{"id":115790,"date":"2008-06-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-06-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maghendra-pal-tyagi-vs-jayant-davar-ors-on-5-june-2008"},"modified":"2015-09-19T21:25:13","modified_gmt":"2015-09-19T15:55:13","slug":"maghendra-pal-tyagi-vs-jayant-davar-ors-on-5-june-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maghendra-pal-tyagi-vs-jayant-davar-ors-on-5-june-2008","title":{"rendered":"Maghendra Pal Tyagi vs Jayant Davar & Ors on 5 June, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Maghendra Pal Tyagi vs Jayant Davar & Ors on 5 June, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: L S Panta<\/div>\n
Bench: C.K. Thakker, Lokeshwar Singh Panta<\/div>\n
                                                                       REPORTABLE\n             IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n          CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 3034-3036 OF 2005\n\nMaghendra Pal Tyagi                                 .....           Appellant\n\n                               Versus\nJayant Davar & Ors.                                         .....\nRespondents\n\n\n\n                          JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
1.   These appeals are directed against the judgment and<\/p>\n
order dated 10.10.2003 in Misc. Application No.186 of 2000<\/p>\n
(impugned    order-1);     order   dated      14.07.2004            in   Misc.<\/p>\n
Application No.178 of 2004 in M. A. No. 186\/2000 (impugned<\/p>\n
order-2) and order dated 18.08.2004 in Misc. Application<\/p>\n
No.263 of 2004 in M. A. No.186\/2000 (impugned order-3)<\/p>\n
passed by the Special Court constituted under The Special<\/p>\n
Courts   (Trial    of   Offences   Relating    to     Transactions          in
\n                                                            2<\/span>
\nSecurities) Act, 1992 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] at<\/p>\n
Bombay.\n<\/p>\n
2.   The short facts leading to the present proceedings are as<\/p>\n
under:-\n<\/p>\n
     The appellant herein held 200 shares of Hero Honda<\/p>\n
Company – fourth respondent-company herein.              In and<\/p>\n
around September 2003, the appellant desired to dispose of<\/p>\n
the said 200 shares, but he allegedly lost the same.         On<\/p>\n
21.09.1993, the appellant got a police report registered in the<\/p>\n
Sihani Gate Police     Station, Ghaziabad.       On or about<\/p>\n
22.09.1993, the appellant approached and requested the<\/p>\n
fourth respondent-company for issue of duplicate Certificates<\/p>\n
in lieu of his lost shares along with all supporting documents,<\/p>\n
indemnity bonds and affidavits, etc.<\/p>\n
3.   On 05.01.1994, the fourth respondent-company got an<\/p>\n
Advertisement\/Public Notice published in Newspapers calling<\/p>\n
upon to file objections, if any, against issue of duplicate Share<\/p>\n
Certificates to the appellant and also striking a note of caution<\/p>\n
to the public at large not to deal with the shares so specified<\/p>\n
in the advertisement. Having not received any objection from
\n                                                         3<\/span>
\nany one, the fourth respondent-company on 03.02.1994<\/p>\n
issued duplicate Share Certificates to the appellant.     The<\/p>\n
appellant transferred his shares in favour of Jayant Davar –<\/p>\n
the first respondent herein, which were registered in his name<\/p>\n
by the fourth respondent-company on 18.10.1994. The first<\/p>\n
respondent had been offered 50 Bonus Shares by the fourth<\/p>\n
respondent-company, which offer was profitably availed by<\/p>\n
him. The first respondent sold\/transferred 200 shares which<\/p>\n
he got from the appellant and 50 Bonus Shares consequently<\/p>\n
acquired by him, but the fourth respondent-company did not<\/p>\n
register the said transfer. This was done on the asking of the<\/p>\n
CBI, who was investigating the Share Transfer Scam, and<\/p>\n
advised the first respondent and the transferee to approach<\/p>\n
the Custodian – second respondent herein.         The fourth<\/p>\n
respondent-company asked the appellant to enforce indemnity<\/p>\n
bond, but the appellant did not agree as the fourth<\/p>\n
respondent-company had not suffered any loss, etc. as a<\/p>\n
result of the transaction.\n<\/p>\n
4.   The case of the first respondent before the Special Court<\/p>\n
was that he purchased 800 shares of fourth respondent-
\n                                                               4<\/span>
\ncompany through its broker M\/s. Jamnadas Morarjee & Co.<\/p>\n
during the months of July-August, 1994 and thereafter the<\/p>\n
said shares were sent for transfer to the Registrar and Share<\/p>\n
Transfer Agent of respondent No. 3, i.e. MCS Limited.          The<\/p>\n
shares were finally transferred in his name on the basis of<\/p>\n
valid instruments of transfer and, accordingly, a ledger folio<\/p>\n
No. 141982 has been allotted to him. The second respondent<\/p>\n
filed Miscellaneous Application No. 186\/2000 before the<\/p>\n
Special Court claiming 200 shares which were transferred in<\/p>\n
his name from the appellant and 50 bonus shares in the ratio<\/p>\n
of 1:4 as issued by third respondent against those 200 shares.<\/p>\n
The first respondent stated before the Special Court that he<\/p>\n
had sold 250 shares in the open market through his share<\/p>\n
broker M\/s. TRC Securities Pvt. Ltd. in the month of<\/p>\n
May\/June, 1997. Upon lodgment of the said 250 shares with<\/p>\n
MCS Limited, they, vide their letter dated 26.06.1997 refused<\/p>\n
to transfer\/register the shares in the name of the lodger i.e.<\/p>\n
Morgan Stanley Assets Management Inc., A\/c Morgan Stanley<\/p>\n
Institutional   Fund    Inc.     Emerging      Markets    Portfolio.<\/p>\n
Subsequently,   the    250     shares   were   returned   to   first
\n                                                           5<\/span>
\nrespondent as `Bad Delivery’ under two different covering<\/p>\n
letters dated 26.06.1997 and 10.07.1998 respectively.      MCS<\/p>\n
Limited received a letter bearing No. 5696\/Cus\/Mob\/UR-<\/p>\n
CBI\/96 (533B) dated 29.02.1996 from the second respondent-<\/p>\n
Custodian regarding stop transfer of the shares in favour of<\/p>\n
any person without permission of the Custodian. The MCS<\/p>\n
Limited also enclosed copy of transfer deeds, share certificates<\/p>\n
and Custodian’s letter dated 29th February, 1996 along with<\/p>\n
their letter to the second respondent who on going through the<\/p>\n
same, came to know that 117335 shares of fourth respondent-<\/p>\n
company belonged to the Notified Persons of the group of Late<\/p>\n
Harshad S. Mehta which were seized by CBI and remained in<\/p>\n
their custody. The letter also revealed that Late Harshad S.<\/p>\n
Mehta and his group were notified by the Custodian on 8.6.92<\/p>\n
under the provisions of the Act and all properties belonging to<\/p>\n
them stood attached simultaneously with the issue of the<\/p>\n
notification and the fourth respondent-company was informed<\/p>\n
not to deal with those shares in any manner including<\/p>\n
transfer, pledge, issue of duplicate etc. and all corporate
\n                                                            6<\/span>
\nbenefits admissible on these shares may be held in abeyance<\/p>\n
till the orders passed by the learned Special Judge.<\/p>\n
5.   In view of the above stated circumstances, the first<\/p>\n
respondent requested the fourth respondent-company to<\/p>\n
transfer the shares in the name of the buyer who purchased<\/p>\n
the same in the open market.          The fourth respondent-<\/p>\n
company vide their letter dated 8th October, 1997 informed the<\/p>\n
first respondent that one Mr. Mahendra Pal Tyagi – appellant<\/p>\n
herein was holding the said 200 shares under Ledger Folio No.<\/p>\n
128027 bearing Share Certificate Nos. 58193, 46706, 179855<\/p>\n
which he claimed having been lost and requested the fourth<\/p>\n
respondent-company to issue duplicate shares in lieu of the<\/p>\n
aforesaid original lost share certificates.   The appellant also<\/p>\n
submitted the Police Report, indemnity bond, affidavit along<\/p>\n
with the request letter to the fourth respondent-Company who<\/p>\n
issued   duplicate   shares   to the appellant under      Share<\/p>\n
Certificate Nos. 191549-191552.         The duplicate shares<\/p>\n
subsequently were lodged by the first respondent for transfer<\/p>\n
in his name and, accordingly, the fourth respondent-company
\n                                                         7<\/span>
\ntransferred the said shares on 18th October, 1994 in the name<\/p>\n
of the first respondent.\n<\/p>\n
6.   The fourth respondent-company thereafter received a<\/p>\n
letter dated 29th February, 1996 from the office of the second<\/p>\n
respondent-Custodian whereby the Custodian asked the<\/p>\n
fourth respondent-company to “stop transfer” of certain<\/p>\n
shares including the shares which are the subject matter of<\/p>\n
these proceedings and also held in abeyance all the benefits<\/p>\n
accruing on those shares as the said shares were seized by the<\/p>\n
CBI at the time of raid laid on the places of Late Harshad S.<\/p>\n
Mehta. The letter of 8th October, 1997 revealed that the list<\/p>\n
furnished by the second respondent-Custodian includes<\/p>\n
original shares of the appellant which he allegedly lost. The<\/p>\n
fourth respondent-company, therefore marked “stop transfer”<\/p>\n
against the duplicate shares which were transferred in the<\/p>\n
name of the first respondent and advised the first respondent<\/p>\n
to approach the stock exchange through whom the first<\/p>\n
respondent purchased those shares so that through proper<\/p>\n
channel, the introducing broker as well as the share holder,<\/p>\n
i.e. the appellant could be asked to replace the said shares
\n                                                             8<\/span>
\nwith good shares.     The first respondent admitted that he<\/p>\n
purchased 200 shares from the open market through their<\/p>\n
share broker and paid the consultation thereof and thereafter<\/p>\n
the shares were also registered in his name by the fourth<\/p>\n
respondent-company as per the provisions of the Companies<\/p>\n
Act, 1956 and he had absolutely no knowledge about the<\/p>\n
duplicate shares being issued in the name of the appellant by<\/p>\n
the fourth respondent-company. He claimed that in the facts<\/p>\n
and   circumstances    narrated    in   the   application,   first<\/p>\n
respondent is the real and only owner of these shares and,<\/p>\n
accordingly, all corporate benefits accrued thereon since the<\/p>\n
date of registration of the 250 shares in his name, be paid to<\/p>\n
him in the interest of justice.   By reasons of the impugned<\/p>\n
order dated 10.10.2003, the learned Special Judge allowed<\/p>\n
Misc. Application 186 of 2000 filed by the first respondent. It<\/p>\n
was directed:-\n<\/p>\n
          “This application relates to 250 shares of
\n          respondent no.3 company. It appears
\n          that the respondent no.4 who was
\n          holding these shares had sold the shares
\n          on the Stock Exchange which were
\n          purchased by the notified party. Taking
\n          advantage of the fact that the notified
\n                                              9<\/span>
\nparty because of the notification could
\nnot apply for transfer of the shares, the
\nrespondent no.4 applied for duplicate
\nshares by making a misrepresentation
\nthat he has lost the shares and received
\nfrom the Company the duplicate shares.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Those duplicate shares were again sold
\nand they were now purchased by the
\napplicant. The principal prayer in the
\napplication is for lifting of attachment on
\nthese 250 shares. It is obvious that
\nthese 250 duplicate shares have been
\nissued by the Company because of
\nmisrepresentation        made      by   the
\nrespondent no.4. By an order dated 16th
\nJuly, 2003, the respondent no.4 was
\ndirected to deposit in this Court an
\namount        of    Rs.6,00,000\/-.      The
\nrespondent no.4 has not obeyed this
\norder.    In the affidavit filed by the
\nrespondent no.4, the explanation that
\nhas been given by him is incapable of
\nbeing accepted. There are no documents
\nproduced in support of that explanation.\n<\/p>\n
It is thus clear that there is no question
\nof attachment of 250 shares of the
\nrespondent no.3 company being lifted.\n<\/p>\n
The relief to which the applicant would
\nbe entitled is to recover from the
\nrespondent no.4 the value of the shares.\n<\/p>\n
It is clear from the report submitted by
\nthe Custodian, that these shares were
\npurchased by the Applicant in the month
\nof June 1994 and payment for it was
\nmade by cheque dated 6th July 1994 and
\nthe amount was Rs.2,94,400\/-.           The
\napplicant therefore would be entitled to a
\ndecree against the respondent no.4 in
\n                                                          1<\/span>
\n          this amount. The application therefore is
\n          disposed off in the following terms.<\/p>\n
          The respondent no.4 is directed to pay to
\n          the     applicant     an     amount        of
\n          Rs.2,92,400\/- with interest at the rate of
\n          18% p.a. from 6th July 1994 till
\n          realization. Application is disposed off.”<\/p>\n
7.   Being aggrieved, the appellant filed Review Application<\/p>\n
being Misc. Application No.178 of 2004 under clause (f) of<\/p>\n
sub-section (5) of Section 9-A of the Act before the learned<\/p>\n
Special Judge.   The said application came to be rejected on<\/p>\n
14.07.2004 vide order, which reads as under:-<\/p>\n
          “Called for hearing and Final Disposal
\n          None for the applicant<\/p>\n
          Mr. Modi i\/b        Yogesh     Thakur     for
\n          Respondent No.1
\n          Mr. J. Chandran i\/b M\/s P.M. & Mithi &
\n          Co. for the Custodian\/Respondent No.2
\n          Mr. V.M. Singh i\/b Arun Mehta for
\n          Respondent No.4
\n                         Coram D.K. Deshmukh, J.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                         Judge, Special Court
\n                         Dated 14th July, 2004
\n          P.C.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                        1<\/span><\/p>\n
          Matter called twice. None present for the
\n          applicant. Application rejected.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
8.   Again, the appellant preferred Misc. Application No.263<\/p>\n
of 2004 for restoration of the Review Petition, which was<\/p>\n
dismissed and the following order came to be passed on<\/p>\n
18.08.2004:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          “Even assuming that due to mistake of
\n          the lawyer, lawyer could not remain
\n          present and therefore, the review petition
\n          was rejected, after having heard the
\n          learned counsel appearing for the
\n          Applicant on the review application, I find
\n          that there is no reason to review the
\n          order    dated    10th  October,     2003.
\n          Applicant was Respondent No.4 in Misc.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          Application No.186 of 2000. By order
\n          dated 16th July, 2003, he was directed to
\n          deposit an amount of Rs.6 lakh in the
\n          court.    He did not obey that order.
\n          Therefore, the Applicant is not entitled to
\n          any indulgence from this court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          Misc. Application disposed of.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                             1<\/span><\/p>\n
9.    Hence, the appellant has assailed the above-said three<\/p>\n
orders before this Court in these appeals preferred under<\/p>\n
Section 10 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
10.   During the pendency of the appeals in this Court, the<\/p>\n
legal representatives of late Harshad Mehta are substituted as<\/p>\n
respondents Nos. 3(i), (ii) and (iii).\n<\/p>\n
11.   Mr. Abhishek Vikas Singh, learned counsel appearing on<\/p>\n
behalf of the appellant, in assailing the orders of the learned<\/p>\n
Special Judge, inter alia, contended that the learned Special<\/p>\n
Judge did not appreciate the fact that the original shares were<\/p>\n
not valid and legal and had come to the hands of the notified<\/p>\n
person (deceased Harshad Mehta) in illegal and wrongful<\/p>\n
manner and were never transferred and registered in his name<\/p>\n
in accordance with law and as such, the appellant could not<\/p>\n
have been penalized for the acts and deeds of a third person,<\/p>\n
who had acquired the shares in illegal and clandestine<\/p>\n
manner. He submitted that the action of the appellant being<\/p>\n
bona fide and reasonable,        he had faced loss at last stage,<\/p>\n
even when the duplicate shares were already stood transferred<\/p>\n
in his name in due course after following all legal procedures
\n                                                            1<\/span>
\nand due application of law.        The learned counsel then<\/p>\n
contended that the orders of the learned Special Judge<\/p>\n
impugned in these appeals have resulted in manifest error<\/p>\n
and miscarriage of justice to the appellant, which deserve to<\/p>\n
be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
12.   Mr. Rohit Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf<\/p>\n
of the first respondent, on the other hand, would inter alia<\/p>\n
submit that the learned Special Judge passed an order based<\/p>\n
upon the material on record which would reveal that the<\/p>\n
appellant had committed a fraud of selling 200 shares on the<\/p>\n
Stock   Exchange   and   thereafter   applying    to the   fourth<\/p>\n
respondent-company for duplicate shares on the plea that the<\/p>\n
said shares had been stolen.     He also submitted that the<\/p>\n
learned Special Judge had not burdened the appellant with<\/p>\n
payment for the entire amount of 800 shares as alleged, but in<\/p>\n
fact has directed payment of Rs.2,92,400\/- with interest<\/p>\n
thereon, which is the value of 250 shares only.<\/p>\n
13.   Mr. Subramanium Prasad, learned counsel appearing on<\/p>\n
behalf of second respondent-Custodian, would contend that<\/p>\n
the appellant had sold the shares in question to late Harshad
\n                                                          1<\/span>
\nMehta, a notified person under Section 3(2) of the Act and<\/p>\n
deceased Harshad Mehta could not apply for transfer of those<\/p>\n
shares, the appellant, on a misrepresentation that he had lost<\/p>\n
the shares, applied for and got duplicate shares from the<\/p>\n
fourth respondent-company, which were also sold by the<\/p>\n
appellant to first respondent.      Learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
respondents, in nutshell, supported the orders of the learned<\/p>\n
Special Judge which, according to them, cannot be found<\/p>\n
faulty or invalid on any grounds whatsoever as alleged by the<\/p>\n
appellant.\n<\/p>\n
14.   We have given our thoughtful and anxious consideration<\/p>\n
to the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
parties and perused the material on record. The contentions<\/p>\n
of the learned counsel for the appellant at the first blush<\/p>\n
sound attractive, yet we are afraid to accept the same.<\/p>\n
15.   The undisputed facts are that the first respondent<\/p>\n
purchased 800 shares including 200 shares (the subject<\/p>\n
matter of the proceedings) of fourth respondent-company in<\/p>\n
open market in the months of July and August, 1994 through<\/p>\n
its share broker M\/s. Jamnadas Morarjee & Co., C-4 Defence
\n                                                              1<\/span>
\nColony, New Delhi-24.          The fourth respondent-company<\/p>\n
allotted 50 bonus shares to him against the said 200 shares in<\/p>\n
the ratio of 1:4. In all, the dispute before the learned Special<\/p>\n
Judge was limited to 250 shares. Late Harshad S. Mehta, who<\/p>\n
was a party – third respondent herein, is represented through<\/p>\n
his legal representatives Nos. 3(i), (ii) and (iii) respectively.<\/p>\n
Indisputably, deceased Harshad Mehta was a notified person<\/p>\n
under sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the Act and the appellant<\/p>\n
transacted the said shares with the deceased Harshad S.<\/p>\n
Mehta entered after the first day of April, 1991 and on or<\/p>\n
before 1st June, 1992, the stipulated period covered under the<\/p>\n
Act.     Claim submitted by the first respondent before the<\/p>\n
learned Special Judge would arise out of the transaction of the<\/p>\n
said 250 shares between Late Harshad S. Mehta and the<\/p>\n
appellant during the aforesaid period.       The entire properties<\/p>\n
belonging to the notified party on the day of notification would<\/p>\n
stand attached in terms of Section 3(2) of the Act.            The<\/p>\n
appellant knowing fully well that he has already sold the<\/p>\n
shares    to   late   Hashad   S.   Mehta,    he   made   a   false<\/p>\n
representation to the fourth respondent-company that as the
\n                                                            1<\/span>
\nappellant had lost original shares, therefore, duplicate shares<\/p>\n
were allotted to him which stood in his name since late<\/p>\n
Harshad S. Mehta had not applied for change of the name.<\/p>\n
The whole exercise was done by the appellant on the basis of<\/p>\n
his mis-representation. This Court in L.S. Synthetics Ltd. v.<\/p>\n
Fairgrowth Financial Services Limited & Anr.<\/a> (2004) 11<\/p>\n
SCC 456, held that Section 3(3) of the Act should be literally<\/p>\n
construed and all properties belonging to the notified party on<\/p>\n
the date of notification would stand attached.<\/p>\n
16.   In terms of the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 3<\/p>\n
of the Act, the properties belonging to deceased Harshad S.<\/p>\n
Mehta being a notified person stood attached.              Such<\/p>\n
attachment being automatic, no finding was required to be<\/p>\n
arrived at that the same had been acquired during the notified<\/p>\n
period. In Tejkumar Balakrishna Ruia v. A.K. Menon<\/a><\/p>\n
(1997) 9 SCC 123, this Court held that the terms of sub-<\/p>\n
section (3) Section 3 are clear that the property that belongs to<\/p>\n
a notified person stands attached simultaneously with the<\/p>\n
issue of notification that makes him a notified party. It is said<\/p>\n
that the words `on or from the date of notification’ indicate the
\n                                                           1<\/span>
\npoint of time at which the attachment takes effect; this is<\/p>\n
reiterated by the words `shall stand attached simultaneously<\/p>\n
with the issue of the notification’.    Further that this also<\/p>\n
indicates that no special notification or order in regard to the<\/p>\n
attachment is necessary.   In the latest judgment of this Court<\/p>\n
in Ashwin S. Mehta & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2006)<\/p>\n
2 SCC 385, this Court reiterated that property, be it shares,<\/p>\n
dividends and bonus and rights shares that belongs to a<\/p>\n
notified person would also be attached property.<\/p>\n
17.   In this view of the matter, learned Judge of the Special<\/p>\n
Court has rightly concluded that 200 duplicate shares were<\/p>\n
obtained by the appellant by misrepresentation. The said 200<\/p>\n
shares plus 50 Bonus shares were attached by the CBI in<\/p>\n
proceedings initiated against deceased Harshad S. Mehta,<\/p>\n
therefore, the attached shares of the fourth respondent-<\/p>\n
company could not be transferred to any party. The record of<\/p>\n
second respondent-Custodian would reveal that 250 shares<\/p>\n
were purchased by the appellant in the month of June, 1994<\/p>\n
and payment of Rs.2,92,400\/- was made by cheque dated 6th<\/p>\n
July, 1994.    In these circumstances, the learned Special
\n                                                                      1<\/span>
\nJudge directed the appellant to pay to the first respondent an<\/p>\n
amount of Rs. 2,92,400\/- with interest at the rate of 18% per<\/p>\n
annum from 6th July, 1994 till the date of realization.<\/p>\n
18.   In the backdrop of the facts and circumstances and in<\/p>\n
the light of the provisions of law, in our view, the orders of the<\/p>\n
learned Special Judge impugned in these appeals do not<\/p>\n
suffer from any infirmity or illegality warranting interference in<\/p>\n
exercise of appellate power.\n<\/p>\n
19.   For the reasons aforementioned, we do not find any merit<\/p>\n
in these appeals which are dismissed, accordingly. Parties are<\/p>\n
left to bear their own costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                  ………………………………….J.
\n                                   (C. K. Thakker)<\/p>\n
                                  ………………………………….J.
\n                                   (Lokeshwar Singh Panta)<\/p>\n
New Delhi,
\nJune 05, 2008.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Maghendra Pal Tyagi vs Jayant Davar & Ors on 5 June, 2008 Author: L S Panta Bench: C.K. Thakker, Lokeshwar Singh Panta REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 3034-3036 OF 2005 Maghendra Pal Tyagi ….. Appellant Versus Jayant Davar & Ors. ….. Respondents JUDGMENT […]<\/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-115790","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMaghendra Pal Tyagi vs Jayant Davar & Ors on 5 June, 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\/maghendra-pal-tyagi-vs-jayant-davar-ors-on-5-june-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Maghendra Pal Tyagi vs Jayant Davar & Ors on 5 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maghendra-pal-tyagi-vs-jayant-davar-ors-on-5-june-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=\"2008-06-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-19T15:55:13+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maghendra-pal-tyagi-vs-jayant-davar-ors-on-5-june-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maghendra-pal-tyagi-vs-jayant-davar-ors-on-5-june-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Maghendra Pal Tyagi vs Jayant Davar & Ors on 5 June, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-19T15:55:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maghendra-pal-tyagi-vs-jayant-davar-ors-on-5-june-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3060,\"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\\\/maghendra-pal-tyagi-vs-jayant-davar-ors-on-5-june-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maghendra-pal-tyagi-vs-jayant-davar-ors-on-5-june-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maghendra-pal-tyagi-vs-jayant-davar-ors-on-5-june-2008\",\"name\":\"Maghendra Pal Tyagi vs Jayant Davar & Ors on 5 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-19T15:55:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maghendra-pal-tyagi-vs-jayant-davar-ors-on-5-june-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maghendra-pal-tyagi-vs-jayant-davar-ors-on-5-june-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maghendra-pal-tyagi-vs-jayant-davar-ors-on-5-june-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Maghendra Pal Tyagi vs Jayant Davar & Ors on 5 June, 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":"Maghendra Pal Tyagi vs Jayant Davar & Ors on 5 June, 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\/maghendra-pal-tyagi-vs-jayant-davar-ors-on-5-june-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Maghendra Pal Tyagi vs Jayant Davar & Ors on 5 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maghendra-pal-tyagi-vs-jayant-davar-ors-on-5-june-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-06-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-19T15:55:13+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maghendra-pal-tyagi-vs-jayant-davar-ors-on-5-june-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maghendra-pal-tyagi-vs-jayant-davar-ors-on-5-june-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Maghendra Pal Tyagi vs Jayant Davar & Ors on 5 June, 2008","datePublished":"2008-06-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-19T15:55:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maghendra-pal-tyagi-vs-jayant-davar-ors-on-5-june-2008"},"wordCount":3060,"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\/maghendra-pal-tyagi-vs-jayant-davar-ors-on-5-june-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maghendra-pal-tyagi-vs-jayant-davar-ors-on-5-june-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maghendra-pal-tyagi-vs-jayant-davar-ors-on-5-june-2008","name":"Maghendra Pal Tyagi vs Jayant Davar & Ors on 5 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-06-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-19T15:55:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maghendra-pal-tyagi-vs-jayant-davar-ors-on-5-june-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maghendra-pal-tyagi-vs-jayant-davar-ors-on-5-june-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maghendra-pal-tyagi-vs-jayant-davar-ors-on-5-june-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Maghendra Pal Tyagi vs Jayant Davar & Ors on 5 June, 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\/115790","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=115790"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/115790\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=115790"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=115790"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=115790"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}