{"id":10254,"date":"2008-04-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-04-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mahakal-automobiles-anr-vs-kishan-swaroop-sharma-on-2-april-2008"},"modified":"2016-06-02T01:52:27","modified_gmt":"2016-06-01T20:22:27","slug":"ms-mahakal-automobiles-anr-vs-kishan-swaroop-sharma-on-2-april-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mahakal-automobiles-anr-vs-kishan-swaroop-sharma-on-2-april-2008","title":{"rendered":"M\/S. Mahakal Automobiles & Anr vs Kishan Swaroop Sharma on 2 April, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
M\/S. Mahakal Automobiles & Anr vs Kishan Swaroop Sharma on 2 April, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: . A Pasayat<\/div>\n
Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, S.H. Kapadia<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  2598 of 2005\n\nPETITIONER:\nM\/s. Mahakal Automobiles & Anr\n\nRESPONDENT:\nKishan Swaroop Sharma\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 02\/04\/2008\n\nBENCH:\nDr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & S.H. KAPADIA\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T
\nREPORTABLE<\/p>\n
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2598 OF 2005<\/p>\n
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.\tChallenge in this appeal is to the judgment of learned
\nSingle Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore
\nBench.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tBackground facts in a nutshell are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
Respondent had sold 7200 sq.ft. land with some
\nconstruction on 15\/11\/1986 for Rs.7.20 lacs to the
\nJDs\/appellants and was paid only Rs.1.60 lacs. He had
\nagreed to accept the remaining amount of Rs.5.60 lacs in 4
\ninstallments in 3 years with interest @ 1.50% per month. A
\ncharge was created on this property. Respondent had later
\nfiled a Civil Suit No. 13-A\/89 (New No. 6-A\/1991) for recovery
\nof amount of Rs.6,31,750\/- by sale of such property.\n<\/p>\n
JDs\/appellants in their written statements had admitted
\nliability to pay Rs.5 lacs as principal and Rs.65,000\/- as
\ninterest and pendentelite interest @ 1% per month. They
\ndisputed that Babulal was the partner of M\/s Mahakal
\nAutomobiles. Thus, the ADJ on 24\/9\/1 991 gave a judgment
\nand decree under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code, relevant
\nportion of which reads follows:\n<\/p>\n
“As a result application of plaintiff is partly
\nallowed and it is hereby ordered that
\ndefendants Nos. I and 3 shall pay within 6
\nmonths from today Rs.5,65,00\/- and interest
\n@1% per month on Rs.5 lacs from the date of
\ninstitution of suit i.e. 16\/6\/1989, otherwise
\nthe plaintiff would be entitled to get a final
\ndecree for recovery of his amount by sale of
\ncharged property. Order as to cost would be
\ngiven at the time of disposal of other points. A
\npreliminary decree be framed accordingly.
\nDescription of charged property be also given
\nin preliminary decree.”\n<\/p>\n
A preliminary decree was accordingly drawn up.
\nHowever, it was not drawn in prescribed form No.5-A or 7-C of
\nSchedule of Appendix-D to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
\n(in short ‘the Code’). Admittedly, no accounts were to be
\ntaken. Simple arithmetical calculation of interest would have
\nspecified the actual amount payable.\n<\/p>\n
On 28\/4\/1992 respondent filed an application for
\nexecution. Notices to all JDs\/appellants under Order XXI Rule
\n22 of the Code were issued. On 8\/6\/1992, JDs\/2 appeared
\nthrough Shri L.P. Bhargava, Advocate while JD\/1 appeared
\nthrough Shri P.K. Modi, advocate. All JDs continued to appear
\nregularly till 16\/11\/1993. In the meantime two applications;
\none under Order XXI Rule 58 read with Section 151 of the
\nCode was filed on 8\/6\/1 992 and the second under order XXI
\nrule 50 read with Section 151 of the Code was filed on
\n2\/11\/1992 by the JDs which were disposed of on
\n16\/12\/1992 and 2\/11\/1992 respectively. No question as to
\nnon-executability of the decree had been raised by the JDs
\naccording to the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
On 16\/10\/1992 the court below directed that name of
\nBabulal Gupta be deleted from the execution application as
\nthere had been no decree against him. A question was also
\nraised suo motu by the court whether the decree in its terms
\nbeing preliminary decree could be executed as it is, or the DH-
\nrespondent be directed to obtain a final decree. The executing
\ncourt granted several adjournments for arguments on this
\nquestion. On 12\/2\/1993 the executing court stayed the
\nproceedings of the execution to await the result of proceedings
\nunder Order I Rule 10 and Section 151 of the Code before the
\ntrial court in the original case which was also pending in the
\nsame court. On 8\/3\/1994 order of the High Court was
\nreceived in the original case and the execution proceedings
\nwere ordered to be restarted.  The execution proceedings as
\nwell as the civil suit were transferred from court to court and
\nnone appeared for the JDs in the execution case, till
\n14\/7\/1997.\n<\/p>\n
The High Court by the impugned order set aside the
\norder of the trial court holding that the I.As. filed by the
\njudgment debtors, respondents in the appeal, before High
\nCourt were to be dismissed. Auction sale in favour of the
\nrespondent-DH was valid and order of its confirmation was
\nupheld.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tIn support of the appeal learned counsel for the
\nappellant submitted as follows:\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tRecords reveal that no Process Fee was paid by the
\nDecree Holder as per Order dated 4.10.1997.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tAttachment of Warrant was not as per Order 21 Rule 54
\n(1A) CPC.\n<\/p>\n
(iii) No Notice was given to the appellants when execution
\nproceedings got delinked from the suit and got transferred
\nfrom one court to another.\n<\/p>\n
(iv)\tAttachment proceedings were carried out in the absence
\nof the Judgment Debtor.\n<\/p>\n
(v)\tNo notice was given to the appellant under Order 21
\nRules 54 and 66(2). The procedure under Order 21 Rule 54
\n(1A) and 66(2) is mandatory. Hence, the objections taken by
\nway of IA Nos. 1, 2 and 6 should have been accepted\n<\/p>\n
(vi) The Court found total absence of drawing up of the
\nproclamation of sale and its terms by judicial application of
\nmind.\n<\/p>\n
(vii) It was held that the executing court did not follow the
\nmandatory procedure as provided under the Code.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tIt was submitted that the High Court by the impugned
\norder erroneously reversed the judgment on the ground that
\nthe appellant could be presumed to have known of the
\nproceeding and it is not a case of complete non issue of service
\nof attachment of warrant and that ratio of the decision in
\nDeshbandhu Gupta v. N.L. Anand @ Rajinder Singh [1994(1)
\nSCC 131] does not apply.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tLearned counsel for the respondent on the other hand
\nsubmitted that the High Court has analysed the factual
\nposition in the background of legal position as set out by this
\ncourt.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tWhen a property is put up for auction to satisfy a decree
\nof the Court, it is mandatory for the Court executing the
\nDecree, to comply with the following stages before a property
\nis sold in execution of a particular decree:\n<\/p>\n
(a) \tAttachment of the Immoveable Property:\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tProclamation of Sale by Public Auction;\n<\/p>\n
(c)\tSale by Public Auction<\/p>\n
7.\tEach stage of the sale is governed by the provisions of
\nthe Code. For the purposes of the present case, the relevant
\nprovisions are Order 21 Rule 54 and Order 21 Rule 66. At
\neach stage of the execution of the decree, when a property is
\nsold, it is mandatory that notice shall be served upon the
\nperson whose property is being sold in execution of the decree,
\nand any property which is sold, without notice to the person
\nwhose property is being sold is a nullity, and all actions
\npursuant thereto are liable to be struck down\/quashed.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tThe admitted position that has emerged is that:\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tThere was no notice served upon the Judgment-Debtor
\nunder Order 21 Rule 54 (1-A).\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tThere was no valuation of the property carried out;\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\tThere was no proclamation of sale as per the statutory
\nprovisions of the M.P. Civil Court Rules, 1961 read with Order
\n21 Rule 66.\n<\/p>\n
(iv)\tThere was no publication of the sale.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tIn Deshbandhu Gupta’s case (supra) it was held as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
“The Proclamation should include the
\nestimate, if any, given by either judgment-
\ndebtor or decree holder or both the parties.
\nService of Notice on judgment-debtor under
\nOrder 21 Rule 66 (2) unless waive by
\nappellants or remained ex-parte, is a
\nfundamental step in the procedure of the
\nCourt in execution, judgment-debtor should
\nhave an opportunity to give his estimate of the
\nproperty. The estimate of the value of the
\nproperty is a material fact to enable the
\npurchaser to know its value. It must be verify
\nas accurately and fairly as possible so that
\nthe intending bidders are not mislead or to
\nprevent them from offering inadequate price
\nor to enable them to make a decision in
\noffering adequate price. In Gajadhar Prasad
\nVs. Babu Bhakta Ratan, this Court after
\nnoticing the conflict of judicial opinion among
\nthe High Courts, said that a review of the
\nauthorities as well as amendments to Rule 66
\n(2) (e) make it abundantly clear that the
\nCourt, when stating the estimated value of the
\nproperty to be sold, must not accept the ipse
\ndixit of one side. It is certainly not necessary
\nfor it to state its own estimate<\/p>\n
But, the essential facts which had a
\nbearing on the very material question of value
\nof the property and which could assist the
\npurchaser in forming his own opinion must
\nbe stated, i.e. the value of the property, that
\nis, after all, the whole object of Order XXI,
\nRule 66 (2) (e) CPC. The Court has only to
\ndecide what are allthese material particular in
\neach case. We think that this is an obligation
\nimposed by Rule 66 (2) (e). In discharging it,
\nthe Court normally state the valuation given
\nby both the Decree Holder as well as the
\nJudgment Debtor where they both have
\nvalued the property, and it does not appear
\nfantastic.”\n<\/p>\n
“The absence of Notice causes
\nirremediable injury to the judgment debtor.
\nEqually publication of the proclamation of
\nsale under Rule 67 and specifying the date
\nand place of sale of the property under Rule
\n66 (2) are intended so that the prospective
\nbidders would know the value so as to make
\nup their mind to offer the price and to attempt
\nthat sale of the property and to secure
\ncompetitive bidders and fair price to the
\nproperty sold. Absence of Not to the
\nJudgment Debtor disables him to offer his
\nestimate of the value who better know its
\nvalue and to publicise on his part, canvassing
\nand bringing the intended bidders at the time
\nof sale. Absence of notice prevents him to do
\nthe above and also disables him to know
\nfraud committed in the publication and
\nconduct of sale or other material irregularities
\nin the conduct of sale. It would be broached
\nfrom yet another angle. The compulsory sale
\nof immovable property under Order 21 divests
\nright, title and interest of the judgment debtor
\nand confers those rights, in favour of the
\npurchaser. It thereby deals with the rights
\nand disabilities either of the judgment debtor
\nor the decree holder. A sale made, therefore,
\nwithout notice to the judgment debtor is a
\nnullity since it divests the judgment debtor of
\nhis right, title and interest in his property
\nwithout an opportunity. The jurisdiction to
\nsell the property would arise in a Court only
\nwhere the owner is given notice of the
\nexecution for attachment and sale of his
\nproperty. It is very salutary that a person’s
\nproperty cannot be sold without his being told
\nthat it is being so sold and given an
\nopportunity to offer his estimate as he is the
\nperson who intimately knew the value of his
\nproperty and prevailing in the locality,
\nexaggeration at time be possible.”\n<\/p>\n
10.\tIn M\/s. Shalimar Cinema v. Bhasin Film Corporation
\nand Another<\/a> [1987(4) SCC 717] it was held that the court has
\na duty to ensure that the requirement of order 21 Rule 66 has
\nproperly applied.  It is incumbent on the court to be
\nscrupulous in the extreme.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tThe records do not reveal that the appellant-judgment
\ndebtor was served with a notice as required under Order 21
\nRule 54(1)(A)  of the Code in the appendix B Forms 23, 24 and\n<\/p>\n
29.  It  is to be noted that the records reveal that the address
\nof the appellant as contained in the sale deed was different
\nfrom the address at which the process server purportedly
\naffixed the notice on the door and in open court and at the
\nchorah only.  It has also to be noted that under Order 21 Rule
\n66(2) the service of the notice has to be personally affected on
\nthe judgment debtor. That also does not appear to have been
\ndone. Interestingly, the valuation of the property as required
\nto be done under the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 66 of
\nOrder 21 of the Code has not been done.  The same appears to
\nhave been valued on the spot at Rs.9,00,000\/- and it was not
\ndone by the Court. There are admittedly other non-compliance
\nwith certain requirements. We do not think it necessary to
\ndeal with those aspects in detail in view of the order proposed
\nto be passed. From the records it is revealed that
\nRs.14,38,893\/- and Rs.4,46,926\/- have been deposited by the
\nappellant purportedly for satisfaction of the Execution Court
\nUjjain and Indore respectively. The appellant shall further
\ndeposit a sum of Rs.15,00,000\/- within 4 months from today.
\nThe respondent No.1 shall be entitled to withdraw the amount
\ndeposited in the bank with accrued interest. The appellant
\nshall be responsible for payment of the property tax of the
\nproperty from the date of execution of sale deed i.e. 5.12.1986
\ntill date and the same shall be paid deposited with the
\nconcerned authority within the aforesaid period of four
\nmonths.  On payment of the amounts, the title to the property
\ndescribed in the registered sale deed will vest free of all
\nencumbrances on the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tIf any property of the respondent No.1 is there in the
\nproperty in question, the same shall vest to respondent No.1
\nwith liberty to remove them as soon as the payment is made.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tThe appeal is disposed of accordingly.  No costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India M\/S. Mahakal Automobiles & Anr vs Kishan Swaroop Sharma on 2 April, 2008 Author: . A Pasayat Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, S.H. Kapadia CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2598 of 2005 PETITIONER: M\/s. Mahakal Automobiles & Anr RESPONDENT: Kishan Swaroop Sharma DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02\/04\/2008 BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & S.H. KAPADIA […]<\/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-10254","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S. Mahakal Automobiles & Anr vs Kishan Swaroop Sharma on 2 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mahakal-automobiles-anr-vs-kishan-swaroop-sharma-on-2-april-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S. Mahakal Automobiles & Anr vs Kishan Swaroop Sharma on 2 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mahakal-automobiles-anr-vs-kishan-swaroop-sharma-on-2-april-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-04-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-01T20:22:27+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\\\/ms-mahakal-automobiles-anr-vs-kishan-swaroop-sharma-on-2-april-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-mahakal-automobiles-anr-vs-kishan-swaroop-sharma-on-2-april-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S. Mahakal Automobiles & Anr vs Kishan Swaroop Sharma on 2 April, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-04-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-01T20:22:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-mahakal-automobiles-anr-vs-kishan-swaroop-sharma-on-2-april-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2172,\"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\\\/ms-mahakal-automobiles-anr-vs-kishan-swaroop-sharma-on-2-april-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-mahakal-automobiles-anr-vs-kishan-swaroop-sharma-on-2-april-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-mahakal-automobiles-anr-vs-kishan-swaroop-sharma-on-2-april-2008\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Mahakal Automobiles & Anr vs Kishan Swaroop Sharma on 2 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-04-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-01T20:22:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-mahakal-automobiles-anr-vs-kishan-swaroop-sharma-on-2-april-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-mahakal-automobiles-anr-vs-kishan-swaroop-sharma-on-2-april-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-mahakal-automobiles-anr-vs-kishan-swaroop-sharma-on-2-april-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Mahakal Automobiles & Anr vs Kishan Swaroop Sharma on 2 April, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M\/S. Mahakal Automobiles & Anr vs Kishan Swaroop Sharma on 2 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mahakal-automobiles-anr-vs-kishan-swaroop-sharma-on-2-april-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S. Mahakal Automobiles & Anr vs Kishan Swaroop Sharma on 2 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mahakal-automobiles-anr-vs-kishan-swaroop-sharma-on-2-april-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-04-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-01T20:22:27+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\/ms-mahakal-automobiles-anr-vs-kishan-swaroop-sharma-on-2-april-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mahakal-automobiles-anr-vs-kishan-swaroop-sharma-on-2-april-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S. Mahakal Automobiles & Anr vs Kishan Swaroop Sharma on 2 April, 2008","datePublished":"2008-04-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-01T20:22:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mahakal-automobiles-anr-vs-kishan-swaroop-sharma-on-2-april-2008"},"wordCount":2172,"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\/ms-mahakal-automobiles-anr-vs-kishan-swaroop-sharma-on-2-april-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mahakal-automobiles-anr-vs-kishan-swaroop-sharma-on-2-april-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mahakal-automobiles-anr-vs-kishan-swaroop-sharma-on-2-april-2008","name":"M\/S. Mahakal Automobiles & Anr vs Kishan Swaroop Sharma on 2 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-04-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-01T20:22:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mahakal-automobiles-anr-vs-kishan-swaroop-sharma-on-2-april-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mahakal-automobiles-anr-vs-kishan-swaroop-sharma-on-2-april-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mahakal-automobiles-anr-vs-kishan-swaroop-sharma-on-2-april-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S. Mahakal Automobiles & Anr vs Kishan Swaroop Sharma on 2 April, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10254","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=10254"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10254\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10254"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10254"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10254"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}