{"id":115889,"date":"1970-09-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1970-09-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/erach-f-d-mehta-vs-minoo-f-d-mehta-on-9-september-1970"},"modified":"2018-09-08T08:41:34","modified_gmt":"2018-09-08T03:11:34","slug":"erach-f-d-mehta-vs-minoo-f-d-mehta-on-9-september-1970","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/erach-f-d-mehta-vs-minoo-f-d-mehta-on-9-september-1970","title":{"rendered":"Erach F. D. Mehta vs Minoo F. D. Mehta on 9 September, 1970"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Erach F. D. Mehta vs Minoo F. D. Mehta on 9 September, 1970<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1971 AIR 1653, \t\t  1971 SCR  (2)\t 99<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S C.<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Shah, J.C.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nERACH F. D. MEHTA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMINOO F. D. MEHTA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n09\/09\/1970\n\nBENCH:\nSHAH, J.C.\nBENCH:\nSHAH, J.C.\nHEGDE, K.S.\nGROVER, A.N.\n\nCITATION:\n 1971 AIR 1653\t\t  1971 SCR  (2)\t 99\n\n\nACT:\nArbitration  Partnership-Clause in deed of  partnership\t for\nreference  of  disputes to Arbitration-One of  the  partners\nsetting\t up  agreement\tthat  partnership  be\tdissolved-If\ndispute\t regarding existence of such agreement one  touching\nPartnership Agreement.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nA  partnership deed entered into between the  appellant\t and\nthe  respondent\t contained a clause for\t reference  \"of\t all\ndisputes  and  questions whatsoever which may  arise  during\npartnership or afterwards between the partners touching\t the\npartnership agreement including division of assets, debts or\nliabilities\",  to  arbitration.\t When  disputes\t arose,\t the\nrespondent  claimed  that the partners had reached  an\toral\nagreement stipulating that the appellant was to retire\tfrom\nthe  partnership  and  was to assign  and  transfer  to\t the\nrespondent his rights, title and interest in the partnership\nbusiness.   The appellant denied the two agreements set\t Lip\nby  the respondent.  Subsequently, the dispute was  referred\nto  arbitration.   The appellant  submitted  to\t arbitration\nwithout\t prejudice to his stand that the arbitrators had  no\njurisdiction  to  go  into  the\t question  of  the   alleged\nagreement  Set up by the respondent.  The  arbitrators\twere\nunable to make an award within the period prescribed by\t the\nArbitration   Act.    The  appellant   then   submitted\t  an\napplication to the High Court under s. 33 of the Arbitration\nAct contending that the agreement set tip by the  respondent\ngave rise to new rights and obligations between the  parties\nand  to a dispute relating to these rights  and\t obligations\ncreated\t by the new agreement the arbitration clause of\t the\npartnership  agreement bad no application.  The\t High  Court\nrejected the contention.  Dismissing the appeal,\nHELD  :\t The clause \"all disputes and  questions  whatsoever\nwhich may arise during the partnership or afterwards between\nthe  partners touching the partnership\tagreement  including\ndivision of assets, debts and liabilities\" clearly covers  a\ndispute\t whether the parties agreed that the partnership  be\ndissolved.   The  agreement set up by the  respondent  while\nmaintaining the covenants of the partnership agreement seeks\nto  dissolve  the partnership and to settle the\t rights\t and\nobligations  of the partners arising out of the\t dissolution\nof  the partnership.  A dispute whether the partnership\t was\ndissolved by mutual agreement was clearly a dispute  between\nthe parties touching the partnership agreement. [102 F-G]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals No.  2535  of<br \/>\n1969.\n<\/p>\n<p>Appeal\tby special leave from the judgment dated August\t 28,<br \/>\nSeptember 1, 1969 of the Bombay High Court in Award Petition<br \/>\nNo. 41 of 1969.\n<\/p>\n<p>S.   T.\t Desai,\t S.  P. Bharucha, P. C.\t Bhartari,  for\t the<br \/>\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>M.   C.\t Chagla, F. S. Nariman, P. R. Nariman, P. R.  Mridid<br \/>\nand I. N. Shroff, for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">100<\/span><\/p>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nShah, J. This appeal with special leave is filed against the<br \/>\njudgment  of  a\t single Judge of the High  Court  of  Bombay<br \/>\ndismissing a petition under s. 33 of the Indian\t Arbitration<br \/>\nAct, 1940.\n<\/p>\n<p>On December 22, 1966, the appellant and the respondent,\t who<br \/>\nare  brothers,\tentered\t into an agreement to  carry  on  in<br \/>\npartnership  three  businesses\t(1) Messrs  F.\tD.  Mehta  &amp;<br \/>\nCompany; (2) The Great Western Stores; and (3) Dr.  Writer&#8217;s<br \/>\nChocolates  and Canning Company.  The relevant terms of\t the<br \/>\ndeed of partnership were as follows :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;1.  The agreement has come into\teffect\tfrom<br \/>\n\t      the 2nd day of November 1966.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      3.    The duration of the partnership shall be<br \/>\n\t      at will.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      7.    The net profits of the partnership after<br \/>\n\t      payment of all the outgoings incidental to the<br \/>\n\t      partnership  business  shall  belong  to\t the<br \/>\n\t      partners\tin  equal  shares  and\tthey   shall<br \/>\n\t      likewise\tbear  all losses including  loss  of<br \/>\n\t      capital.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      15.All  disputes and  questions  whatsoever<br \/>\n\t      which  shall either during the partnership<br \/>\n\t      or  afterwards arise between the\tpartners  or<br \/>\n\t      between\tone   of  them\tand   the   personal<br \/>\n\t      representatives of the other or between  their<br \/>\n\t      respective  personal representatives  touching<br \/>\n\t      these  presents or the interpretation of\tthis<br \/>\n\t      deed  or the construction of  the\t application<br \/>\n\t      thereof\tor  any\t clause\t or   thing   herein<br \/>\n\t      contained or any account valuation or division<br \/>\n\t      of  assets  debts\t or liabilites\tto  be\tmade<br \/>\n\t      hereunder or as to any act deed or  commission<br \/>\n\t      of either partner or as to any act which ought<br \/>\n\t      to be done by the partners in dispute or as to<br \/>\n\t      any  other matter in any way relating  to\t the<br \/>\n\t      partnership   business  or  the  affairs\t and<br \/>\n\t      transactions thereof or the rights, duties  or<br \/>\n\t      liabilities  of  either  partner\tunder  these<br \/>\n\t      presents shall be referred to two\t Arbitrators<br \/>\n\t      one  to  be  appointed by each  party  to\t the<br \/>\n\t      difference  in accordance with and subject  to<br \/>\n\t      the provisions of the Indian Arbitration\tAct,<br \/>\n\t      or any statutory modification thereof for\t the<br \/>\n\t      time being in force.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Disputes  arose\t between the two partners.   The  respondent<br \/>\nclaimed\t that  on January 17, 1968 the partners\t reached  an<br \/>\noral  agreement stipulating that the appellant shall  retire<br \/>\nfrom  the partnership and shall assign and transfer  to\t the<br \/>\nrespondent his right, title-and interest in the\t partnership<br \/>\nbusiness  against  payment  of the price fixed\tby  Mr.\t Jal<br \/>\nDesai,\ta  Chartered Accountant.  The appellant\t denied\t the<br \/>\nagreement set up by the respondent.  On June<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">101<\/span><br \/>\n13, 1968 the respondent addressed a letter to the  appellant<br \/>\nsetting\t out the terms of the oral agreement  dated  January<br \/>\n17,  1968 and intimated that &#8220;having regard to the  attitude<br \/>\nadopted by&#8221; the appellant &#8220;there was no alternative left but<br \/>\nto  have  a legal arbitration&#8221;, and that Mr. K.\t M.  Diwanji<br \/>\nSolicitor  of  the  High Court of Bombay  was  nominated  an<br \/>\narbitrator  by the respondent, and the appellant was  called<br \/>\nupon  to nominate his arbitrator &#8220;so that the  disputes\t and<br \/>\ndifferences  between  the parties may be  resolved&#8221;  by\t the<br \/>\npartnership  deed.   This request was repeated in  a  letter<br \/>\ndated  June 14, 1968.  By his reply dated June 26, 1968\t the<br \/>\nappellant denied the agreement and without prejudice to\t his<br \/>\ncontention  nominated Mr. J. B. Maneckji as arbitrator.\t  He<br \/>\nsimultaneously\tintimated  that if the arbitrators  seek  to<br \/>\narbitrate  on  &#8220;the issue of the alleged agreement  of&#8221;\t the<br \/>\nappellant  &#8220;to go out of the firm&#8221;, he &#8220;would  contend\tthat<br \/>\nthey had no power to do so&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  arbitrators  were unable to make an  award\t within\t the<br \/>\nperiod\tprescribed  by\tthe Arbitration Act.   There  was  a<br \/>\nreference  to  Mr. Mehta an Advocate of the  High  Court  of<br \/>\nBombay\tas umpire to adjudicate the dispute.  The  appellant<br \/>\nthen  submitted an application to the High Court  of  Bombay<br \/>\nunder  s.  33  of  the Arbitration Act\tpraying\t (a)  for  a<br \/>\ndeclaration that there was no existing arbitration agreement<br \/>\nin  regard to the dispute in petition as to whether  or\t not<br \/>\nthe  agreement\twas  entered into  between  the\t parties  on<br \/>\nJanuary\t 17, 1968 as stated in the statement of claim  filed<br \/>\nby the respondent before the arbitrators on October 8, 1969;\n<\/p>\n<p>(b)  for a declaration that even if the deed of\t partnership<br \/>\ncontained  an arbitration agreement the dispute\t before\t the<br \/>\numpire\t&#8220;fell outside the scope of the arbitration  clause&#8221;;\n<\/p>\n<p>(c)  for  a declaration that the arbitration  agreement,  if<br \/>\nany, relating to the said dispute was invalid; and (d) for a<br \/>\ndeclaration  that  the umpire had no jurisdiction  to  enter<br \/>\nupon  an  adjudication\tof  the\t said  dispute\tbetween\t the<br \/>\nparties.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  petition was heard by Kantawala, J. Before the  learned<br \/>\nJudge  four  contentions  were\traised\tin  support  of\t the<br \/>\npetition<br \/>\n\t      (1)   that  the  agreement dated\tJanuary\t 17,<br \/>\n\t      1968 as alleged by the respondent gave rise to<br \/>\n\t      new   rights  and\t obligations   between\t the<br \/>\n\t      parties,\tand to a dispute relating  to  those<br \/>\n\t      rights  and  obligations created\tby  the\t new<br \/>\n\t      agreement cl. 15 of the partnership  agreement<br \/>\n\t      had no application;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t      (2)   that  the claim made by  the  respondent<br \/>\n\t      relating\tto the agreement dated\tJanuary\t 17,<br \/>\n\t      1968  was not a claim which arose out  of\t the<br \/>\n\t      deed of partnership;\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">\t      102<\/span><\/p>\n<p>\t      (3)   that the dispute related to an agreement<br \/>\n\t      complete\t independent   of   the\t  deed\t  of<br \/>\n\t      partnership  and consequently it fell  outside<br \/>\n\t      the ambit of the arbitration clause  contained<br \/>\n\t      in cl. 15 of the deed of partnership; and<br \/>\n\t      (4)   that  in any event the umpire could\t not<br \/>\n\t      grant specific performance of the agreement.<br \/>\nThe learned Judge rejected all the contentions and dismissed<br \/>\nthe  petition.\t With  special\tleave,\tthe;  appellant\t has<br \/>\nappealed to this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>There  were  only two partners who agreed to  carry  on\t the<br \/>\nbusiness in partnership.  Under the agreement dated  January<br \/>\n17, 1968 set up by the respondent, the appellant had  agreed<br \/>\n&#8220;to   go   out\tof  the\t partnership&#8221;  and  to\t accept\t  in<br \/>\nconsideration  thereof the value of his share as  determined<br \/>\nby  the named valuer.  It was in substance an agreement\t for<br \/>\ndissolution  of\t the  partnership and  for  payment  to\t the<br \/>\nappellant  value  of his share in  the\tpartnership  assets.<br \/>\nThere is no dispute that an agreement of partnership at will<br \/>\nmay  by\t mutual agreement be dissolved and  the\t rights\t and<br \/>\nobligations of the parties settled under the terms  thereof.<br \/>\nThe clause &#8220;all disputes and questions whatsoever which\t may<br \/>\narise  ,during\tthe partnership or  afterwards\tbetween\t the<br \/>\npartners   touching  the  partnership  agreement   including<br \/>\ndivision  of assets, debts or liabilites&#8221; clearly covered  a<br \/>\ndispute\t whether the parties agreed that the partnership  be<br \/>\ndissolved.\n<\/p>\n<p>We are not concerned at this stage to determine whether\t the<br \/>\nagreement  set\tup  by the respondent was  in  fact  reached<br \/>\nbetween the partners on January 17, 1968 : that is a  matter<br \/>\nto  be\tdecided by the arbitrators.  A dispute\twhether\t the<br \/>\npartnership was dissolved by mutual agreement was clearly  a<br \/>\ndispute\t  between  the\tparties\t touching  the\t partnership<br \/>\nagreement.   We\t are unable to agree with  counsel  for\t the<br \/>\nappellant  that the agreement set up by the  respondent\t did<br \/>\nnot  stipulate\tdissolution of the partnership.\t It  is\t the<br \/>\ncase  of the respondent which he had set up in\tthe  corres-<br \/>\npondence,, that it was agreed between him and the  appellant<br \/>\nthat  the latter was to retire from the\t partnership.\tWhen<br \/>\nthe  partnership  consisted  of only two  partners  and\t one<br \/>\npartner\t agreed\t to retire, there can be no doubt  that\t the<br \/>\nagreement  that one of the partners will retire\t amounts  to<br \/>\ndissolution of the partnership.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  argument  that  the agreement dated  January  17,\t1968<br \/>\nsupersedes  the\t partnership agreement\tdated  December\t 22,<br \/>\n1966, including the arbitration clause is, in our _judgment,<br \/>\nfutile.\t  The  agreement  set up  by  the  respondent  while<br \/>\nmaintaining its covenants seeks to dissolve the\t partnership<br \/>\nand to settle the rights and<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">103<\/span><br \/>\nobligations  of the partners arising out of the\t dissolution<br \/>\nof the partnership.\n<\/p>\n<p>It  was\t not urged that the arbitrator\twas  incompetent  to<br \/>\ndirect\tthat the appellant shall carry out the terms of\t the<br \/>\nagreement  to  which he was a party.  But  counsel  for\t the<br \/>\nappellant  contended  that  the\t agreement  set\t up  by\t the<br \/>\nrespondent  extinguished  the authority of  the\t arbitrators<br \/>\nbecause\t it provided for a subsidiary agreement to refer  to<br \/>\narbitration the dispute to the valuer relating to the  value<br \/>\nof the share payable to the appellant.\tThe agreement set up<br \/>\nby  the respondent provides that the appellant\twill  retire<br \/>\nfrom the partnership upon payment of a price to be fixed  by<br \/>\nthe  valuer.  But it is not the case of the respondent\tthat<br \/>\nthe valuer had the authority of an arbitrator.\tWe need\t not<br \/>\nexpress\t any  opinion on the question whether in  a  dispute<br \/>\nwhich\tis  agreed  by\tthe  parties  to  be  submitted\t  to<br \/>\narbitration, reference to arbitration cannot be made  merely<br \/>\nbecause subsequent to the arbitration agreement the  parties<br \/>\nhave agreed that a part of the dispute shall be referred  to<br \/>\nor  decided  by\t some  person  other  than  the\t arbitrator.<br \/>\nWhether or not the arbitrators are bound by that  subsequent<br \/>\nagreement, and the arbitration qua such an arrangement could<br \/>\nbe deemed superseded, is not a matter which we are concerned<br \/>\nto decide at this stage.  Primarily the dispute between\t the<br \/>\nparties\t is as to the truth of &#8216;the agreement set up by\t the<br \/>\nrespondent  relating to the dissolution of  the\t partnership<br \/>\nand the dispute with regard to that agreement raised by\t the<br \/>\nappellant   can,  in  our  judgment,  be  referred  to\t the<br \/>\narbitrators under cl. 15 of the partnership agreement.<br \/>\nNo  argument  has been advanced before us on the  last\tplea<br \/>\nraised\tbefore\tthe High Court.\t We are not called  upon  to<br \/>\ndecide\tthe extent of the power of the arbitrators under  an<br \/>\narbitration agreement that question does not strictly  arise<br \/>\nin a petition under<br \/>\ns.   33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.\n<\/p>\n<p>The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n<pre>Y.P.\t\t\t\t\t\t      Appeal\ndismissed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">104<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Erach F. D. Mehta vs Minoo F. D. Mehta on 9 September, 1970 Equivalent citations: 1971 AIR 1653, 1971 SCR (2) 99 Author: S C. Bench: Shah, J.C. PETITIONER: ERACH F. D. MEHTA Vs. RESPONDENT: MINOO F. D. MEHTA DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09\/09\/1970 BENCH: SHAH, J.C. BENCH: SHAH, J.C. HEGDE, K.S. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-115889","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Erach F. D. Mehta vs Minoo F. D. Mehta on 9 September, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/erach-f-d-mehta-vs-minoo-f-d-mehta-on-9-september-1970\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Erach F. D. Mehta vs Minoo F. D. Mehta on 9 September, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/erach-f-d-mehta-vs-minoo-f-d-mehta-on-9-september-1970\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1970-09-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-08T03:11:34+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/erach-f-d-mehta-vs-minoo-f-d-mehta-on-9-september-1970#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/erach-f-d-mehta-vs-minoo-f-d-mehta-on-9-september-1970\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Erach F. D. Mehta vs Minoo F. D. Mehta on 9 September, 1970\",\"datePublished\":\"1970-09-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-08T03:11:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/erach-f-d-mehta-vs-minoo-f-d-mehta-on-9-september-1970\"},\"wordCount\":1649,\"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\\\/erach-f-d-mehta-vs-minoo-f-d-mehta-on-9-september-1970#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/erach-f-d-mehta-vs-minoo-f-d-mehta-on-9-september-1970\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/erach-f-d-mehta-vs-minoo-f-d-mehta-on-9-september-1970\",\"name\":\"Erach F. D. Mehta vs Minoo F. D. Mehta on 9 September, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1970-09-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-08T03:11:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/erach-f-d-mehta-vs-minoo-f-d-mehta-on-9-september-1970#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/erach-f-d-mehta-vs-minoo-f-d-mehta-on-9-september-1970\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/erach-f-d-mehta-vs-minoo-f-d-mehta-on-9-september-1970#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Erach F. D. Mehta vs Minoo F. D. Mehta on 9 September, 1970\"}]},{\"@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":"Erach F. D. Mehta vs Minoo F. D. Mehta on 9 September, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/erach-f-d-mehta-vs-minoo-f-d-mehta-on-9-september-1970","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Erach F. D. Mehta vs Minoo F. D. Mehta on 9 September, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/erach-f-d-mehta-vs-minoo-f-d-mehta-on-9-september-1970","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1970-09-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-08T03:11:34+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/erach-f-d-mehta-vs-minoo-f-d-mehta-on-9-september-1970#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/erach-f-d-mehta-vs-minoo-f-d-mehta-on-9-september-1970"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Erach F. D. Mehta vs Minoo F. D. Mehta on 9 September, 1970","datePublished":"1970-09-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-08T03:11:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/erach-f-d-mehta-vs-minoo-f-d-mehta-on-9-september-1970"},"wordCount":1649,"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\/erach-f-d-mehta-vs-minoo-f-d-mehta-on-9-september-1970#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/erach-f-d-mehta-vs-minoo-f-d-mehta-on-9-september-1970","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/erach-f-d-mehta-vs-minoo-f-d-mehta-on-9-september-1970","name":"Erach F. D. Mehta vs Minoo F. D. Mehta on 9 September, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1970-09-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-08T03:11:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/erach-f-d-mehta-vs-minoo-f-d-mehta-on-9-september-1970#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/erach-f-d-mehta-vs-minoo-f-d-mehta-on-9-september-1970"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/erach-f-d-mehta-vs-minoo-f-d-mehta-on-9-september-1970#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Erach F. D. Mehta vs Minoo F. D. Mehta on 9 September, 1970"}]},{"@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\/115889","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=115889"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/115889\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=115889"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=115889"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=115889"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}