{"id":114690,"date":"1999-03-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1999-03-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-k-ogle-vs-sanwaldas-sanwalmal-ahuja-on-18-march-1999"},"modified":"2019-01-26T13:53:16","modified_gmt":"2019-01-26T08:23:16","slug":"n-k-ogle-vs-sanwaldas-sanwalmal-ahuja-on-18-march-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-k-ogle-vs-sanwaldas-sanwalmal-ahuja-on-18-march-1999","title":{"rendered":"N.K. Ogle vs Sanwaldas @ Sanwalmal Ahuja on 18 March, 1999"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
N.K. Ogle vs Sanwaldas @ Sanwalmal Ahuja on 18 March, 1999<\/div>\n
Author: Pattanaik<\/div>\n
Bench: G.B.Pattanaik, M.B.Shah<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nN.K. OGLE\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSANWALDAS @ SANWALMAL AHUJA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t18\/03\/1999\n\nBENCH:\nG.B.Pattanaik, M.B.Shah\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
PATTANAIK,J.\n<\/p>\n
      The  appellant  was Tehsildar in Damoh.  The  District
\nCollector  had\tordered\t by  sending  a\t Revenue  Collection
\nCertificate  to collect lease money amounting to  Rs.4,653\/-
\nfrom Sanwaldas, respondent herein.  The Tehsildar on receipt
\nof  the\t information  from  the\t  office  of  the  Collector
\nregistered  the\t matter and passed an order for issuance  of
\nDemand\tLetter.\t  Under the said Demand Letter\tthe  initial
\ndate  had  been\t fixed\tas 14.11.1989  which  was,  however,
\nchanged\t later\ton  to\t28.11.89.    The  Tehsildar  in\t his
\norder-sheet  Exhibit D mentioned that the Demand Letter\t has
\nbeen received back after being duly served on the respondent
\nSanwaldas.   On\t 4.12.89 an order of attachment warrant\t was
\npassed.\t On 21.12.89 respondent Sanwaldas came to the office
\nof  Tehsildar  and objected to the legality of the order  of
\nissuing\t the  Demand  Letter.\tThis  fact  was\t immediately
\nintimated by the Tehsildar to the District Magistrate on the
\nsame  day.   Respondent\t Sanwaldas then\t filed\ta  complaint
\nalleging  that while he had gone to the Tehsil Office on his
\nscooter\t the  Tehsildar\t forcibly kept the Scooter,  and  as
\nsuch,  has  committed  an offence under Section 379  of\t the
\nIndian\tPenal Code.  It may be stated that after the seizure
\nof  the scooter the Tehsildar directed for auctioning of the
\nsame  and  the scooter was ultimately auctioned on  22.1.90.
\nOn  the basis of the complaint filed by respondent Sanwaldas
\nthe  learned  Judicial Magistrate First Class,\tDamoh,\ttook
\ncognizance  of the offence and directed issuance of  process
\nagainst Tehsildar.  Tehsildar appeared before the Magistrate
\non  2.3.90 and filed an application raising objection to the
\norder  taking  cognizance of the offence on the ground\tthat
\nthe acts complained of was in discharge of the official duty
\nof  the Tehsildar and, therefore, in the absence of sanction
\nunder  Section\t197  of the Code of Criminal  Procedure\t the
\nCourt  will have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
\nThe   learned  Magistrate,  however,   rejected\t  the\tsaid
\napplication  filed  by the Tehsildar by its order dated\t 7th
\nMarch, 1990 on a finding that the acts complained of have no
\nrational  nexus\t with the discharge of official duty of\t the
\nTehsildar  and, therefore, immunity under Section 197 Cr.P.C
\nwill  not  be attracted.  This order of the  Magistrate\t was
\nassailed  in  Revision\tby  the Tehsildar in  the  Court  of
\nSessions  Judge,  Damoh\t which was  registered\tas  Criminal
\nRevision  No.  17\/90.  By judgment dated 24.4.90 the learned
\nSessions  Judge came to the conclusion that the alleged\t act
\nof  the Tehsildar is directly connected with the performance
\nof  his\t official  duties and, therefore, the claim  of\t the
\napplicant  regarding immunity under Section 197 Cr.P.C.\t can
\nneither\t be said to be pretended nor fanciful.\tThe Sessions
\nJudge  came  to the conclusion that the Tehsildar cannot  be
\nprosecuted for the acts complained of without prior sanction
\nof  the Government as required under Section 197 of the Code
\nof  Criminal  Procedure.   Accordingly,\t the  order  of\t the
\nMagistrate  was\t set aside and the complaint was held to  be
\nnot  maintainable.   Against  the  aforesaid  order  of\t the
\nlearned\t Sessions Judge the complainant moved the High Court
\ninvoking  the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 482 of
\nthe  Code  of  Criminal Procedure.  The High  Court  by\t the
\nimpugned  judgment  dated 3.12.91 being of the opinion\tthat
\nthe  acts complained of in fact do not appear to relate with
\nthe  responsibility  of the post of Tehsildar and  Tehsildar
\nhas  mis-used  his  powers,  interfered with  the  order  of
\nSessions  Judge and held that the provisions of Section\t 197
\nof  the Criminal Procedure has no application to the case in
\nhand.\tIn coming to the aforesaid conclusion the High Court
\nexamined  the  provisions of the M.P.  Land Revenue Act\t and
\ncame  to hold that the order of attachment of the  Collector
\nwas not in accordance with law, and therefore, any purported
\naction taken by Tehsildar on the basis of such invalid order
\nwill  not give him protection of Section 197 of the Code  of
\nCriminal  Procedure.   According  to   the  High  Court\t the
\nTehsildar  must\t be  held to have mis-used his post  or\t the
\nrights\tassociated with the post and, therefore, question of
\ntaking\tsanction  from the Government before initiating\t any
\ncriminal proceeding does not arise.  It is this order of the
\nHigh Court which is being assailed in the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n
      Mr.   Bachawat,  learned senior counsel appearing\t for
\nthe  appellant contended that the Court while examining\t the
\nquestion of applicability of Section 197 Cr.P.C.  in a given
\ncase  is required to find out whether the acts complained of
\nconstituting  the  alleged offence can be said to have\tbeen
\ndone  in exercise of the powers of the public officer or  in
\npurported  exercise of the power of the said officer and  if
\nthe  answer  is\t in the affirmative then the  provisions  of
\nSection\t 197  Cr.  P.C.\t would get attracted.  According  to
\nMr.   Bachawat,\t if  it is found that the  concerned  public
\nofficer\t has acted bona fide in exercise of or in  purported
\nexercise of power conferred upon him and not on the basis of
\na  pretended plea, then the provisions of Sub-section (1) of
\nSection\t 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would  apply,
\neven  if such officer has done something in excess than what
\nis provided for.  According to Mr.  Bachawat on the findings
\nof the High Court the acts complained of having been done in
\nexercise  of  the  powers under the provisions\tof  M.P.Land
\nRevenue\t Act which order of the Tehsildar in turn was issued
\npursuant  to the order of the District Magistrate, Damoh for
\nrecovering  the\t lease money from the respondent,  the\tHigh
\nCourt  committed  error\t in examining the legality  of\tsuch
\norder  and then coming to a conclusion on the question about
\nthe applicability of Section 197 Cr.P.C.  In support of this
\ncontention  reliance  was placed on the\t Constitution  Bench
\ndecision  of  this  Court in the case of Matajog  Dobey\t vs.
\nH.C.  Bhari<\/a> ” 1955 (2) SCR 925 and a recent decision of this
\nCourt  in  the\tcase of Suresh Kumar  Bhikamchand  Jain\t vs.
\nPandey Ajay Bhushan and others<\/a> ” (1998) 1 SCC 205.\n<\/p>\n
      Mr.   Upadhyay,  learned\tcounsel\t appearing  for\t the
\nrespondent on the other hand contended, that the acts of the
\nTehsildar  which  was  the subject matter of  the  complaint
\nfiled  by  the respondent cannot be said to have  reasonable
\nnexus  with the duties of the Tehsildar, and therefore,\t for
\nsuch  illegal acts the protection provided under Section 197
\nCr.P.C.\t  will\tnot apply.  According to Mr.  Upadhyay,\t the
\nplea  of the Tehsildar that he forcibly retained the scooter
\nin  exercise of his power under the provisions of M.P.\tLand
\nRevenue Act is nothing but a pretended and fanciful plea and
\nconsequently the High Court was fully justified in recording
\nthe findings that the provisions of Section 197 will have no
\napplication  to\t the  case  in hand.   In  support  of\tthis
\ncontention reliance was placed on the decision of this Court
\nin  the case of B.  Saha and others vs.\t M.S.  Kochar<\/a> (1979)
\n4  SCC\t177  and  in  the case of  B.S.\t  Sambhu  vs.\tT.S.
\nKrishnaswamy<\/a>  (1983) 1 SCC 11 and in the case of Pukhraj vs.
\nState  of Rajasthan and Another<\/a> (1973) 2 SCC 701.  According
\nto  Mr.\t  Upadhyay the legislative intent  engrafted  behind
\nSection\t 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to prevent
\na  public servant from being unnecessarily harassed.  But if
\nan authority misuses his power as found by the High Court in
\nthe  present case and such protection is given then the very
\npurpose\t for which Section 197 was engrafted on the  Statute
\nBook would get frustrated.\n<\/p>\n
      Bearing  in mind the rival submissions at the bar\t and
\nexamining  the allegations made in the complaint petition we
\nare  persuaded\tto  agree with the submissions made  by\t Mr.
\nBachawat,   learned  senior  counsel   appearing   for\t the
\nappellant.   Undisputedly the appellant at the relevant time
\nwas  the Tehsildar and the District Collector had passed  an
\norder  for collecting the lease money of Rs.4,653\/- from the
\nrespondent  Sanwaldas.\tOn the basis of the aforesaid  order
\nof  the\t District  Collector   the  Tehsildar,\tthe  present
\nappellant,  appears  to\t have registered the matter  in\t his
\nCourt  and  ordered  for issuance of the Demand\t Letter\t and
\ninfact\tsuch  a Demand Letter had been issued and  had\tbeen
\nduly served on the respondent and yet the respondent had not
\nmade  the payment.  It further appears that as no steps\t had
\nbeen  taken  by the respondent to pay the money an order  of
\nattachment  warrant was issued on 4.12.89 and it is then  on
\n21.12.89  when the respondent was available with the scooter
\nin  the Tehsil office the said scooter was seized and it  is
\nsuch  seizure and retention of the scooter of the respondent
\nwhich  is  the gravamen of the allegation of  offence  under
\nSection\t 379  in  the complaint case.  Such  action  of\t the
\nTehsildar  in  our considered opinion cannot but be  a\tbona
\nfide  act on the part of the Tehsildar in purported exercise
\nof  the\t power under the M.P.  Land Revenue Act.  In  Saha’s
\ncase  (supra) what this Court had held is that there must be
\ndirect\tand  reasonable nexus between the offence  committed
\nand the discharge of the official duty.\t Charge of dishonest
\nmisappropriation or conversion of goods by customs authority
\nwhich  they  had seized was held not to be in  discharge  of
\nofficial  duty and as such Section 197 has no application as
\nmisappropriation  cannot  be  said  to be  in  discharge  of
\nofficial duty.\tWe see no reasons how the aforesaid decision
\nis  of any application in the present case.  It is  nobody’s
\ncase  that  the Tehsildar forcibly retained the scooter\t and
\nused  it for his own purpose.  On the other hand the scooter
\nafter being seized was put to public auction for recovery of
\nthe  legal dues of the government as against the respondent.
\nIn  Sambhu’s  case  (supra) the Court was  examining  as  to
\nwhether a defamatory language used by a judge to an advocate
\ncan  be\t said  to  be in discharge  of\tthe  official  duty.
\nObviously  this\t Court\theld  that use\tof  such  defamatory
\nlanguage  by no stretch of imagination can be held to be  in
\ndischarge  of official duty and consequently the  provisions
\nof  Section  197  will have no application.   The  aforesaid
\ndecision  has no application to the present case.  The third
\ndecision  relied upon by Mr.  Upadhyay is the Pukhraj’s case
\n(supra).   In  the said case the question for  consideration
\nwas that when a government servant on orders of transfer had
\nrequested  his employer for cancellation of the transfer and
\nthe  employer  started abusing and giving kicks to the\tsaid
\ngovernment servant whether it can be said to be in purported
\nexercise of his duty.  This Court in no uncertain terms came
\nto  the conclusion that the act of abusing and giving  kicks
\ncannot be said to be an act done in the execution of duty or
\nin  purported exercise of the execution of the duty.  In our
\nconsidered opinion the ratio of the aforesaid case also will
\nhave no application.\n<\/p>\n
      The  Constitution\t Bench\tdecision of  this  Court  in
\nMatajog\t Dobey’s  case\t(supra) clearly enunciates  where  a
\npower  is  conferred  or  a duty is imposed  by\t statute  or
\notherwise and there is nothing said expressly inhibiting the
\nexercise  of the power or the performance of the duty by any
\nlimitations  or restrictions, it is reasonable to hold\tthat
\nit  carries  with  it the power of doing all  such  acts  or
\nemploying  such\t means as are reasonably necessary for\tsuch
\nexecution, because it is a rule that when the law commands a
\nthings to be done, it authorises the performance of whatever
\nmay  be necessary for executing its command.  The Court\t was
\nconsidering  in\t the  said  case  the  allegation  that\t the
\nofficial  authorised in pursuance to a warrant issued by the
\nIncome\tTax  Investigation  Commission\tin  connection\twith
\ncertain\t pending proceedings before it, forcibly broke\topen
\nthe  entrance door and when some resistance was put the said
\nofficer\t not  only  entered  forcibly but  tied\t the  person
\noffering   resistance\twith  a\t  rope\tand  assaulted\t him
\nmercilessly  causing  injuries and for such act a  complaint
\nhad  been filed against the concerned public officers.\tThis
\nCourt, however, came to hold that such a complaint cannot be
\nentertained without a sanction of the Competent Authority as
\nprovided  under Section 197 Cr.P.C.  This Court had observed
\nthat before coming to a conclusion whether the provisions of
\nSection 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will apply the
\nCourt  must come to a conclusion that there is a  reasonable
\nconnection  between the act complained of and the  discharge
\nof  official  duty;  the act must bear such relation to\t the
\nduty  that the accused could lay a reasonable claim that  he
\ndid  it\t in  the  course of the\t performance  of  his  duty.
\nApplying  the  aforesaid  ratio\t to the\t case  in  hand\t the
\nconclusion  is inescapable that the act of the Tehsildar  in
\nseizing\t the  scooter of the respondent was in discharge  of
\nhis  official duty which he was required to do on the  basis
\nof  the order issued by the Collector for getting the  lease
\nmoney from the respondent and the said act cannot be said to
\nbe  a  pretended  or  fanciful\tclaim on  the  part  of\t the
\nTehsildar.   The High Court, in our view committed error  at
\nthat stage in examining the flaw or legality of the order of
\nattachment issued by the Tehsildar.\n<\/p>\n
      In  Suresh  Kumar’s case (supra) relying upon  Matajog
\nDobey’s\t case  (supra) and bearing in mind  the\t legislative
\nmandate\t  engrafted  in\t Sub-section   (1)  of\tSection\t 197
\ndebarring  a  court  from taking cognizance  of\t an  offence
\nexcept\twith a previous sanction of the Government concerned
\nthis Court has held that the said provision is a prohibition
\nimposed\t by  the statute from taking cognizance and as\tsuch
\nthe  jurisdiction  of  the  Court in the  matter  of  taking
\ncognizance  and, therefore a Court will not be justified  in
\ntaking\tcognizance of the offence without such sanction on a
\nfinding\t that  the acts complained of are in excess  of\t the
\ndischarge  of the official duty of the concerned  government
\nservant.\n<\/p>\n
      In  the  aforesaid  circumstances and in view  of\t our
\nearlier\t conclusions as to the circumstances under which the
\norder of attachment was issued and the scooter was seized we
\nhave  no  hesitation to hold that the acts complained of  by
\nthe  respondent against the Tehsildar had been committed  in
\ndischarge  of  the official duty of the such Tehsildar\tand,
\ntherefore,  no cognizance can be taken by any court  without
\nprior sanction of the Competent Authority.  Admittedly there
\nhas been no such sanction of the Competent Authority.\n<\/p>\n
      We  accordingly  allow this appeal and set  aside\t the
\nimpugned  order of the High Court.  The order passed by\t the
\nlearned Sessions Judge is affirmed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India N.K. Ogle vs Sanwaldas @ Sanwalmal Ahuja on 18 March, 1999 Author: Pattanaik Bench: G.B.Pattanaik, M.B.Shah PETITIONER: N.K. OGLE Vs. RESPONDENT: SANWALDAS @ SANWALMAL AHUJA DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18\/03\/1999 BENCH: G.B.Pattanaik, M.B.Shah JUDGMENT: PATTANAIK,J. The appellant was Tehsildar in Damoh. The District Collector had ordered by sending a Revenue Collection Certificate […]<\/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-114690","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nN.K. Ogle vs Sanwaldas @ Sanwalmal Ahuja on 18 March, 1999 - 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\/n-k-ogle-vs-sanwaldas-sanwalmal-ahuja-on-18-march-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"N.K. Ogle vs Sanwaldas @ Sanwalmal Ahuja on 18 March, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-k-ogle-vs-sanwaldas-sanwalmal-ahuja-on-18-march-1999\" \/>\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=\"1999-03-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-26T08:23:16+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-k-ogle-vs-sanwaldas-sanwalmal-ahuja-on-18-march-1999#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-k-ogle-vs-sanwaldas-sanwalmal-ahuja-on-18-march-1999\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"N.K. Ogle vs Sanwaldas @ Sanwalmal Ahuja on 18 March, 1999\",\"datePublished\":\"1999-03-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-26T08:23:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-k-ogle-vs-sanwaldas-sanwalmal-ahuja-on-18-march-1999\"},\"wordCount\":2454,\"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\/n-k-ogle-vs-sanwaldas-sanwalmal-ahuja-on-18-march-1999#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-k-ogle-vs-sanwaldas-sanwalmal-ahuja-on-18-march-1999\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-k-ogle-vs-sanwaldas-sanwalmal-ahuja-on-18-march-1999\",\"name\":\"N.K. Ogle vs Sanwaldas @ Sanwalmal Ahuja on 18 March, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1999-03-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-26T08:23:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-k-ogle-vs-sanwaldas-sanwalmal-ahuja-on-18-march-1999#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-k-ogle-vs-sanwaldas-sanwalmal-ahuja-on-18-march-1999\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-k-ogle-vs-sanwaldas-sanwalmal-ahuja-on-18-march-1999#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"N.K. Ogle vs Sanwaldas @ Sanwalmal Ahuja on 18 March, 1999\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"N.K. Ogle vs Sanwaldas @ Sanwalmal Ahuja on 18 March, 1999 - 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\/n-k-ogle-vs-sanwaldas-sanwalmal-ahuja-on-18-march-1999","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"N.K. Ogle vs Sanwaldas @ Sanwalmal Ahuja on 18 March, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-k-ogle-vs-sanwaldas-sanwalmal-ahuja-on-18-march-1999","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1999-03-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-26T08:23:16+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-k-ogle-vs-sanwaldas-sanwalmal-ahuja-on-18-march-1999#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-k-ogle-vs-sanwaldas-sanwalmal-ahuja-on-18-march-1999"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"N.K. Ogle vs Sanwaldas @ Sanwalmal Ahuja on 18 March, 1999","datePublished":"1999-03-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-26T08:23:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-k-ogle-vs-sanwaldas-sanwalmal-ahuja-on-18-march-1999"},"wordCount":2454,"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\/n-k-ogle-vs-sanwaldas-sanwalmal-ahuja-on-18-march-1999#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-k-ogle-vs-sanwaldas-sanwalmal-ahuja-on-18-march-1999","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-k-ogle-vs-sanwaldas-sanwalmal-ahuja-on-18-march-1999","name":"N.K. Ogle vs Sanwaldas @ Sanwalmal Ahuja on 18 March, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1999-03-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-26T08:23:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-k-ogle-vs-sanwaldas-sanwalmal-ahuja-on-18-march-1999#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-k-ogle-vs-sanwaldas-sanwalmal-ahuja-on-18-march-1999"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-k-ogle-vs-sanwaldas-sanwalmal-ahuja-on-18-march-1999#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"N.K. Ogle vs Sanwaldas @ Sanwalmal Ahuja on 18 March, 1999"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/114690","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=114690"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/114690\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=114690"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=114690"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=114690"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}