{"id":124995,"date":"2010-09-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gayathri-timbers-vs-west-wood-industries-on-20-september-2010"},"modified":"2018-02-04T02:25:21","modified_gmt":"2018-02-03T20:55:21","slug":"gayathri-timbers-vs-west-wood-industries-on-20-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gayathri-timbers-vs-west-wood-industries-on-20-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Gayathri Timbers vs West Wood Industries on 20 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Gayathri Timbers vs West Wood Industries on 20 September, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT sAi\u00a7o}Ai.;'oiiE\n\nDATED THIS THE 20%: DAY or SEPTEMBER giosilo -   \n\nBEFORE  \n\nTHE HONBLE MRJUSTECE H'UlVLi:_yADi\n\nCriminal   of   \nBetween: . l '\n\nGayathri Timbers .. -V\nNo.2, Triveni Road   .  V\nYeshwanthapura \"_' -- V _\nBangalore 560  ~ ' _\nRepresented by its': .   '\n\nPr0pri,9to.1: .   ::... .\n\nSri Ratanshi  _  .. Appellant\n{By Sri aAndlS'ri:'.Vishwas L., Advocates}\n\nAnd} -v\n\n  W\u00e9od ~:p.di?tr'i\u00e9\u00a7\n ' N018.  \/82%, _Mi1l<._ Colony\n" Maillesh\\}vara.n1. est\n\nBangalore'  O55\nRepresented by its\n\n Proprietor Arun Kumar .. Respondent<\/pre>\n
A “:l.’M\/s S.Nagaraj &: Assts., Advocates}<\/p>\n
This criminal appeal is filed under Section 378(4)<\/p>\n
l  “”Cr.P.C. by the Advocate for the appellant. praying that<\/p>\n
this Horfble Court may be pleased to set aside the
\njudgments cit. 4.4.2008 passed by the XII Addl. CMM,<\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n
Bangaiore in CC No.l432rfi\/2007 e1cqL1itt.ing”L:’-‘the<\/p>\n
respondenbaccused and etc.<\/p>\n
This appeal Corning on for hearin_;_\u00a7w–.thi’s,V the -. <\/p>\n
Court delivered the following:\n<\/p>\n
JUD(}VME1\\lT_’ C ” ‘C<\/p>\n
This appeal is by the-v..,,complaiiii.an~t,ssseiiilllingl thett<\/p>\n
order of the X11 Addvitional  *  it “ivletropolitan<\/p>\n
Magistrate. Bangalore      14324\/2007.
\nAccording to   doing timber
\nbusiness  eiisproached for supply of
\n for having supplied
\nthe mveite\ufb01rials,’  was due to the tune of<\/p>\n
ovifards discharge of his liability, the<\/p>\n
C  has  a cheque dated 15.01.2007 for<\/p>\n
 drawn on Bank of India, Malleswaram<\/p>\n
Bra.r1cl1_;’ ‘ Oh presentation. the cheque was disbonoured<\/p>\n
 :”fo1j ins’ufficient funds. After causing legal notice, since<\/p>\n
it . C ‘ac’cused did not niake payment, complaint came to be<\/p>\n
  -\u00abfiled under Section 200 C1*.P.C. before the jurisdictional<\/p>\n
Magistrate for the alleged offence under Section 138 of<\/p>\n
\\,
\nif __<\/p>\n
the Negotiable instruments Act. The trial cot1rt:.l:’d\u00a3ir:ii2,g<\/p>\n
inquiry. has recorded the evidence of the c.’on1plai1i.ai1Vt_;e <\/p>\n
About 42 documents were got rna’rk’ed.\u00ab Qn oflthne\u00e9<\/p>\n
5′.\n<\/p>\n
accused. accused himself got.:__ epgaininc-d”\u00bb.a’nd:,”~..1;:~_<\/p>\n
documents were got marked;-J;i’hereafter;\u00abfh=etrial’ court it<\/p>\n
opining that as on ti*;.e datelllofjlissuancelof cheque, it
\ncannot be believed that theldue in a sum
\nof Rs. 15,OO,QvG0..\/V has  Hence<\/p>\n
this   V<\/p>\n
  tothe learned counsel for the
\nappellant-awhen’ refilly given by the accused to the<\/p>\n
Iegailnotice  he has specifically admitted the fact<\/p>\n
 a_lso_ag1<eed to settle the matter and nowhere he<\/p>\n
claimed *that'*;'at.her complainant himself is due in a sum<\/p>\n
–V of l\u00a7s…183O.Ol;lOOO\/~ to the accused and even EXP42 is the<\/p>\n
letter  the handwriting of the accused himseif<\/p>\n
Alalt:hr)t1gh the let.t.er~head belongs to the complainant<\/p>\n
and, submits that the accused had undertaken to make<\/p>\n
payment but the trial court without Elppr\ufb01gpieitttl\u00e9g\u00e9i’pt}1.\u20ac<\/p>\n
documents and facts that cheque was issued’ towai’ds\u00bb  <\/p>\n
legally enforceable debt, simplym ‘1*ias_ <\/p>\n
complaint under : A:CSe’ctio11 = ‘~ <\/p>\n
Cr.P.C. as a breach of c0ntra’ct”‘which”i.s eirrorie-pus.<\/p>\n
3. The argument ‘M of  for the
\nrespondent   supplied SI-Jbx
\nstandard  returned the same to the
\n is himself due in
\na sumzof!RsV.”the customer of the accused<\/p>\n
has grejepcted the ‘goods supplied by the complainant and,<\/p>\n
ehequetiztvhich was given to the complainant<\/p>\n
as\u00ab.i’a  being misused. Apart from that, there<\/p>\n
is also  -admission on the part of the complainant that<\/p>\n
_’i.wo_ more cheques which were issued by the accused<\/p>\n
it   with him. The complainant is taking advantage of<\/p>\n
 “the signed cheques issued to him towards security and<\/p>\n
making a false claim for unlawful gain.<\/p>\n
Ui-\n<\/p>\n
4. Cheques are stated to have been <\/p>\n
accused to the complainant. Signature on  cheques. <\/p>\n
not in dispute. T he contention,-‘o’f’*the “aecmsed is–.that&<\/p>\n
cheque was taken by the complainant’ t’owa’r;dA.s*\n<\/p>\n
5. The specific conte fit’:-on of’-the v1eaifned.._co113nse1._*<\/p>\n
for the complainant is that  due in a
\nsum of Rs.27,75.34i\/;Ta: –_of issuance of
\ncheques and tow_ards””p’aift  had issued a<\/p>\n
Cheque  ” V<\/p>\n
  On dishonour of the
\nCheque,”  fot to make arrangement for<\/p>\n
paynient. ‘4Ae.eAord’i11gly,z’ he contended that the accused<\/p>\n
 1i_o\u00a7V (;(.i’n_1\u20ac out with a different version and sought<\/p>\n
6._,”1’t\u00bba”ppears in the course of discussion, the trial<\/p>\n
  court,  noted that there is a eo1’1t:1′.oVersy in respect of<\/p>\n
“‘bil’1s’A’raised by the complainant. Except: the production<\/p>\n
it “of invoice, the complainant: has not chosen to produce<\/p>\n
the books of accounts to show that the said <\/p>\n
credit bills and not the cash bills as  <\/p>\n
accused and also opined thatfthe”bu’rde;n:Ais.__or1fEt1*i’eo<\/p>\n
complainant to show that the acc’usc.d. was:_l_ia’ble <\/p>\n
the cheque amount as on th\u00a7–.t.l;j::ate oi the’ ch  <\/p>\n
7. In the decision..reportedns\u00abiii  1898 in
\nthe case of RANGAPPAV:’\\:’f-$:,_  Court has
\nheld that    the accused to<\/p>\n
the compli1_inatf1_t,. the iririftrial”-presvurnption is in favour of<\/p>\n
the complainant”-~tliat'”th’e ‘cheque was issued towards<\/p>\n
legally  and it is for the accused to<\/p>\n
   or”es1..irn.ption not merely by plausible<\/p>\n
 ‘ e\u00a7:p1a1’1atio:iii,::hiit he must offer proof of explanation.<\/p>\n
 course, there is a burden on the complainant<\/p>\n
in  business transaction for having supplied the<\/p>\n
materiais or for receiving the cash and to produce the
\naccounts maintained regarding the proof of transactiori<\/p>\n
ii?”\n<\/p>\n
and the amount due which is normally dohe:l:b5\u00a7:’–.tl1e<\/p>\n
accounts being maintained and e11t1ries’=.V: <\/p>\n
maintained in the regular books:’olf’la(i:’eounts\u00ab. <\/p>\n
the notice at EXP? makes ri;e.11tio1′.1’_~i<\/p>\n
settlement of issues. Apartlfroizi that stated V<\/p>\n
to be in the handwrit.i’hgp_ of   althoulgh it is in
\nthe letter–head of the  to
\nsettle the matteftiilh  as noted above
\nin the   thel’ac’clused to disprove the
\nexistejz\ufb01icelof  debt and also it has to
\nbe   was issued towards legally<\/p>\n
It<\/p>\n
enfoj;ceablel.Vtiebt.’l’ ltlisl for the accused to rebut the<\/p>\n
lv”pIjeVsi1Iiiptio1i__ and also to produce the proof of<\/p>\n
  has to rebut the presumption. It<\/p>\n
appears that all is not well with both the parties. But<\/p>\n
,::tAh.e_.4la\\?V”favours the complainant when he holds the<\/p>\n
l’cheque which is duly signed by the accused. Negative<\/p>\n
l'”oI1us is on the accused to disprove the presumption<\/p>\n
available under law. In the circumstances, the trial<\/p>\n
3%,.\n<\/p>\n
 ~ ;ep\u00e9’ordEs7″ Tithe trial court.<\/p>\n
Court also should have looked into the <:ase2".:i*1'o:m.l'vva<\/p>\n
proper perspective to enable the parties'-Ito.~a(i'di,1e_ee <\/p>\n
additional evidence if any. ar1dj'dils'p'osp_e..pof,the,ease' trig<\/p>\n
accordance with the ratio laid  the_–\u00a5A'p.ex <\/p>\n
in the above noted decision.  x<\/p>\n
9. In the light _ above, the
\nimpugned   is remitted
\nto the    of the same in
\naecordarieei  the trial court is
\ndirected   to the parties to lead<\/p>\n
addiitioitial elviri_er1ee.l’Otfiee is directed to send back the<\/p>\n
Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
Judge<\/p>\n
   Hmgx<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Gayathri Timbers vs West Wood Industries on 20 September, 2010 Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT sAi\u00a7o}Ai.;’oiiE DATED THIS THE 20%: DAY or SEPTEMBER giosilo – BEFORE THE HONBLE MRJUSTECE H’UlVLi:_yADi Criminal of Between: . l ‘ Gayathri Timbers .. -V No.2, Triveni Road . V Yeshwanthapura “_’ […]<\/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":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-124995","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nGayathri Timbers vs West Wood Industries on 20 September, 2010 - 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\/gayathri-timbers-vs-west-wood-industries-on-20-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gayathri Timbers vs West Wood Industries on 20 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gayathri-timbers-vs-west-wood-industries-on-20-september-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-09-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-03T20:55:21+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\\\/gayathri-timbers-vs-west-wood-industries-on-20-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gayathri-timbers-vs-west-wood-industries-on-20-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gayathri Timbers vs West Wood Industries on 20 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-03T20:55:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gayathri-timbers-vs-west-wood-industries-on-20-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1104,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gayathri-timbers-vs-west-wood-industries-on-20-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gayathri-timbers-vs-west-wood-industries-on-20-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gayathri-timbers-vs-west-wood-industries-on-20-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Gayathri Timbers vs West Wood Industries on 20 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-03T20:55:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gayathri-timbers-vs-west-wood-industries-on-20-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gayathri-timbers-vs-west-wood-industries-on-20-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gayathri-timbers-vs-west-wood-industries-on-20-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gayathri Timbers vs West Wood Industries on 20 September, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Gayathri Timbers vs West Wood Industries on 20 September, 2010 - 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\/gayathri-timbers-vs-west-wood-industries-on-20-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gayathri Timbers vs West Wood Industries on 20 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gayathri-timbers-vs-west-wood-industries-on-20-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-03T20:55:21+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\/gayathri-timbers-vs-west-wood-industries-on-20-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gayathri-timbers-vs-west-wood-industries-on-20-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gayathri Timbers vs West Wood Industries on 20 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-03T20:55:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gayathri-timbers-vs-west-wood-industries-on-20-september-2010"},"wordCount":1104,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gayathri-timbers-vs-west-wood-industries-on-20-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gayathri-timbers-vs-west-wood-industries-on-20-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gayathri-timbers-vs-west-wood-industries-on-20-september-2010","name":"Gayathri Timbers vs West Wood Industries on 20 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-03T20:55:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gayathri-timbers-vs-west-wood-industries-on-20-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gayathri-timbers-vs-west-wood-industries-on-20-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gayathri-timbers-vs-west-wood-industries-on-20-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gayathri Timbers vs West Wood Industries on 20 September, 2010"}]},{"@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\/124995","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=124995"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/124995\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=124995"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=124995"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=124995"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}