{"id":116602,"date":"2009-11-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-bhalla-and-others-vs-indira-puri-and-others-on-11-november-2009-2"},"modified":"2017-05-16T16:31:32","modified_gmt":"2017-05-16T11:01:32","slug":"satish-kumar-bhalla-and-others-vs-indira-puri-and-others-on-11-november-2009-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-bhalla-and-others-vs-indira-puri-and-others-on-11-november-2009-2","title":{"rendered":"Satish Kumar Bhalla And Others vs Indira Puri And Others on 11 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Satish Kumar Bhalla And Others vs Indira Puri And Others on 11 November, 2009<\/div>\n
C.R.No.6261 of 2009\n\n\n      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\n                      CHANDIGARH\n\n\n                             C.R.No.6261 of 2009.\n                             Decided on: November 11, 2009.\n\n\nSatish Kumar Bhalla and others\n\n                                                         .. Petitioners\n\n                  VERSUS\n\n\nIndira Puri and others.\n\n                                                      .. Respondents\n\n                             ***\n\nCORAM:            HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI\n\n1.                Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed\n                  to see the judgment?\n2.                Whether to be referred to the Reporter?\n3.                Whether the judgment should be reported in the\n                  Digest?\n\n                               ***\n\nPRESENT           Mr.Sandeep Bansal, Advocate,\n                  for the petitioners.\n\n                  Mr.Rajinder Mahajan, Advocate,\n                  for the respondents.\n\nM.M.S. BEDI, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                  Petitioners-plaintiffs have preferred this revision<\/p>\n
petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by<\/p>\n
the orders dated 05.12.2007 and 07.08.2008, passed by the Courts<\/p>\n
below dismissing the application for interim injunction filed by the<\/p>\n
petitioners-plaintiffs in their suit for permanent injunction seeking to<\/p>\n
                                 … 1
\n C.R.No.6261 of 2009<\/p>\n
restrain them from taking forcible possession of the premises<\/p>\n
consisting of two shops and stock affixture, articles of the partnership<\/p>\n
concern M\/s Janta Cycle Company. The claim of the petitioners-<\/p>\n
plaintiffs in their plaint is that they along with defendant-respondent<\/p>\n
No.1 had entered into partnership agreement dated 16.06.1999. The<\/p>\n
defendant-respondent No.2 is husband and defendant-respondent<\/p>\n
No.3 is the son of defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 is owner of<\/p>\n
godown which is part of property No.52 and defendant-respondent<\/p>\n
No.2 is owner of the shops. Defendant No.2 had agreed not to take<\/p>\n
any rent of the shops owned by him and a letter was written by him to<\/p>\n
the Assessing Authority, Excise and Taxation Officer, Jalandhar in<\/p>\n
this concern. The partnership agreement was reduced into writing<\/p>\n
between the petitioners-plaintiffs and defendant No.1 and it was<\/p>\n
signed by the parties on 16.06.1999. As per the agreement, the<\/p>\n
petitioners-plaintiffs are partners in the business to the extent of 50<\/p>\n
per cent and defendant No.1 is partner to the extent of remaining 50<\/p>\n
per cent as per the clause of the partnership deed. Defendant-<\/p>\n
respondent No.1, is a sleeping partner whereas the petitioners-<\/p>\n
plaintiffs are working partners of the firm. The petitioners-plaintiffs<\/p>\n
claim that plaintiffs are in actual physical possession of the shops<\/p>\n
and godown. On 27.06.1999, the petitioners-plaintiffs and defendant<\/p>\n
No.1 jointly wrote a letter to the Manager, Oriental Bank of<\/p>\n
Commerce, Adarsh Nagar, Jalandhar, authorizing and empowering<\/p>\n
petitioner-plaintiff No.3, to solely operate the account. The firm<\/p>\n
belonging to the petitioners and defendant-respondent No.1, was<\/p>\n
                                 … 2
\n C.R.No.6261 of 2009<\/p>\n
being run peacefully under the name and style of M\/s Janta Cycle<\/p>\n
Company, through the Managing partner petitioner No.3. Defendant-<\/p>\n
respondent Nos.2 & 3, on 23.10.2007, in furtherance of their<\/p>\n
common intention took steps to dispossess the plaintiff-petitioner<\/p>\n
No.3, from the shops of the firm, compelling the petitioners-plaintiffs<\/p>\n
to file a suit for injunction. The defendants-respondents filed written<\/p>\n
statement taking up the plea that defendant-respondent No.2 was<\/p>\n
carrying on the business of trading in cycle parts along with his<\/p>\n
brothers under the name and style of Janta Cycle Store. The<\/p>\n
petitioner-plaintiff No.3, used to function as part time accountant with<\/p>\n
M\/s Janta Cycle Store. His main function was to write books of<\/p>\n
accounts and prepare statutory returns of Janta Cycle Store. Since<\/p>\n
respondent No.2, started manufacturing activities under the name<\/p>\n
and style as Neel Kamal Rubber Private Limited and his brother<\/p>\n
Kamal Puri and Harpal Puri got separated as such, defendant No.2<\/p>\n
closed down the business of Janta Cycle Storel. The petitioner-<\/p>\n
appellant No.3, started working as part time accountant in Neel<\/p>\n
Kamal Rubber Private Limited. In the meanwhile, he approached<\/p>\n
defendant No.2, with a request that since son of petitioner Nos.1 & 2,<\/p>\n
are grown up and were unemployed, a proposal was given to run<\/p>\n
business of cycle parts in partnership with his family. In view of his<\/p>\n
long association, plaintiff No.2 & defendant No.3, agreed to the said<\/p>\n
proposal with the condition that business would be run under the<\/p>\n
name and style Janta Cycle Company, in which defendant No.2, and<\/p>\n
his family and Satish Kumar and his family would have 50 per cent<\/p>\n
                                 … 3
\n C.R.No.6261 of 2009<\/p>\n
share in each in the partnership of the firm. Defendant-respondent<\/p>\n
No.2, also allowed the said firm to use the premises without any<\/p>\n
right. Both the parties agreed that in case any partner desires to<\/p>\n
retire, the partnership firm would be dissolved with one month’s<\/p>\n
notice and defendant No.2, would be entitled to get                   vacant<\/p>\n
possession of the premises. Since respondent No.2, is highly reputed<\/p>\n
person and plaintiff No.3 was also having regard for him, as such,<\/p>\n
both the parties had agreed that defendant No.2, shall be sole<\/p>\n
arbitrator in case of any dispute. It was mutually agreed that<\/p>\n
defendant    No.3,   having   numerous      business    activities,     both<\/p>\n
manufacturing and trading, as such, they cannot afford time for day<\/p>\n
to day proceedings. It was pleaded in the written statement that<\/p>\n
plaintiff Nos.1 & 2, were totally unemployed and as such, plaintiff<\/p>\n
No.2, requested the defendants-respondents that plaintiff Nos.1 & 2<\/p>\n
would devote whole time to the business affairs of the firm and in<\/p>\n
view of that it was agreed that they would be paid salary. It was<\/p>\n
pleaded that since plaintiffs were not rendering accounts of the firm<\/p>\n
and the plaintiffs refused to allow the defendants to have access to<\/p>\n
the accounts of the firm, defendant No.1, gave notice of one month<\/p>\n
for dissolution of the firm on 27.10.2007. Defendant-respondent<\/p>\n
Nos.1 & 2 came to know that plaintiffs are thus running the affairs of<\/p>\n
the firm and as such, they requested the petitioners-plaintiffs not to<\/p>\n
indulge in illegal activities but the petitiones used filthy language and<\/p>\n
caught hold of defendant No.2 and pushed defendant No.2 out of the<\/p>\n
shop. Preliminary objections were taken that the firm has not been<\/p>\n
                                 … 4
\n C.R.No.6261 of 2009<\/p>\n
impleaded as a party and that the firm having not been dissolved and<\/p>\n
defendant having found lot of differences as per stock statement, the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs have got no right in the premises in dispute as same is<\/p>\n
owned by defendants. After dissolution of the firm, the plaintiffs are<\/p>\n
running the business. The Courts below have dismissed the<\/p>\n
application of the petitioners-plaintiffs observing that the firm stands<\/p>\n
dissolved and the petitioners-plaintiffs are not within their right to run<\/p>\n
the business. The business is now being run in the premises which is<\/p>\n
owned by defendant No.2 under mutual understanding but after the<\/p>\n
defendants withdrawn, the partnership firm stands dissolved, the<\/p>\n
petitioners-plaintiffs having no right either in the business or in the<\/p>\n
shop in dispute. It was also observed by the Courts below that mere<\/p>\n
non-payment of rent does not mean that defendant No.2 cease to be<\/p>\n
landlord of the property. All the assets of the partnership concern are<\/p>\n
the property of defendant No.1, on dissolution as per the agreement<\/p>\n
of partnership. It was held that the petitioners-plaintiffs have got no<\/p>\n
right in the property i.e., the stocks and liabilities of the partnership<\/p>\n
firm, as such, they are not entitled for any interim relief believing the<\/p>\n
allegations in the written statement that in the books, the stocks of<\/p>\n
Rs.45 lacs had been shown whereas actually there was a stock of<\/p>\n
Rs.3 lacs only. The petitioners have not defrauded the defendants.<\/p>\n
The sleeping partners are not entitled to injunction, they having not<\/p>\n
come to the Court with clean hands.\n<\/p>\n
                  Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently urged<\/p>\n
that since the business of partnership concern is being run by the<\/p>\n
                                 … 5
\n C.R.No.6261 of 2009<\/p>\n
petitioners-plaintiffs in the shops belonging to defendant No.2, the<\/p>\n
petitioners-plaintiffs have got a right for settlement of accounts even<\/p>\n
if the business is wound up or the firm is dissolved. Reliance has<\/p>\n
been placed on provisions of Sections 46 & 48 of the Partnership<\/p>\n
Act.\n<\/p>\n
                  Contention of counsel for the respondents is that<\/p>\n
the partnership between the parties being at will, a notice has<\/p>\n
admittedly been sent to the petitioners-plaintiffs for dissolution under<\/p>\n
Section 43, in writing. Petitioners-plaintiffs having misconducted<\/p>\n
themselves are not entitled to the equity relief of interim injunction.<\/p>\n
                  After hearing the counsel for the parties in order to<\/p>\n
ascertain whether the shop in dispute owned by defendant No.2 is in<\/p>\n
actual physical possession of the plaintiffs, the counsel for the<\/p>\n
respondents submitted that, as a matter of fact, the shop in dispute is<\/p>\n
in possession of the partnership concern which stands dissolved and<\/p>\n
that in individual capacity, the plaintiffs does not have any right to<\/p>\n
remain in possession or to run the business of partnership concern.<\/p>\n
                  Counsel for the respondents-defendants admitted<\/p>\n
that a separate suit for rendition of account and decree for amount<\/p>\n
found due from the defendants and also handing over of the assets<\/p>\n
including vacant possession of the premises occupied by the firm<\/p>\n
stands filed by the defendants on 29.09.2009.\n<\/p>\n
                  On asking of the Court, a photocopy of the suit filed<\/p>\n
by the defendants for rendition of account has been produced<\/p>\n
wherein it has been admitted that the present petitioners are still<\/p>\n
                                  … 6
\n C.R.No.6261 of 2009<\/p>\n
running the affairs of the firm but they are indulging in illegal<\/p>\n
activities. The said suit seems to have been filed after the present<\/p>\n
suit for injunction filed by the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
                   I have heard counsel for the parties and considered<\/p>\n
the facts and circumstances of the case.\n<\/p>\n
                   It is an admitted fact that the petitioners and<\/p>\n
respondent No.1, have been running a business under an agreement<\/p>\n
of partnership. There are allegations against the petitioners of having<\/p>\n
misconducted themselves for which a notice has been issued by<\/p>\n
respondent No.1. It is surprising that there is an arbitration clause in<\/p>\n
the partnership agreement        but neither the parties have opted to<\/p>\n
approach the named arbitrator            nor any objection regarding<\/p>\n
maintainability of civil suits in view of existence of arbitration clause<\/p>\n
has been taken by any party. The defendants-respondents have<\/p>\n
admitted that till 23.10.2007, the applicants have been running the<\/p>\n
business of the partnership concern but it has been alleged that he<\/p>\n
had refused to render the accounts and assets of the firm including<\/p>\n
the vacant possession of the premises after the dissolution. Even it is<\/p>\n
is presumed that the partnership concern has been dissolved, still the<\/p>\n
partners are liable for any acts done by them during the existence of<\/p>\n
partnership and for the acts done after dissolution. The partners of a<\/p>\n
dissolved firm continue to be liable even to third parties over any act<\/p>\n
done by them after dissolution. The defendants have admitted the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs to be in possession of the asserts of the partnership<\/p>\n
concern. They are liable to render the accounts to the defendants-<\/p>\n
                                   … 7
\n C.R.No.6261 of 2009<\/p>\n
respondents in case they have been running the business of the<\/p>\n
partnership concern. As per the terms of agreement between the<\/p>\n
partners, even the sole arbitrator named in the partnership Deed is<\/p>\n
entitled to pass any award which would be binding on all the parties.<\/p>\n
The petitioners-plaintiffs claim to be in possession of the shop of<\/p>\n
respondent No.2, who admittedly is not a partner. He has got every<\/p>\n
right to get possession of his premises from the partnership concern<\/p>\n
or any of the partners of the firm having entered into possession of<\/p>\n
his property in the capacity as partners of partnership concern. Even<\/p>\n
if it is presumed that all the rights of the petitioners in the partnership<\/p>\n
concern cease to exist and that the petitioners are in unauthorized<\/p>\n
occupation of any premises of respondent No.2, he can take back<\/p>\n
the possession from the partnership concern or any of its partners<\/p>\n
even if the partnership concern has been dissolved. The rights of the<\/p>\n
partners are yet to be settled in the suit filed by respondent Nos.1 &<\/p>\n
3, for rendition of account. The petitiones-plaintiffs and the other<\/p>\n
partners defendant Nos.1 & 3, will be deemed to be in joint<\/p>\n
possession of the assets of the partnership concern. The petitioners<\/p>\n
cannot seek injunction against his partners who are also deemed to<\/p>\n
be in possession of the property as partners. The revision of the<\/p>\n
petitioners against respondent Nos.1 & 3, partners is liable to be<\/p>\n
dismissed on that ground. The rights of the partners have to be<\/p>\n
determined in the suit filed by defendant-respondent Nos.1 & 3. The<\/p>\n
Courts below have rightly dismissed the application of the petitioners<\/p>\n
as the suit for injunction against the co-partners is not maintainable<\/p>\n
                                  … 8
\n C.R.No.6261 of 2009<\/p>\n
without impleading the partnership concern. So far as respondent<\/p>\n
No.2, Rajinder Kumar Puri, the owner of the premises where the<\/p>\n
business is being run is concerned, he has certainly got a right to<\/p>\n
dispossess the petitioners or the other partners including defendant<\/p>\n
Nos.1 & 3, in accordance with law. He being not a partner, the<\/p>\n
petitioners along with other co-partners being in joint possession of<\/p>\n
the property, the application for interim injunction of the petitioners<\/p>\n
deserves to be allowed against respondent No.2, Rajinder Kumar<\/p>\n
Puri.\n<\/p>\n
                 The appeal is partly allowed and the impugned<\/p>\n
orders passed by the Courts below are modified to the effect that<\/p>\n
respondent No.2, will be restrained from dispossessing the<\/p>\n
petitioners from his property except by due process of law. It will be<\/p>\n
open to respondent No.2, to evict the petitioners by adopting the<\/p>\n
procedure of law. It will also be open to respondent No.2, to claim the<\/p>\n
market value for the use and occupation of his shop\/shops which is<\/p>\n
claimed to be in possession of petitioners. The possession of<\/p>\n
petitioners will be deemed to be joint possession along with his co-<\/p>\n
partners. The rights of respondent Nos.1 & 3, in the capacity as<\/p>\n
partners of petitioners will not be prejudiced, in any manner, by the<\/p>\n
suit for injunction filed by the petitioners. The interim injunction<\/p>\n
application of petitioners is allowed against respondent No.2 and<\/p>\n
dismissed against respondent Nos.1 & 3.\n<\/p>\n
                                              (M.M.S.BEDI)
\n                                                JUDGE
\nNovember 11, 2009.\n<\/p>\n
rka<\/p>\n
                                … 9\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Satish Kumar Bhalla And Others vs Indira Puri And Others on 11 November, 2009 C.R.No.6261 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.6261 of 2009. Decided on: November 11, 2009. Satish Kumar Bhalla and others .. Petitioners VERSUS Indira Puri and others. .. Respondents *** CORAM: HON’BLE […]<\/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":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-116602","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSatish Kumar Bhalla And Others vs Indira Puri And Others on 11 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-bhalla-and-others-vs-indira-puri-and-others-on-11-november-2009-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Satish Kumar Bhalla And Others vs Indira Puri And Others on 11 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-bhalla-and-others-vs-indira-puri-and-others-on-11-november-2009-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-16T11:01:32+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satish-kumar-bhalla-and-others-vs-indira-puri-and-others-on-11-november-2009-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satish-kumar-bhalla-and-others-vs-indira-puri-and-others-on-11-november-2009-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Satish Kumar Bhalla And Others vs Indira Puri And Others on 11 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-16T11:01:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satish-kumar-bhalla-and-others-vs-indira-puri-and-others-on-11-november-2009-2\"},\"wordCount\":2184,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satish-kumar-bhalla-and-others-vs-indira-puri-and-others-on-11-november-2009-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satish-kumar-bhalla-and-others-vs-indira-puri-and-others-on-11-november-2009-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satish-kumar-bhalla-and-others-vs-indira-puri-and-others-on-11-november-2009-2\",\"name\":\"Satish Kumar Bhalla And Others vs Indira Puri And Others on 11 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-16T11:01:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satish-kumar-bhalla-and-others-vs-indira-puri-and-others-on-11-november-2009-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satish-kumar-bhalla-and-others-vs-indira-puri-and-others-on-11-november-2009-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satish-kumar-bhalla-and-others-vs-indira-puri-and-others-on-11-november-2009-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Satish Kumar Bhalla And Others vs Indira Puri And Others on 11 November, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Satish Kumar Bhalla And Others vs Indira Puri And Others on 11 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-bhalla-and-others-vs-indira-puri-and-others-on-11-november-2009-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Satish Kumar Bhalla And Others vs Indira Puri And Others on 11 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-bhalla-and-others-vs-indira-puri-and-others-on-11-november-2009-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-16T11:01:32+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-bhalla-and-others-vs-indira-puri-and-others-on-11-november-2009-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-bhalla-and-others-vs-indira-puri-and-others-on-11-november-2009-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Satish Kumar Bhalla And Others vs Indira Puri And Others on 11 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-16T11:01:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-bhalla-and-others-vs-indira-puri-and-others-on-11-november-2009-2"},"wordCount":2184,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-bhalla-and-others-vs-indira-puri-and-others-on-11-november-2009-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-bhalla-and-others-vs-indira-puri-and-others-on-11-november-2009-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-bhalla-and-others-vs-indira-puri-and-others-on-11-november-2009-2","name":"Satish Kumar Bhalla And Others vs Indira Puri And Others on 11 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-16T11:01:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-bhalla-and-others-vs-indira-puri-and-others-on-11-november-2009-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-bhalla-and-others-vs-indira-puri-and-others-on-11-november-2009-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-bhalla-and-others-vs-indira-puri-and-others-on-11-november-2009-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Satish Kumar Bhalla And Others vs Indira Puri And Others on 11 November, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/116602","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=116602"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/116602\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=116602"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=116602"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=116602"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}