 of 1975.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Appeal by\tSpecial Leave  from the\t Judgment and  Order<br \/>\ndated 6-8-1974\tof the Delhi High Court in Criminal Revision<br \/>\nNo. 58 of 1973.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Frank Anthony,  K. C.  Dua\t and  O.  P.  Soni  for\t the<br \/>\nAppellants.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Soli. J.  Sorabjee, Additional  Soli.  General,  B.  P.<br \/>\nMaheshwari and Suresh Sethi for the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n     FAZAL ALI,\t J.-This appeal by special leave is directed<br \/>\nagainst the  Judgment of the Delhi High Court convicting the<br \/>\nappellant under\t section 7\/16  of  the\tPrevention  of\tFood<br \/>\nAdulteration Act,  read with  Section 2(ix) clause (a) &amp; (g)<br \/>\nof the\tAct and\t sentenced to  rigorous imprisonment  of six<br \/>\nmonths and  a fine  of Rs. 1,000\/-. This order was passed by<br \/>\nthe  High  Court  in  a\t revision  filed  by  the  Municipal<br \/>\nCorporation of\tDelhi against  the Order  of the Trial Court<br \/>\nwhich convicted\t the appellant\tunder section  7\/15  of\t the<br \/>\nPrevention of  Food Adulteration Act read with Section 2(ix)\n<\/p>\n<p>(k) of\tthe Act\t and sentenced\thim to imprisonment till the<br \/>\nrising of  the Court  and a  fine of  Rs. 500\/-,  a revision<br \/>\nagainst this  order to\tthe Sessions  Judge was unsuccessful<br \/>\nand  hence  a  further\trevision  was  taken  by  the  Delhi<br \/>\nAdministration before the High Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The facts\tof the\tcase are detailed in the Judgment of<br \/>\nthe High Court and the Magistrate and we need not repeat the<br \/>\nsame all  over again.  The food\t Inspectors, namely, one Mr.<br \/>\nJames and  Mr. Sinha  took samples  of a  preparation called<br \/>\nPara Excellant\tand Para Asli from the shop of the appellant<br \/>\nwho according to the Food Inspectors sold these preparations<br \/>\nas saccharin, a fact which is not admitted by the appellant.<br \/>\nThe Trial  Court after\tconsidering  the  evidence  and\t the<br \/>\nreport of  the Chemical Examiner found that the case of mis-<br \/>\nbranding under\tsection 2(ix)  (a) &amp; (g) was not made out by<br \/>\nthe  Prosecution,  but\tit  was\t certainly  mis-branding  as<br \/>\ncontemplated  by   section  2(ix)   (k)\t of   the  Act.\t He,<br \/>\naccordingly convicted the appellant as indicated  above. Mr.<br \/>\nFrank  Anthony,\t  Learned  Counsel  for\t the  appellant\t has<br \/>\nsubmitted  that\t  the  High   Court  was  wrong\t in  law  in<br \/>\ninterfering with  the  Order  of  the  Magistrate,  firstly,<br \/>\nbecause the findings of fact by the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">553<\/span><br \/>\nMagistrate was\tbinding on  the High  Court in\trevision and<br \/>\nsecondly, because  the High  Court took\t a legally erroneous<br \/>\nview of the law on the interpretation of Section 2(ix) (a) &amp;\n<\/p>\n<p>(g) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>     We have  heard learned counsel for the parties and have<br \/>\nperused the  judgment of  the High  Court and  we are of the<br \/>\nopinion that  the contentions  raised by the learned counsel<br \/>\nfor the\t appellant is well founded and must prevail. We have<br \/>\nperused the  original label  which described the preparation<br \/>\nsold to\t the food  inspectors. There is nothing to show that<br \/>\nthe appellant  in any way tried to give an impression to the<br \/>\npurchaser that\teither saccharin  or some preparation of the<br \/>\ntype of\t saccharin  was\t being\tsold  so  as  to  amount  to<br \/>\nmisbranding as\tcontemplated by\t Section 2(ix)\t(a) &amp; (g) of<br \/>\nthe Act.  All that  the appellant  purported to convey under<br \/>\nthe label  was that  the preparation  sold was\tas sweet  as<br \/>\nsaccharin but  not as bitter as saccharin. This was intended<br \/>\nmerely to  lay emphasis\t on the sweetness of the preparation<br \/>\nwhen it was compared to the sweetness of saccharin. When the<br \/>\nlabel clearly  described the  fact that\t the preparation was<br \/>\nnot as\tbitter as  saccharin it\t clearly intended  to convey<br \/>\nthat it\t was neither  something like saccharin nor saccharin<br \/>\nitself, in  any form  or of any type. Mr. Sorabjee appearing<br \/>\nfor the\t respondent submitted  that  the  use  of  the\tword<br \/>\nsaccharin itself  amounts  to  mis-branding  and  gives\t the<br \/>\nimpression  that  the  preparation  sold  was  saccharin  or<br \/>\nsomething akin\tto saccharin.  We are  unable to  agree with<br \/>\nthis contention.  In the  facts\t and  circumstances  of\t the<br \/>\npresent\t case\tand  the  contents  of\tthe  label  and\t the<br \/>\ndescription of\tthe preparation, we are satisfied that there<br \/>\nwas no misbranding, nor was there any attempt on the part of<br \/>\nthe appellant  to sell\this preparation as saccharin or some<br \/>\nsort of saccharin. Section 2.(ix) (a) runs as follows:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t  &#8220;Misbranded&#8221;-an article of food shall be deemed to<br \/>\n     be misbranded-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t  (a)  &#8220;If it is an imitation of, or is a substitute<br \/>\n\t       for, or\tresembles  in  a  manner  likely  to<br \/>\n\t       deceive, another\t article of  food under\t the<br \/>\n\t       name of\twhich it is sold, and is not plainly<br \/>\n\t       and conspicuously  labelled so as to indicate<br \/>\n\t       its true character.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     According to the Additional Solicitor General of India,<br \/>\nthe sale, by the appellant, of the preparation clearly falls<br \/>\nwithin (iii)  clause of\t sub-section (a), that is to say-the<br \/>\npreparation resembles  saccharin so  as to  deceive a person<br \/>\nwho wanted to purchase the article of food<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">554<\/span><br \/>\nknown as  saccharin. After  having examined  the label,\t its<br \/>\ndescription and the contents of the tin and packets, sold to<br \/>\nthe food  inspectors, we  are unable to find any evidence of<br \/>\nany intention  on the  part  of\t the  appellant\t to  sell  a<br \/>\npreparation which  resembles saccharin\tin any\trespect. The<br \/>\nwords, as sweet as saccharin were merely meant to convey one<br \/>\nof the\tqualities of  the preparation  itself  and  not\t the<br \/>\nquality of  saccharin at  all. That,  by itself,  would\t not<br \/>\nattract the  provision of  Section 2(ix)  (a) of the Act. It<br \/>\nwas, then  submitted that  in one  of the  labels under\t the<br \/>\ndirections it  was mentioned  that the\tpreparation was para<br \/>\nsaccharin which\t also shows  that the  appellant intended to<br \/>\npass on\t the preparation  as some  sort of saccharin. In the<br \/>\nfirst place,  the use  of the word para saccharin appears to<br \/>\nbe a  mistake in  the facts of the present case because this<br \/>\nword is\t completely absent  from the  Hindi portion  of\t the<br \/>\ndirections contained  in the  same label. Secondly, the word<br \/>\npara saccharin\twould not indicate that the preparation sold<br \/>\nwas saccharin  in any form or of any kind. It was just a way<br \/>\nof describing  it because according to the manufacturers the<br \/>\npreparation was\t as sweet  as saccharin.  This was mentioned<br \/>\nbecause saccharin  being 500  times sweeter  than sugar, the<br \/>\nmanufacturer wanted  to convey that the preparation was also<br \/>\nmuch sweeter than sugar and could be used for preparing soda<br \/>\nwater  bottles.\t It  is\t obvious  that\tif  any\t person\t who<br \/>\npurchased  the\tpreparation  was  not  conversent  with\t the<br \/>\nEnglish language, he would not be misled at all.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Having regard  to these  circumstances we\tare  of\t the<br \/>\nopinion that  the case of the appellant does not fall within<br \/>\nthe clauses  (a) &amp;  (g) of  Section 2(ix) of the Act and the<br \/>\nHigh Court  erred in  law in  convicting the  appellant\t for<br \/>\nmisbranding under  these provisions.  For the  reasons given<br \/>\nabove, the appeal is allowed. The order of the High Court is<br \/>\nset aside  and the sentence of imprisonment of six months is<br \/>\nalso set  aside and  the fine  is reduced  to Rs.  500\/-. In<br \/>\nother words,  the order\t of the\t Trial Court  Magistrate  is<br \/>\nhereby restored. The appeal is accordingly allowed.\n<\/p>\n<pre>N.V.K.\t\t\t\t\t     Appeal allowed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">555<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Bal Kishan Thaper vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 9 March, 1979 PETITIONER: BAL KISHAN THAPER Vs. RESPONDENT: MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI DATE OF JUDGMENT09\/03\/1979 BENCH: ACT: Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954)- S. 2(ix) (a) and (g) Scope of-outer label described the contents as &#8220;as sweet as [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-84418","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Bal Kishan Thaper vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 9 March, 1979 - 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\/bal-kishan-thaper-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-9-march-1979-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bal Kishan Thaper vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 9 March, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bal-kishan-thaper-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-9-march-1979-2\" \/>\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=\"1979-03-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-17T08:56:06+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bal-kishan-thaper-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-9-march-1979-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bal-kishan-thaper-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-9-march-1979-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bal Kishan Thaper vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 9 March, 1979\",\"datePublished\":\"1979-03-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-17T08:56:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bal-kishan-thaper-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-9-march-1979-2\"},\"wordCount\":1199,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bal-kishan-thaper-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-9-march-1979-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bal-kishan-thaper-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-9-march-1979-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bal-kishan-thaper-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-9-march-1979-2\",\"name\":\"Bal Kishan Thaper vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 9 March, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1979-03-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-17T08:56:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bal-kishan-thaper-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-9-march-1979-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bal-kishan-thaper-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-9-march-1979-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bal-kishan-thaper-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-9-march-1979-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bal Kishan Thaper vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 9 March, 1979\"}]},{\"@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":"Bal Kishan Thaper vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 9 March, 1979 - 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\/bal-kishan-thaper-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-9-march-1979-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bal Kishan Thaper vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 9 March, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bal-kishan-thaper-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-9-march-1979-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1979-03-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-17T08:56:06+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bal-kishan-thaper-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-9-march-1979-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bal-kishan-thaper-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-9-march-1979-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bal Kishan Thaper vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 9 March, 1979","datePublished":"1979-03-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-17T08:56:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bal-kishan-thaper-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-9-march-1979-2"},"wordCount":1199,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bal-kishan-thaper-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-9-march-1979-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bal-kishan-thaper-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-9-march-1979-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bal-kishan-thaper-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-9-march-1979-2","name":"Bal Kishan Thaper vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 9 March, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1979-03-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-17T08:56:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bal-kishan-thaper-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-9-march-1979-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bal-kishan-thaper-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-9-march-1979-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bal-kishan-thaper-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-9-march-1979-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bal Kishan Thaper vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 9 March, 1979"}]},{"@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\/84418","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=84418"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/84418\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=84418"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=84418"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=84418"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}