{"id":129927,"date":"2002-09-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-09-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jauss-polymers-ltd-and-anr-vs-sawhney-brothers-on-12-september-2002"},"modified":"2017-08-04T21:40:19","modified_gmt":"2017-08-04T16:10:19","slug":"jauss-polymers-ltd-and-anr-vs-sawhney-brothers-on-12-september-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jauss-polymers-ltd-and-anr-vs-sawhney-brothers-on-12-september-2002","title":{"rendered":"Jauss Polymers Ltd. And Anr. vs Sawhney Brothers on 12 September, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Delhi High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Jauss Polymers Ltd. And Anr. vs Sawhney Brothers on 12 September, 2002<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: M A Khan<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: M A Khan<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>  Mahmood Ali Khan, J.  <\/p>\n<p> 1. Failing in its all previous attempts in<br \/>\nscuttling the criminal proceedings launched by the<br \/>\nrespondent for prosecution of the petitioner under<br \/>\nSection 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (the<br \/>\nAct) the petitioners in this criminal revision have<br \/>\nnow sought quashing of the notice served by the trial<br \/>\ncourt  upon them on 3.5.2002 under Section 251 of the<br \/>\nCr.PC.\n<\/p>\n<p> 2. Briefly stated that facts are that the<br \/>\nrespondent has filed a criminal complaint against the<br \/>\npetitioner on the averment, in short, that the<br \/>\npetitioner No.1 in the course of its business had<br \/>\ntaken a loan of Rs. 25 lakhs from the respondent No.1<br \/>\nbearing interest at the rate of 14% per annum and the<br \/>\npetitioner No.1 company in discharge of its debts had<br \/>\nissued two cheques one dated 20.2.1996 for Rs. 25<br \/>\nlakhs and the other dated 8.11.1995 for Rs. 89,753\/-.<br \/>\nThe first cheque was towards repayment of the<br \/>\nprincipal amount. The second cheque was towards the<br \/>\namount of interest at the rate of 14% per annum<br \/>\naccruing on the principal sum up to 20.2.1996. Both<br \/>\nthese cheques were post dated. The petitioner<br \/>\ncompany allowed the encashment of the cheque of<br \/>\nRs. 89,753\/- which was towards interest but did not<br \/>\nallow encashment of the cheque of Rs. 25 lakhs which<br \/>\nwas towards the repayment of the principal sum. The<br \/>\nrespondent No.1 has filed a winding up petition<br \/>\nagainst the petitioner No.1 company. Within the<br \/>\nprescribed  period of 15 days from the date of<br \/>\nbouncing of the cheque of Rs. 25 lakhs notice of<br \/>\ndemand dated 18.3.1996 was served upon the petitioner<br \/>\nNo.1 which has failed to make the payment within 15<br \/>\ndays from the date of the receipt of the notice. The<br \/>\nrespondent complaint alleged that the petitioner<br \/>\nhad committed an offence under Section 138 and should<br \/>\nbe punished for it.\n<\/p>\n<p> 3. The petitioner challenged the order of<br \/>\nsummoning before this court which petition was<br \/>\ndismissed by order dated 11.8.2000. It was pursued<br \/>\nin an SLP which was also dismissed by the Supreme<br \/>\nCourt on 13.9.2000. The petitioner moved another<br \/>\napplication before the Additional Sessions Judge who<br \/>\nwas trying the case for dismissing the complaint on<br \/>\nthe ground that on the date of bouncing of the cheque<br \/>\nthere was no existing debt or liability against the<br \/>\naccused and this ground was not taken in the earlier<br \/>\npetition, therefore, the summoning order must be<br \/>\nrecalled. The application was dismissed. The notice<br \/>\nunder Section 251 Cr. PC has now been framed and<br \/>\nserved on the respondent on 3.5.2002. The petitioner<br \/>\nhas challenged this notice as well in the instant<br \/>\nproceedings.\n<\/p>\n<p> 4. The contentions in this petition are two<br \/>\nfold. Firstly that an agreement-cum-pledge was<br \/>\nexecuted between the petitioner and the  complaint<br \/>\nin pursuance to which short term loan facility of<br \/>\nRs. 25 lakhs was granted to the petitioner on certain<br \/>\nterms and conditions. Paragraphs 5, 6, &amp; 7 of that<br \/>\nagreement clearly show that the petitioner company<br \/>\nhad deposited certain security with the respondent<br \/>\ncomplainant and in terms of that agreement the<br \/>\nrespondent was authorised to dispose of those<br \/>\nsecurities and adjust the money realised towards the<br \/>\nsatisfaction of the loan outstanding against the<br \/>\npetitioner. It is argued that in view of this<br \/>\nagreement the respondent complainant had the<br \/>\ndiscretion to sell and realise any or all the<br \/>\nsecurities for any loss or damage or diminution in<br \/>\nvalue sustained by him. Therefore, the criminal<br \/>\ncomplaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable<br \/>\nInstruments Act is an abuse of the process of the<br \/>\ncourt and the notice in question should be set aside.<br \/>\nThe second contention of the petitioner is that the<br \/>\npetitioner had always been ready and willing to pay<br \/>\nthe amount in Installment and had in fact paid two<br \/>\ncheques of Rs. 1 lakhs each during the pendency of the<br \/>\nwinding up petition which the respondent No.1 had<br \/>\nencashed in compliance to the order of the court. It<br \/>\nwas further submitted that thereafter the petitioner<br \/>\nhad paid Rs. 22 lakhs more and as such out of Rs. 25<br \/>\nlakhs a sum of Rs. 24 lakhs in all has already been<br \/>\npaid to the respondent but the respondent wanted to<br \/>\ncoerce the petitioner to pay interest at the rate of<br \/>\n75% per annum.\n<\/p>\n<p> 5. The counsel for the petitioner has fairly<br \/>\nconceded that mere payment of the amount of the<br \/>\ncheque during the pendency of the criminal complaint<br \/>\nwill not absolve the petitioner of the offence which<br \/>\nhas been committed by him as drawer of the cheque.<br \/>\nHe has however, challenged the service of the notice<br \/>\nunder Section 251 Cr.PC upon the petitioner firstly<br \/>\non the ground that in terms of the<br \/>\nagreement-cum-pledge executed between the parties the<br \/>\npetitioner No. 1 had pledged certain securities with<br \/>\nthe complainant and the complainant had a right to<br \/>\nsell and dispose of those securities, realise the<br \/>\namount and adjust the net proceeds towards the<br \/>\nsatisfaction of the loan amount outstanding against<br \/>\nthe petitioner. It is argued that in the presence of<br \/>\nsuch an agreement between the parties the respondent<br \/>\nhad no right to file a criminal complaint against t he<br \/>\npetitioner under Section 138 of the Act. The<br \/>\nrespondent had right to dispose of the securities and<br \/>\nadjust and amount received against the outstanding<br \/>\ndues from the petitioner. Since this has not been<br \/>\ndone the criminal complaint is not maintainable in<br \/>\nlaw and the notice served in it is liable to be set<br \/>\naside.\n<\/p>\n<p> 6. The argument of the counsel for the<br \/>\npetitioner is unsustained in law. The proceedings<br \/>\npending against the petitioner are not of civil<br \/>\nnature. Section 138 of the Act has made the bouncing<br \/>\nof the cheque issued by  a drawer of a cheque on his<br \/>\nown account for insufficiency of funds etc an<br \/>\noffence. To be precise Section 138 is as under:-\n<\/p>\n<p>  &#8220;138:- Where any cheque drawn by a<br \/>\nperson on a account maintained by<br \/>\nhim with a banker for payment of any<br \/>\namount of money to another person<br \/>\nfrom out of that account for the<br \/>\ndischarge, in whole or in part, of<br \/>\nany debt or other liability, is<br \/>\nreturned by the bank unpaid, either<br \/>\nbecause of the amount of money<br \/>\nstanding to the credit of that<br \/>\naccount is insufficient to honour<br \/>\nthe cheque or that it exceeds the<br \/>\namount arranged to be paid from that<br \/>\naccount by an agreement made with<br \/>\nthat bank, such person shall bee<br \/>\ndeemed to have committed an offence<br \/>\nand shall, without prejudice to any<br \/>\nother provision of this Act, be<br \/>\npunished with imprisonment for a<br \/>\nterm which may extend to one year,<br \/>\nor with fine which may extend to<br \/>\ntwice the amount of the cheque, or<br \/>\nwith both;\n<\/p>\n<p> Provided that nothing contained in<br \/>\nthis Section shall apply unless:-\n<\/p>\n<p> a) the cheque has been presented to<br \/>\nthe bank within a  period of six<br \/>\nmonths from the date on which it is<br \/>\ndrawn or within the period of its<br \/>\nvalidity, whichever is earlier.\n<\/p>\n<p> b) the payee or the holder in due<br \/>\ncourse of the cheque, as the case<br \/>\nmay be, makes a demand for the<br \/>\npayment of the said amount of money<br \/>\nby giving a notice, in writing, to<br \/>\nthe drawer of the cheque, within<br \/>\nfifteen days of the receipt of<br \/>\ninformation by him from the bank<br \/>\nregarding the return of the cheques<br \/>\nas unpaid, and  <\/p>\n<p> c) the drawer of such cheque fails<br \/>\nto make the payment of the said<br \/>\namount of money to the payee or, as<br \/>\nthe case may be, to the holder in<br \/>\ndue course of the cheque, within<br \/>\nfifteen days of the receipt of the<br \/>\nsaid notice.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> 7. It is clear from this provision that the drawer<br \/>\nof the cheque will be guilty of the offence in terms of<br \/>\nthe cheque is not issued for discharging a debt or<br \/>\nliability e.g. as a gift, present or by way of security<br \/>\nand not otherwise.\n<\/p>\n<p> 8. The only  question which calls for consideration<br \/>\nin the criminal proceedings is whether the offence as<br \/>\nembodied in Section 138 of the Act is made out or not.<br \/>\nIf all the requirement of the ingredients of this<br \/>\nSection are fulfillled and satisfied the offence is<br \/>\ncomplete and trial and punishment of the accused will<br \/>\nbe perfectly legal. The payment of the amount of<br \/>\ncheque after the institution of the criminal complaint<br \/>\nwould not wipe of the offence. For instance if the<br \/>\namount of the cheque has not been paid by the drawer of<br \/>\nthe cheque within 15 days from the date of the receipt<br \/>\nof the notice of demand from the payee offence is<br \/>\ncomplete even if it was paid on 16th day. It is a<br \/>\ndifferent question as to what punishment the court will<br \/>\ndeem proper to be awarded for small abrasion with the<br \/>\nrequirement of law or in certain other mitigating<br \/>\ncircumstances. Therefore, existence of an agreement<br \/>\nbetween the parties by which certain securities were<br \/>\ngiven by the borrower to the lender which could be<br \/>\ndisposed of by the borrower for Realizing its<br \/>\noutstanding amount of debt would not deprive the payee<br \/>\nof the cheque from taking resort to the provision of<br \/>\nSection 138 simply because he has other remedies or<br \/>\nmode available for recovery of the debt. The provision<br \/>\nof Section 138 is specifically enacted to give sanctity<br \/>\nto the cheques issued for payment of debts and<br \/>\nliabilities. In a proceeding under Section 138 what<br \/>\nthe court is required to satisfy itself is the<br \/>\nexistence of all the necessary ingredients which<br \/>\nconstitute the offence. There is presumption in law<br \/>\nunder Section 139 of the Act that the cheque has been<br \/>\ndrawn by its drawer for discharging a legal debt or<br \/>\nliability. This presumption is rebuttable and the<br \/>\ndrawer of the cheque is at liberty to prove at the<br \/>\ntrial that the cheque is without consideration.<br \/>\nConsequently neither existence of agreement between the<br \/>\nparties giving right to the respondent to recover the<br \/>\namount due by sale of security etc nor payment of the<br \/>\namount of cheque during the pendency of criminal<br \/>\ncompliant will absolve the petitioner of criminal<br \/>\nliability under Section 138 of the Act. No other<br \/>\ndefect or infirmity has been pointed out in the notice<br \/>\nwhich is impugned in this revision petition.\n<\/p>\n<p> 9. Having regard to the above discussion it must be<br \/>\nheld that the petitioner has failed to show that the<br \/>\nnotice dated 3.5.2001 served by the trial court on the<br \/>\npetitioner in the criminal proceedings under Section<br \/>\n138 of the Act suffer from any illegality or<br \/>\nimpropriety which could warrant interference by this<br \/>\ncourt to prevent abuse of the process of the court and<br \/>\nmiscarriage of justice. Petition has no merit. It is,<br \/>\ntherefore, dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court Jauss Polymers Ltd. And Anr. vs Sawhney Brothers on 12 September, 2002 Author: M A Khan Bench: M A Khan JUDGMENT Mahmood Ali Khan, J. 1. Failing in its all previous attempts in scuttling the criminal proceedings launched by the respondent for prosecution of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable [&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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-129927","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-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>Jauss Polymers Ltd. And Anr. vs Sawhney Brothers on 12 September, 2002 - 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\/jauss-polymers-ltd-and-anr-vs-sawhney-brothers-on-12-september-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jauss Polymers Ltd. And Anr. vs Sawhney Brothers on 12 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jauss-polymers-ltd-and-anr-vs-sawhney-brothers-on-12-september-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-09-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-04T16:10:19+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jauss-polymers-ltd-and-anr-vs-sawhney-brothers-on-12-september-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jauss-polymers-ltd-and-anr-vs-sawhney-brothers-on-12-september-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jauss Polymers Ltd. And Anr. vs Sawhney Brothers on 12 September, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-09-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-04T16:10:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jauss-polymers-ltd-and-anr-vs-sawhney-brothers-on-12-september-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1749,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jauss-polymers-ltd-and-anr-vs-sawhney-brothers-on-12-september-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jauss-polymers-ltd-and-anr-vs-sawhney-brothers-on-12-september-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jauss-polymers-ltd-and-anr-vs-sawhney-brothers-on-12-september-2002\",\"name\":\"Jauss Polymers Ltd. And Anr. vs Sawhney Brothers on 12 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-09-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-04T16:10:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jauss-polymers-ltd-and-anr-vs-sawhney-brothers-on-12-september-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jauss-polymers-ltd-and-anr-vs-sawhney-brothers-on-12-september-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jauss-polymers-ltd-and-anr-vs-sawhney-brothers-on-12-september-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jauss Polymers Ltd. And Anr. vs Sawhney Brothers on 12 September, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"Jauss Polymers Ltd. And Anr. vs Sawhney Brothers on 12 September, 2002 - 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\/jauss-polymers-ltd-and-anr-vs-sawhney-brothers-on-12-september-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jauss Polymers Ltd. And Anr. vs Sawhney Brothers on 12 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jauss-polymers-ltd-and-anr-vs-sawhney-brothers-on-12-september-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-09-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-04T16:10:19+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jauss-polymers-ltd-and-anr-vs-sawhney-brothers-on-12-september-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jauss-polymers-ltd-and-anr-vs-sawhney-brothers-on-12-september-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jauss Polymers Ltd. And Anr. vs Sawhney Brothers on 12 September, 2002","datePublished":"2002-09-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-04T16:10:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jauss-polymers-ltd-and-anr-vs-sawhney-brothers-on-12-september-2002"},"wordCount":1749,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jauss-polymers-ltd-and-anr-vs-sawhney-brothers-on-12-september-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jauss-polymers-ltd-and-anr-vs-sawhney-brothers-on-12-september-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jauss-polymers-ltd-and-anr-vs-sawhney-brothers-on-12-september-2002","name":"Jauss Polymers Ltd. And Anr. vs Sawhney Brothers on 12 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-09-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-04T16:10:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jauss-polymers-ltd-and-anr-vs-sawhney-brothers-on-12-september-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jauss-polymers-ltd-and-anr-vs-sawhney-brothers-on-12-september-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jauss-polymers-ltd-and-anr-vs-sawhney-brothers-on-12-september-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jauss Polymers Ltd. And Anr. vs Sawhney Brothers on 12 September, 2002"}]},{"@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\/129927","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=129927"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/129927\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=129927"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=129927"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=129927"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}