{"id":12326,"date":"2011-02-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-02-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanaiyalal-lalchand-sachdev-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-7-february-2011"},"modified":"2017-07-30T20:02:01","modified_gmt":"2017-07-30T14:32:01","slug":"kanaiyalal-lalchand-sachdev-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-7-february-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanaiyalal-lalchand-sachdev-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-7-february-2011","title":{"rendered":"Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 7 February, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 7 February, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: D.K. Jain, H.L. Dattu<\/div>\n
                                                                                                              REPORTABLE \n                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n\n                     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n              CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.  338-340             OF 2011\n               (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos.4436-4438 of 2009)\n\nKANAIYALAL LALCHAND SACHDEV &                                    --       APPELLANTS\nORS.\n\n\n                                            VERSUS\n\n\nSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.                                     --        RESPONDENTS\n\n\n\n\n                                     J U D G M E N T \n<\/pre>\n
D.K. JAIN, J.:\n<\/p>\n
         Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
2.    Challenge   in   these   appeals,   by   special   leave,   is   to   the   judgments   and <\/p>\n
      orders dated 28th  April, 2009 and 1st  July, 2009 delivered by the High <\/p>\n
      Court of Bombay in W.P. No. 707 of 2009, and Criminal Application No. <\/p>\n
      178   of   2009   in   W.P.   No.   707   of   2009,   respectively   whereby   it   has <\/p>\n
      dismissed   the   writ   petition   filed   by   the   appellants   herein,   and   also <\/p>\n
      declined to extend the status-quo order granted by it to them.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                                 1<\/span><\/p>\n
3.    Briefly stated, the facts, material for adjudication of the present appeals, <\/p>\n
      may be stated thus:\n<\/p>\n
         Respondent No. 3, viz. the State Bank of India had advanced a loan of <\/p>\n
`4,50,00,000\/- to appellant No. 6 on an equitable mortgage by deposit of the <\/p>\n
title   deeds   of   certain   properties,   subject   matter   of   these   appeals,   on   6th <\/p>\n
February, 2006.  Appellant Nos.1 to 5 and one Mr. Lalchand Sachdeo stood <\/p>\n
as personal guarantors to the said loan.\n<\/p>\n
4.    On   default   of   re-payment   of   loan   amount,   respondent   No.   3   issued   a <\/p>\n
      notice   under  the   Securitisation  and   Reconstruction   of  Financial   Assets <\/p>\n
      and Enforcement of Security Interest  (Second) Ordinance, 2002 on 18th <\/p>\n
      November, 2006. On 12th February, 2007, the officers of respondent No. <\/p>\n
      3 dispossessed the appellants of one of the secured properties viz. T-125, <\/p>\n
      CTS,   No.   1729.   Being   aggrieved,   the   appellants   filed   a   writ   petition <\/p>\n
      being CRL. W.P.             No.286 of 2007 before the Bombay High Court, <\/p>\n
      inter-alia,   contending   that   the   notice   issued   by   respondent   No.   3   was <\/p>\n
      illegal, no action could be taken in pursuance thereof, and if at all, the <\/p>\n
      respondent wanted to take any action, it was required to approach the <\/p>\n
      Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 14 of the Securitisation and <\/p>\n
      Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest <\/p>\n
      Act, 2002 (for short “the Act”).\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                             2<\/span><\/p>\n
5.    Before the High Court, respondent No. 3 offered to withdraw the notice <\/p>\n
      dated   18th  November,   2006   without   prejudice   to   the   rights   and <\/p>\n
      contentions advanced by them, and to return the possession of the said <\/p>\n
      property to the appellants, subject to the appellants and all adult members <\/p>\n
      furnishing   an   undertaking   to   the   effect   that   they   shall   not   alienate, <\/p>\n
      encumber, transfer, dispose of and\/or create any third party interest in the <\/p>\n
      said premises for a period of six months. Accepting the statement made <\/p>\n
      on behalf of  respondent No. 3, the High Court dismissed the writ petition <\/p>\n
      vide order dated 7th March, 2007.\n<\/p>\n
6.    Thereafter, on 11th April, 2007 respondent No. 3 issued to the appellants <\/p>\n
      a notice under Section 13(2) of the Act. The appellants replied to the said <\/p>\n
      notice on 23rd  May, 2007. Vide letter dated 29th  May, 2007, respondent <\/p>\n
      No.   3,   communicated   its   reasons   for   not   accepting   the   reply.\n<\/p>\n
      Subsequently,   respondent   No.   3   issued   a   public   notice   in   newspapers, <\/p>\n
      informing the appellants of the issuance of notice under Section 13(2) of <\/p>\n
      the Act.\n<\/p>\n
7.    In pursuance thereof, respondent No.3, filed C.C. No. 223\/M\/2008 before <\/p>\n
      the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 14 of the Act for taking <\/p>\n
      possession of the secured assets. Vide order dated 3rd February, 2009, the <\/p>\n
      Magistrate   allowed   the   said   application   and   directed   the   Assistant <\/p>\n
                                                                                           3<\/span><\/p>\n
      Registrar, Kurla Centre of Courts, to take possession of the mortgaged <\/p>\n
      properties after issuing notice to the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
8.      Vide notice dated 27th  February, 2009, the Assistant Registrar, directed <\/p>\n
      the appellants to hand over the possession of the mortgaged properties to <\/p>\n
      respondent No. 3 within 15 days from the receipt of the said notice. At <\/p>\n
      this juncture, it would be expedient to   extract the   relevant portions of <\/p>\n
      the said notice:\n<\/p>\n
         “Whereas,   the   Chief   Metropolitan   Magistrate,   Esplanade,
\n         Mumbai   has   passed   the   following   order   on   3.2.2009   on   the
\n         application   filed   before   him   by   State   Bank   of   India,   Mazda
\n         Complex,   Parsi   Agari   Lane,   Thana   (W)   400601   through   its
\n         Authorized Officer Fazlur Rehman Sheikh.\n<\/p>\n
                                          ORDER<\/p>\n
         The   Application   is   allowed.   Asst.   Registrar,   Mr.   P.A.
\n         Tendolkar, Kurla Centre of Court after issuing notice of taking
\n         possession   of   the   secured   assets………………………………
\n         …………………………………………………………………
\n         …………………………………………………………………
\n         …………………………”\n<\/p>\n
It is manifest from a bare perusal of the said notice that the order passed by <\/p>\n
the   Magistrate   dated   3rd  February,   2009   was   referred   to   by   the   Assistant <\/p>\n
Registrar in his notice.\n<\/p>\n
9.    Being   aggrieved   by   the   said   notice,   the  appellants   herein   again <\/p>\n
      approached the High Court. As afore-stated, the High Court dismissed <\/p>\n
                                                                                          4<\/span><\/p>\n
   the said writ petition, vide order dated 28th  April, 2009, on the ground <\/p>\n
   that an alternative remedy was available to the appellants under Section <\/p>\n
   17 of the Act. Nevertheless, the High Court directed the respondents to <\/p>\n
   maintain status quo in the matter for a period of 10 weeks from the date <\/p>\n
   of   its   order,   so   as   to   enable   the   appellants   to   approach   the   Debts <\/p>\n
   Recovery Tribunal (for short the “DRT”) under Section 17 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
10. Thereafter, the appellants filed Criminal Application No. 178 of 2009 in <\/p>\n
   W.P.   No.   707   of   2009   seeking   an   extension   of   the   status   quo   period <\/p>\n
   granted vide order dated 28th April, 2009. As afore-stated, the High Court <\/p>\n
   rejected the said application filed by the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
11. Hence, the present appeals against both the said orders.\n<\/p>\n
12. Ms. Kranti Anand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, <\/p>\n
   while assailing the impugned orders, strenuously urged  that apart from <\/p>\n
   the fact that the notice issued by the Assistant Registrar was vague, it was <\/p>\n
   never served on the appellants. In fact, appellants received a copy of the <\/p>\n
   order of the Magistrate during the proceedings before the High Court, <\/p>\n
   pleaded the learned counsel. Learned counsel also urged that the notice <\/p>\n
   issued   by   the   Assistant   Registrar   was   vitiated   on   account   of   non-\n<\/p>\n
   compliance   with   Rule   8   of   the   Security   Interest   (Enforcement)   Rules, <\/p>\n
   2002 (for short “the 2002 Rules”) as well. It was argued that the High <\/p>\n
                                                                                         5<\/span><\/p>\n
    Court had also erred in equating action under Section14 of the Act with <\/p>\n
    action under Section 13(4)(a) of the Act.  It was thus, asserted that for all <\/p>\n
    these reasons, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
13. Per contra,  Mr. Buddy A. Ranganadhan, learned counsel appearing on <\/p>\n
    behalf of respondent No.3–Bank, supporting the impugned judgments, <\/p>\n
    contended  that in light of the decision  of this Court in  Transcore  Vs.  <\/p>\n
    Union   of   India   &   Anr.1,   no   fault   could   be   found   with   the   impugned <\/p>\n
    judgments. It was also urged that the appellants having already availed of <\/p>\n
    the remedy of approaching the DRT, they are estopped from challenging <\/p>\n
    the decision of the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
14. Mr. Sushil Karanjakar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State <\/p>\n
    of Maharashtra contended that Rule 8 of the 2002 Rules was inapplicable <\/p>\n
    in the instant case, in as much as it deals with sale of secured assets.\n<\/p>\n
    According to the learned counsel, it was Rule 4 which was applicable to <\/p>\n
    the   facts   of   the   instant   case.     In   support,   reliance   was   placed   on   the <\/p>\n
    decision of this Court in  Mardia Chemicals Ltd. & Ors.  Vs.  Union of  <\/p>\n
    India & Ors.2.\n<\/p>\n
15. Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the facts at hand, we are <\/p>\n
    of the opinion that the appeals are utterly misconceived.\n<\/p>\n
1 (2008) 1 SCC 125
\n2 (2004) 4 SCC 311<\/p>\n
                                                                                               6<\/span><\/p>\n
16. Section   13  of   the   Act   deals   with   enforcement   of   security   interest, <\/p>\n
   providing that notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 69 or 69A <\/p>\n
   of the  Transfer  of  Property Act,  1882, any  security  interest created in <\/p>\n
   favour   of   any   secured   creditor   may   be   enforced,   without   the   court’s <\/p>\n
   intervention, by such creditor in accordance with the provisions of the <\/p>\n
   Act.   Section   13(2)   of   the   Act   provides   that   when   a   borrower,   who   is <\/p>\n
   under a liability to a secured creditor, makes any default in repayment of <\/p>\n
   secured debt, and his account in respect of such debt is classified as non-\n<\/p>\n
   performing asset, then the secured creditor may require the borrower, by <\/p>\n
   notice in writing, to discharge his liabilities within sixty days from the <\/p>\n
   date of the notice, failing which the secured creditor shall be entitled to <\/p>\n
   exercise all or any of the rights given in Section 13(4) of the Act. Section <\/p>\n
   13(3) of the Act provides that the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act <\/p>\n
   shall   give   details   of   the   amount   payable   by   the   borrower   as   also   the <\/p>\n
   details of the secured assets intended to be enforced by the bank. Section <\/p>\n
   13(3-A) of the Act was inserted by Act 30 of 2004 after the decision of <\/p>\n
   this   Court   in  Mardia   Chemicals  (supra),   and   provides   for   a   last <\/p>\n
   opportunity   for   the   borrower   to   make   a   representation   to   the   secured <\/p>\n
   creditor   against   the   classification   of   his   account   as   a   non-performing <\/p>\n
   asset. The secured creditor is required to consider the representation of <\/p>\n
   the borrowers, and if the secured creditor comes to the conclusion that <\/p>\n
                                                                                           7<\/span><\/p>\n
the   representation   is   not   tenable   or   acceptable,   then   he   must <\/p>\n
communicate, within one week of the receipt of the communication by <\/p>\n
the borrower, the reasons for rejecting the same. Section 13(4) of the Act <\/p>\n
provides that  if  the  borrower  fails to  discharge   his  liability   within  the <\/p>\n
period   specified   in   Section   13(2),   then   the   secured   creditor,   may   take <\/p>\n
recourse to any of the following actions, to recover his debt, namely-\n<\/p>\n
   “(a)   take   possession   of   the   secured   assets   of   the   borrower
\n   including the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or
\n   sale for realising the secured asset;\n<\/p>\n
   (b) take over the management of the business of the borrower
\n   including the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or
\n   sale for realising the secured asset:\n<\/p>\n
   Provided that the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment
\n   or sale shall be exercised only where the substantial part of the
\n   business of the borrower is held as security for the debt:\n<\/p>\n
   Provided further that where the management of whole, of the
\n   business   or   part   of   the   business   is   severable,   the   secured
\n   creditor shall take over the management of such business of the
\n   borrower which is relatable to the security for the debt;\n<\/p>\n
   (c) appoint any person (hereafter referred to as the manager), to
\n   manage   the   secured   assets   the   possession   of   which   has   been
\n   taken over by the secured creditor;\n<\/p>\n
     (d) require at any time by notice in writing, any person who
\n   has acquired any of the secured assets from the borrower and
\n   from   whom   any   money   is   due   or   may   become   due   to   the
\n   borrower, to pay the secured creditor, so much of the money as
\n   is sufficient to pay the secured debt.”\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                      8<\/span><\/p>\n
Section   14   of   the   Act   provides   that   the   secured   creditor   can   file   an <\/p>\n
application   before   the   Chief   Metropolitan   Magistrate   or   the   District <\/p>\n
Magistrate, within whose jurisdiction, the secured asset or other documents <\/p>\n
relating thereto are found for taking possession thereof. If any such request <\/p>\n
is made, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate, as the <\/p>\n
case may be, is obliged to take possession of such asset or document and <\/p>\n
forward the same to the secured creditor. (See:  United Bank of India  Vs.  <\/p>\n
Satyawati   Tondon   &   Ors.3).   Therefore,   it   follows   that   a   secured   creditor <\/p>\n
may, in order to enforce his rights under Section 13(4), in particular Section <\/p>\n
13(4)(a), may take recourse to Section 14 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
17. Section 17 of the Act which provides for an appeal to the DRT, reads as <\/p>\n
    follows:\n<\/p>\n
        “17.  Right to appeal.–(1) Any person (including borrower),
\n        aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4)
\n        of Section 13 taken by the secured creditor or his authorised
\n        officer under this Chapter, may make an application along with
\n        such fee, as may be prescribed to the Debts Recovery Tribunal
\n        having jurisdiction in the matter within forty-five days from the
\n        date on which such measures had been taken:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        Provided that different fees may be prescribed for making the
\n        application   by   the   borrower   and   the   person   other   than   the
\n        borrower.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        Explanation.–For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared
\n        that the communication of the reasons to the borrower by the
\n        secured creditor for not having accepted his representation or <\/p>\n
3 (2010) 8 SCC 110<\/p>\n
                                                                                        9<\/span><\/p>\n
        objection or the likely action of the secured creditor at the stage
\n        of communication of reasons to the borrower shall not entitle
\n        the person (including borrower) to make an application to the
\n        Debts Recovery Tribunal under sub-section (1) of Section 17.\n<\/p>\n
        (2) The Debts Recovery Tribunal shall consider whether any of
\n        the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of Section 13 taken
\n        by   the   secured   creditor   for   enforcement   of   security   are   in
\n        accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made
\n        thereunder.”\n<\/p>\n
18.The  2002   Rules,  enacted   under  sub-section   (1)  and  clause   (b)  of   sub-\n<\/p>\n
    section   (2)   of   Section   38   read   with   sub-sections  (4),   (10)   and   (12)   of <\/p>\n
    Section 13 of the Act, set down the procedure for enforcing a security <\/p>\n
    interest. Rule 4 of the 2002 Rules deals with the possession of movable <\/p>\n
    assets, whereas Rule 8 deals with the possession of immoveable assets. It <\/p>\n
    is manifest that Rule 4 has no application to the facts of the instant case, <\/p>\n
    as contended by the learned counsel for the State.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
19. In  Authorised Officer, Indian Overseas Bank & Anr.  Vs.  Ashok Saw <\/p>\n
    Mill4, the main question which fell for determination was whether the <\/p>\n
    DRT   would   have   jurisdiction   to   consider   and   adjudicate   post   Section <\/p>\n
    13(4) events or whether its scope in terms of Section 17 of the Act will <\/p>\n
    be confined to the stage contemplated under Section 13(4) of the Act?\n<\/p>\n
    On an examination of the provisions contained in Chapter III of the Act, <\/p>\n
    in particular Sections 13 and 17, this Court, held as under :\n<\/p>\n
4 (2009) 8 SCC 366<\/p>\n
                                                                                             1<\/span><\/p>\n
      “35.  In   order   to   prevent   misuse   of   such   wide   powers   and   to
\n      prevent prejudice being caused to a borrower on account of an
\n      error on the part of the banks or financial institutions, certain
\n      checks and balances have been introduced in Section 17 which
\n      allow any person, including the borrower, aggrieved by any of
\n      the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of Section 13 taken
\n      by   the   secured   creditor,   to   make   an   application   to   the   DRT
\n      having jurisdiction in the matter within 45 days from the date of
\n      such   measures   having   taken   for   the   reliefs   indicated   in   sub-
\n      section (3) thereof.\n<\/p>\n
      36. The intention of the legislature is, therefore, clear that while
\n      the   banks   and   financial   institutions   have   been   vested   with
\n      stringent   powers   for   recovery   of   their   dues,   safeguards   have
\n      also been provided for rectifying any error or wrongful use of
\n      such   powers   by   vesting   the   DRT   with   authority   after
\n      conducting an adjudication into the matter to declare any such
\n      action   invalid   and   also   to   restore   possession   even   though
\n      possession may have been made over to the transferee.
\n      …………………………………………………………………..\n<\/p>\n
      39. We are unable to agree with or accept the submissions made
\n      on behalf of the appellants that the DRT had no jurisdiction to
\n      interfere with the action taken by the secured creditor after the
\n      stage contemplated under Section 13(4) of the Act. On the other
\n      hand, the law is otherwise and it contemplates that the action
\n      taken by a secured creditor in terms of Section 13(4) is open to
\n      scrutiny and cannot only be set aside but even the status quo
\n      ante can be restored by the DRT.”\n<\/p>\n
                                                    (Emphasis supplied by us)<\/p>\n
20.We are in respectful agreement with the above enunciation of law on the <\/p>\n
   point. It is manifest that an action under Section 14 of the Act constitutes <\/p>\n
   an action taken after the stage of Section 13(4), and therefore, the same <\/p>\n
   would fall within the ambit of Section 17(1) of the Act.   Thus, the Act <\/p>\n
   itself contemplates an efficacious remedy for the borrower or any person <\/p>\n
                                                                                          1<\/span><\/p>\n
    affected by an action under Section 13(4) of the Act, by providing for an <\/p>\n
    appeal before the DRT.\n<\/p>\n
21. In our opinion, therefore, the High Court rightly dismissed the petition on <\/p>\n
    the   ground   that   an   efficacious   remedy   was   available   to   the   appellants <\/p>\n
    under Section 17 of the Act. It is well-settled that ordinarily relief under <\/p>\n
    Articles   226\/227   of   the   Constitution   of   India   is   not   available   if   an <\/p>\n
    efficacious alternative remedy is available to any aggrieved person. (See:\n<\/p>\n
    Sadhana Lodh  Vs.  National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.5; Surya Dev  <\/p>\n
    Rai  Vs.  Ram   Chander   Rai   &   Ors.6;   State   Bank   of   India  Vs.  Allied  <\/p>\n
    Chemical Laboratories & Anr.7).   In City and Industrial Development  <\/p>\n
    Corporation Vs. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala & Ors.8, this Court had <\/p>\n
    observed that:\n<\/p>\n
        “The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 is
\n        duty-bound to consider whether:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        (a)   adjudication   of   writ   petition   involves   any   complex   and
\n        disputed   questions   of   facts   and   whether   they   can   be
\n        satisfactorily resolved;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        (b) the petition reveals all material facts;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        (c) the petitioner has any alternative or effective remedy for the
\n        resolution of the dispute;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
5 (2003) 3 SCC 524
\n6 (2003) 6 SCC 675
\n7 (2006) 9 SCC 252
\n8 (2009) 1 SCC 168<\/p>\n
                                                                                          1<\/span><\/p>\n
       (d)   person   invoking   the   jurisdiction   is   guilty   of   unexplained
\n       delay and laches;\n<\/p>\n
       (e)  ex facie barred by any laws of limitation;\n<\/p>\n
       (f) grant of relief is against public policy or barred by any valid
\n       law; and host of other factors.”\n<\/p>\n
22.In the instant case, apart from the fact that admittedly certain disputed <\/p>\n
   questions of fact  viz. non-receipt of notice under Section 13(2) of the <\/p>\n
   Act, non-communication of the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate etc. <\/p>\n
   are involved, an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal under Section 17 <\/p>\n
   of the Act was available to the appellants, who ultimately availed of the <\/p>\n
   same.   Therefore,   having   regard   to   the   facts   obtaining   in   the   case,   the <\/p>\n
   High   Court   was   fully   justified   in   declining   to   exercise   its   jurisdiction <\/p>\n
   under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
23. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgments cannot be flawed, <\/p>\n
   warranting interference by this Court.   Accordingly, the appeals, being <\/p>\n
   devoid of any merit, are dismissed with costs, quantified at `20,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
                                                 …………………………………….\n<\/p>\n
                                                    (D.K. JAIN, J.) <\/p>\n
                                                       ……………………………………..
\n                                                   (H.L. DATTU, J.)
\nNEW DELHI;\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                           1<\/span><\/p>\n
FEBRUARY 7, 2011.\n<\/p>\n
ARS<\/p>\n
                     1<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 7 February, 2011 Bench: D.K. Jain, H.L. Dattu REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 338-340 OF 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos.4436-4438 of 2009) KANAIYALAL LALCHAND SACHDEV & — APPELLANTS ORS. […]<\/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-12326","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nKanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 7 February, 2011 - 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\/kanaiyalal-lalchand-sachdev-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-7-february-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 7 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanaiyalal-lalchand-sachdev-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-7-february-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-02-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-30T14:32:01+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanaiyalal-lalchand-sachdev-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-7-february-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanaiyalal-lalchand-sachdev-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-7-february-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 7 February, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-02-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-30T14:32:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanaiyalal-lalchand-sachdev-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-7-february-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2800,\"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\\\/kanaiyalal-lalchand-sachdev-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-7-february-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanaiyalal-lalchand-sachdev-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-7-february-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanaiyalal-lalchand-sachdev-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-7-february-2011\",\"name\":\"Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 7 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-02-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-30T14:32:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanaiyalal-lalchand-sachdev-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-7-february-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanaiyalal-lalchand-sachdev-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-7-february-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanaiyalal-lalchand-sachdev-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-7-february-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 7 February, 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":"Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 7 February, 2011 - 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\/kanaiyalal-lalchand-sachdev-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-7-february-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 7 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanaiyalal-lalchand-sachdev-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-7-february-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-02-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-30T14:32:01+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanaiyalal-lalchand-sachdev-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-7-february-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanaiyalal-lalchand-sachdev-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-7-february-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 7 February, 2011","datePublished":"2011-02-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-30T14:32:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanaiyalal-lalchand-sachdev-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-7-february-2011"},"wordCount":2800,"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\/kanaiyalal-lalchand-sachdev-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-7-february-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanaiyalal-lalchand-sachdev-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-7-february-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanaiyalal-lalchand-sachdev-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-7-february-2011","name":"Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 7 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-02-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-30T14:32:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanaiyalal-lalchand-sachdev-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-7-february-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanaiyalal-lalchand-sachdev-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-7-february-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanaiyalal-lalchand-sachdev-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-7-february-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 7 February, 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\/12326","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=12326"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12326\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12326"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12326"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12326"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}