{"id":120217,"date":"2011-09-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-09-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/checkmate-vs-new-on-29-september-2011"},"modified":"2016-10-08T04:12:42","modified_gmt":"2016-10-07T22:42:42","slug":"checkmate-vs-new-on-29-september-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/checkmate-vs-new-on-29-september-2011","title":{"rendered":"Checkmate vs New on 29 September, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Checkmate vs New on 29 September, 2011<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Bankim.N.Mehta,<\/div>\n<pre>  \n Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n    \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/14593\/2011\t 6\/ 6\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 14593 of 2011\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nCHECKMATE\nSERVICES PVT. LTD - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nNEW\nINDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nVISHWAS S DAVE for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nNone for Respondent(s) :\n1, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 29\/09\/2011 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\npetitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the<br \/>\nConstitution of India and challenged the order passed by the learned<br \/>\nsenior civil Judge, Vadodara below Exh-14 in Summary Suit No.1317 of<br \/>\n2008 on 21.7.2011 granting unconditional leave to defend the suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tAccording<br \/>\nto the petitioner &#8211; original plaintiff, it had obtained<br \/>\ninsurance coverage against various perils mainly to protect its<br \/>\nfinancial interest from the respondent &#8211; original defendant.<br \/>\nThe petitioner had a policy known as &#8220;Money Insurance&#8221;<br \/>\nfor protection of his cash.  The petitioner filled up proposal form<br \/>\nand provided all the information required for insurance.  The<br \/>\nrespondent accepted the proposal and therefore, premium was paid to<br \/>\nthe respondent and the insurance policy for a period of one year<br \/>\neffective from 16.9.2005 to 15.9.2006 was issued to the petitioner.<br \/>\nThe petitioner has business in Ankleshwar town and has employees for<br \/>\nits services and had employed one Paresh Patel as Field Officer and<br \/>\nwas entrusted with the job of withdrawing cash from the bank.  On<br \/>\n12.9.2006, Mr. Patel went to Bank of Baroda, GIDC Branch, Ankleshwar<br \/>\nand withdrew Rs.1,40,000\/- and proceeded towards SBI, GIDC branch,<br \/>\nAnkleshwar.  As per the statement of employee Mr. Patel, a bag<br \/>\ncontaining cash amount of Rs.1,40,000\/- was stolen from his custody<br \/>\nwhile he was proceeding to receive cash from SBI, GIDC branch,<br \/>\nAnkleshwar.  Said Mr. Patel put all best possible attempts to find<br \/>\nout the bag, but it was not found and therefore, he lodged FIR in<br \/>\nrespect of the incident with GIDC, Ankleshawar Police Station on<br \/>\n12.9.2006.  Mr. Patel subsequently changed his complaint and gave<br \/>\ncontradictory statement on 15.9.2006 that when he was travelling from<br \/>\nBank of Baroda to State Bank of India, bag hanging on the hook of<br \/>\nmotorcycle fell down and on search, it was not found.  After<br \/>\ninvestigation, police filed final report under section 173 of the<br \/>\nCr.P.C.  On account of loss of Rs.1,40,000\/-, the petitioner made a<br \/>\nclaim under the said policy with the respondent, who appointed a<br \/>\nsurveyor to assess the loss.  The surveyor after checking books of<br \/>\naccount of the petitioner, Statement of the Bank Account maintained<br \/>\nwith the Bank, Account of Mr. Paresh Patel, reported that the claim<br \/>\ndoes not arise out of theft, robbery or any fortuitous cause and<br \/>\nhence, the respondent repudiated the claim.  Therefore, the<br \/>\npetitioner issued notice calling upon the respondent to pay<br \/>\nRs.1,40,000\/- with interest, but the respondent neither replied nor<br \/>\ncomplied with the notice.  Therefore, the petitioner filed summary<br \/>\nsuit for recovery of Rs.1,40,000\/- with interest.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tSummons<br \/>\nof the suit was served and the respondent filed his appearance.<br \/>\nThereafter, the petitioner took out summons for judgment and the<br \/>\nrespondent filed leave to defend affidavit raising various defences.<br \/>\nIt was contended in the leave to defend affidavit that there is no<br \/>\ntheft or loot of the alleged amount and the police has after<br \/>\ninvestigation filed &#8220;C&#8221; summary and thereby, it is proved<br \/>\nthat false complaint was filed.  It was also contended that according<br \/>\nto the terms of policy, the insurance covered only loss of money on<br \/>\naccount of theft or loot and the surveyor has also reported that<br \/>\nthere was no theft or loot and therefore, the policy does not cover<br \/>\nthe risk.  It was also contended that the relief claimed in the suit<br \/>\nwas not within the purview of order 37 of the CPC and whether the<br \/>\npetitioner is entitled for the amount claimed in the suit under the<br \/>\npolicy of insurance could be decided only after leading<br \/>\nevidence and therefore, unconditional leave to defend is required to<br \/>\nbe granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tThe<br \/>\ntrial Court after hearing learned advocates for the parties, in para<br \/>\n8 of its order, observed that triable issues like whether the loss of<br \/>\nmoney was on account of theft, loot or in the circumstances beyond<br \/>\nthe control and whether the risk was covered under the policy of<br \/>\ninsurance issued to the petitioner are involved, which can be decided<br \/>\nonly after leading evidence and therefore, granted unconditional<br \/>\nleave to defend.  Being aggrieved by the said decision, the<br \/>\npetitioner has approached this Court by way of this extraordinary<br \/>\nremedy under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tI<br \/>\nhave heard learned advocate Mr. VK Dave for the petitioner at length<br \/>\nand in great detail.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tLearned<br \/>\nadvocate Mr. Dave submitted that on account of loss of money, which<br \/>\nwas covered under the policy of the insurance, the petitioner had<br \/>\nsustained loss and therefore, the respondent was bound to pay the<br \/>\namount of loss under the  policy of insurance issued to him.<br \/>\nHowever, without justifiable reason, the claim was rejected and<br \/>\ntherefore, the suit was filed but the trial Court committed error in<br \/>\ngranting unconditional leave.  Therefore, impugned order is required<br \/>\nto be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.<br \/>\nUnder Order 37 of the CPC, a summary suit could be filed in the<br \/>\nfollowing classes of suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;(a)<br \/>\nsuits upon bills of exchange, hundies and promissory notes;\n<\/p>\n<p>(b)\tsuits<br \/>\nin which the plaintiff seeks only to recover a debt or liquidated<br \/>\ndemand in money payable by the defendant, with or without interest,<br \/>\narising,-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(i)\ton<br \/>\na written contract; or<\/p>\n<p>\t(ii)\ton<br \/>\nan enactment, where the sum sought to be recovered is a fixed sum of<br \/>\nmoney or in the nature of a debt other than a penalty; or<\/p>\n<p>\t(iii)on<br \/>\na guarantee, where the claim against the principal is in respect of a<br \/>\ndebt or liquidated demand only.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tIt<br \/>\nappears from the averments made in the plaint, copy of which is<br \/>\nannexed at Annexure K, page 38, that the suit is filed to claim the<br \/>\namount under a policy of insurance issued by the respondent.<br \/>\nTherefore, looking to the nature of the claim made in the plaint, it<br \/>\ndoes not fall under any of the clauses of suit under Order 37 of the<br \/>\nCPC.  It also appears that the petitioner claimed that the amount was<br \/>\nlost after its withdrawal from the bank and a complaint in that<br \/>\nregard was filed before the police, but during the course of<br \/>\ninvestigation, the employee, who lodged the complaint, changed his<br \/>\nversion that the bag containing the amount was lost during the<br \/>\ntransit.  Therefore, the police filed &#8220;C&#8221; Summary report<br \/>\nthat the complaint is neither true nor false with regard to alleged<br \/>\noffence.  This prima facie indicates that it is a triable issue<br \/>\nwhether the amount was stolen from the custody of the employee or<br \/>\nwhether it was lost during its transit while it was in custody of the<br \/>\nemployee of the petitioner.  It is also a triable issue that whether<br \/>\nsuch loss would be covered under the policy of insurance issued by<br \/>\nthe respondent.  These issues can be decided only after leading<br \/>\nevidence.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\tIt<br \/>\nalso appears from the copy of the plaint that the petitioner claimed<br \/>\n18% interest from the date of loss i.e. 12.9.2006, the date on which<br \/>\nthe amount was allegedly lost.  The petitioner has not produced any<br \/>\ndocumentary evidence in support of his claim of interest.  Therefore,<br \/>\nit is also a triable issue as to whether the petitioner would be<br \/>\nentitled to claim interest and if yes, at what rate and from which<br \/>\ndate.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\tIn<br \/>\nview of above, numerous triable issues are involved in the suit.<br \/>\nTherefore, the trial Court was justified in granting unconditional<br \/>\nleave to defend the suit.  Hence, no interference is warranted in the<br \/>\nimpugned order.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.\tIn<br \/>\nthe result, the petition fails and stands dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>(BANKIM.N.MEHTA,<br \/>\nJ.) <\/p>\n<p>shekhar*<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Checkmate vs New on 29 September, 2011 Author: Bankim.N.Mehta, Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/14593\/2011 6\/ 6 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14593 of 2011 ========================================================= CHECKMATE SERVICES PVT. LTD &#8211; Petitioner(s) Versus NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD &#8211; Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance [&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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-120217","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Checkmate vs New on 29 September, 2011 - 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\/checkmate-vs-new-on-29-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Checkmate vs New on 29 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/checkmate-vs-new-on-29-september-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-07T22:42:42+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/checkmate-vs-new-on-29-september-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/checkmate-vs-new-on-29-september-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Checkmate vs New on 29 September, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-07T22:42:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/checkmate-vs-new-on-29-september-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1239,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/checkmate-vs-new-on-29-september-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/checkmate-vs-new-on-29-september-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/checkmate-vs-new-on-29-september-2011\",\"name\":\"Checkmate vs New on 29 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-07T22:42:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/checkmate-vs-new-on-29-september-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/checkmate-vs-new-on-29-september-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/checkmate-vs-new-on-29-september-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Checkmate vs New on 29 September, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Checkmate vs New on 29 September, 2011 - 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\/checkmate-vs-new-on-29-september-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Checkmate vs New on 29 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/checkmate-vs-new-on-29-september-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-07T22:42:42+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/checkmate-vs-new-on-29-september-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/checkmate-vs-new-on-29-september-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Checkmate vs New on 29 September, 2011","datePublished":"2011-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-07T22:42:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/checkmate-vs-new-on-29-september-2011"},"wordCount":1239,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/checkmate-vs-new-on-29-september-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/checkmate-vs-new-on-29-september-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/checkmate-vs-new-on-29-september-2011","name":"Checkmate vs New on 29 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-07T22:42:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/checkmate-vs-new-on-29-september-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/checkmate-vs-new-on-29-september-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/checkmate-vs-new-on-29-september-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Checkmate vs New on 29 September, 2011"}]},{"@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\/120217","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=120217"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/120217\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=120217"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=120217"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=120217"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}