{"id":98656,"date":"2009-12-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-12-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tukaram-vs-presiding-officer-on-7-december-2009"},"modified":"2018-10-02T20:12:04","modified_gmt":"2018-10-02T14:42:04","slug":"tukaram-vs-presiding-officer-on-7-december-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tukaram-vs-presiding-officer-on-7-december-2009","title":{"rendered":"Tukaram vs Presiding Officer on 7 December, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Tukaram vs Presiding Officer on 7 December, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: V. A. Naik<\/div>\n
                                             1\n\n             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY:\n                           NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                  \n                        WRIT PETITON NO .3887 OF 2001\n\n\n\n\n                                                          \nPETITIONER:\n      Tukaram s\/o Tulshiram Nakhate, aged about 32 years, occupation : clerk r\/o\n      village Mokhara, tahsil Paoni, District:Bhandara.\n\n\n\n\n                                                         \n                                      VERSUS\nRESPONDENTS:\n1]    Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur (Chandrapur)\n\n\n\n                                                \n2]    Pragatishil Shikshan Sanstha through its PreidentShri Vilas Deorao Raghute\n                                \n      r\/o Kurza, tahsil Pauni, District : Bhandara.\n3]    The Headmistress, Raghute High School, Palora (Chouras), tahsil Paoni,\n                               \n      District Bhandara.\n4]    Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Bhandara, District Bhandara\n             \n\n5]    ShriV..Gadwe, Clerk, Raghute High School, Palora, Tahsil Paoni,District :\n          \n\n\n\n      Bhandara.\n============================================================\nShri S.A.Bari, advocate for the petitioner\n\n\n\n\n\nShri M.V.Masodkar, advocate for respondent no.2.\nShri S.B.Ahirkar, AGP for respondent no..\n============================================================\n\n\n\n\n\nCORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.\n<\/pre>\n
DATE: DECEMBER 07, 2009
\nORAL JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:23:12 :::<\/span>
\n                                              2<\/span><\/p>\n
      By this petition, the petitioner impugns the judgment passed by the Presiding<\/p>\n
Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur (Chandrapur) on 11.4.2001 dismissing the appeal filed<\/p>\n
by the petitioner under the provisions of section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of<\/p>\n
Private Schools [Conditions of Service] Regulation Act 1977.\n<\/p>\n
2]    The petitioner had filed an appeal before the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal,<\/p>\n
Nagpur claiming that he was appointed by the respondent\/ management as a Clerk w.e.f.\n<\/p>\n
3.9.1991. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was again appointed as a Clerk<\/p>\n
by the appointment order dated 15.7.1993. It was pleaded by the petitioner in the appeal<\/p>\n
memo that the President of the Society called the petitioner to his residence on<\/p>\n
6.12.1996 and obtained a letter of resignation which was backdated. It is stated in the<\/p>\n
appeal memo that the date was wrongly shown on the resignation letter as 5.11.1996. It<\/p>\n
was pleaded that the resignation letter was obtained under duress and since the petitioner<\/p>\n
was not permitted to attend his duties w.e.f. 10.12.1996, he challenged his oral<\/p>\n
termination before the School Tribunal. It was pleaded by the petitioner that his services<\/p>\n
could not have been terminated without holding due and proper enquiry.\n<\/p>\n
3]    The management denied the claim of the petitioner. It was denied that the<\/p>\n
petitioner was appointed as a Clerk. It was pleaded that initially the petitioner was<\/p>\n
appointed as Laboratory Attendant. The pleadings in the appeal memo about the forced<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:23:12 :::<\/span>
\n                                             3<\/span><\/p>\n
resignation were denied by the management. It was pleaded that the petitioner had<\/p>\n
voluntarily resigned from the post of clerk in order to secure a better job. The Tribunal<\/p>\n
on appreciation of the material on record dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner by<\/p>\n
the impugned order dated 11.4.2001.\n<\/p>\n
4]    Shri S.A.Bari, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Tribunal<\/p>\n
was not justified in holding that the petitioner had resigned from the post of Clerk<\/p>\n
without considering the mandatory provisions of section 7 of the Act of 1977 and Rule<\/p>\n
40 of the Rules of 1981. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the resignation<\/p>\n
was tendered by registered post and the petitioner had also not given three months<\/p>\n
notice as required by the provisions of rule 40. The learned counsel for the petitioner<\/p>\n
submitted that the police report filed on 8.12.1996 also showed that the resignation was<\/p>\n
a forced resignation. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the facts<\/p>\n
and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal could not have arrived at a finding that the<\/p>\n
resignation was not obtained under duress. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied<\/p>\n
on the decisions reported in 1988(1) CLR Page 175 & 1992(1) CLR Page 414 to canvass<\/p>\n
that the provisions of section 7 and rule 40 of the Act and the Rules, respectively are<\/p>\n
mandatory in nature.\n<\/p>\n
5]    Shri Masodkar, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 supported the<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:23:12 :::<\/span>
\n                                              4<\/span><\/p>\n
judgment passed by the Tribunal on 11.4.2001 and submitted that the case of forced<\/p>\n
resignation or obtaining of resignation under duress is an afterthought, as the resignation<\/p>\n
was tendered on 5.11.1996 and the report was lodged on 8.12.1996. It is submitted on<\/p>\n
behalf of the respondent no.2 that it is not stated in the report that the resignation,<\/p>\n
obtained on 8.12.1996 was shown to be backdated as 5.11.1996. The learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the respondent no.2 submitted that the resignation was accepted by the resolution of the<\/p>\n
managing committee on 7.12.1996 and the findings recorded by the tribunal on the issue<\/p>\n
of legality of the resignation need not be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
The learned counsel for the respondent no.2 also sought for the dismissal of the writ<\/p>\n
petition. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 relied on the decision reported in<\/p>\n
2003(4) ALL MR Page 108, 2005 (4) Mh.L.J. Page 1064 and 2004 (2) Mh.L.J. 909 to<\/p>\n
substantiate his submission that the provisions of section 7 or rule 40 of the Act and the<\/p>\n
Rules, respectively are not mandatory in nature.\n<\/p>\n
6]    I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and also perused<\/p>\n
the impugned order along with the documents which are filed on record. On a perusal of<\/p>\n
the same, it appears that that the Tribunal had on a proper appreciation of the material on<\/p>\n
record, found that the resignation letter tendered by the petitioner cannot be said to be<\/p>\n
illegal. The Tribunal observed that the resignation letter was tendered by the petitioner<\/p>\n
on 5.11.1996 and the resignation was accepted on 7.12.1996. The complaints were made<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:23:12 :::<\/span>
\n                                               5<\/span><\/p>\n
to the police station for the first time on 8.12.1996. The tribunal rightly observed that<\/p>\n
during the period of one month, the petitioner could have either withdrawn the<\/p>\n
resignation letter or could have filed the police report immediately. But this was not<\/p>\n
done. It is also necessary to note that though it is the case of the petitioner in the appeal<\/p>\n
memo that the date was wrongly mentioned on the resignation letter as 5.11.1996,<\/p>\n
though the same was obtained on 6.12.1996, the petitioner had failed to state this<\/p>\n
material fact in the police complaint. The resignation letter was written by the petitioner<\/p>\n
in his own handwriting. In such circumstances the Tribunal held that the resignation<\/p>\n
letter tendered by the petitioner could not have been said to be illegal, as it was not<\/p>\n
obtained under force or threat. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that<\/p>\n
there was non-compliance of the provisions of section 7 and rule 40 of the Act and<\/p>\n
Rules, respectively, at the time of tendering of the resignation and the provisions of the<\/p>\n
Act and the Rules being mandatory, the findings of the Tribunal are illegal is liable to be<\/p>\n
rejected. This court has in the judgment reported in 2003(4) ALL MR 108, 2005 (4)<\/p>\n
Mh.L.J. 1064 and 2004 (2) Mh.L.J.909, held that the resignation letter tendered in<\/p>\n
person and not sent by registered post cannot be said to be illegal. It is also held that the<\/p>\n
notice period under rule 40 can also be shorter than three months as rule 40 itself<\/p>\n
provides for the consequences that would follow, if the notice period is shorter than<\/p>\n
3months. The aforesaid reported decision clearly support the case of the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
The judgment reported in 1992(1) CLR 414 cannot be of any assistance to the case of<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:23:12 :::<\/span>
\n                                                6<\/span><\/p>\n
the petitioner as on a perusal of the letter of resignation in that case the Division Bench<\/p>\n
had observed that the letter indicated that the petitioner therein was desirous of securing<\/p>\n
leave for a duration of one year to undertake the course for B.Ed. examination and the<\/p>\n
same could not have been treated as a resignation letter. Similarly, this court observed in<\/p>\n
the judgment reported in 1988 (1) CLR 175, that it was not necessary for the court to<\/p>\n
decide the question as to whether the provisions of section 7 of the Act of 1977 were<\/p>\n
mandatory or directory in nature.\n<\/p>\n
7]<\/p>\n
       In the instant case, the Tribunal on a proper appreciation of the material on record<\/p>\n
held that the facts and circumstances reveal that the resignation letter dated 5.11.1996<\/p>\n
was not a forced resignation letter, but was voluntarily tendered by the petitioner. The<\/p>\n
findings recorded by the School Tribunal on the said issue are pure findings of facts<\/p>\n
based on a proper appreciation of the material on record. The findings require no<\/p>\n
interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
8]     In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                    JUDGE
\nSMP.\n<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:23:12 :::<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Tukaram vs Presiding Officer on 7 December, 2009 Bench: V. A. Naik 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR WRIT PETITON NO .3887 OF 2001 PETITIONER: Tukaram s\/o Tulshiram Nakhate, aged about 32 years, occupation : clerk r\/o village Mokhara, tahsil Paoni, District:Bhandara. VERSUS RESPONDENTS: 1] Presiding […]<\/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-98656","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nTukaram vs Presiding Officer on 7 December, 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\/tukaram-vs-presiding-officer-on-7-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Tukaram vs Presiding Officer on 7 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tukaram-vs-presiding-officer-on-7-december-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=\"2009-12-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-02T14:42:04+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tukaram-vs-presiding-officer-on-7-december-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tukaram-vs-presiding-officer-on-7-december-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Tukaram vs Presiding Officer on 7 December, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-02T14:42:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tukaram-vs-presiding-officer-on-7-december-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1242,\"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\\\/tukaram-vs-presiding-officer-on-7-december-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tukaram-vs-presiding-officer-on-7-december-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tukaram-vs-presiding-officer-on-7-december-2009\",\"name\":\"Tukaram vs Presiding Officer on 7 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-02T14:42:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tukaram-vs-presiding-officer-on-7-december-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tukaram-vs-presiding-officer-on-7-december-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tukaram-vs-presiding-officer-on-7-december-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Tukaram vs Presiding Officer on 7 December, 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":"Tukaram vs Presiding Officer on 7 December, 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\/tukaram-vs-presiding-officer-on-7-december-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Tukaram vs Presiding Officer on 7 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tukaram-vs-presiding-officer-on-7-december-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-12-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-02T14:42:04+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tukaram-vs-presiding-officer-on-7-december-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tukaram-vs-presiding-officer-on-7-december-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Tukaram vs Presiding Officer on 7 December, 2009","datePublished":"2009-12-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-02T14:42:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tukaram-vs-presiding-officer-on-7-december-2009"},"wordCount":1242,"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\/tukaram-vs-presiding-officer-on-7-december-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tukaram-vs-presiding-officer-on-7-december-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tukaram-vs-presiding-officer-on-7-december-2009","name":"Tukaram vs Presiding Officer on 7 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-12-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-02T14:42:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tukaram-vs-presiding-officer-on-7-december-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tukaram-vs-presiding-officer-on-7-december-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tukaram-vs-presiding-officer-on-7-december-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Tukaram vs Presiding Officer on 7 December, 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\/98656","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=98656"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/98656\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=98656"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=98656"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=98656"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}