{"id":131608,"date":"2009-09-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gadhinglaj-vs-3-shri-balkrishna-maruti-tade-on-8-september-2009"},"modified":"2016-02-04T05:25:19","modified_gmt":"2016-02-03T23:55:19","slug":"gadhinglaj-vs-3-shri-balkrishna-maruti-tade-on-8-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gadhinglaj-vs-3-shri-balkrishna-maruti-tade-on-8-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"Gadhinglaj vs 3) Shri Balkrishna Maruti Tade on 8 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Gadhinglaj vs 3) Shri Balkrishna Maruti Tade on 8 September, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: J. H. Bhatia<\/div>\n
                             1\n\n        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                                                             \n               FIRST APPEAL NO. 554 OF 2009\n\n\n\n\n                                     \n    Shivajirao Nilkanthrao Patil\n    Age : 50, Occup.:Agriculture &\n    Business, R\/o.Kadgaon, Tal.:\n\n\n\n\n                                    \n    Gadhinglaj, Dist.Kolhapur             ...Appellant\n                                          (Orig.Claimant)\n\n        V\/s.\n\n\n\n\n                          \n    (1) Maruti Appa Tade (Deceased)\n        through Legal heirs :\n                 \n        (a) Smt.Indubai Maruti Tade\n            Age:65, Occup.Household,\n            R\/o. Kadgaon, Tal.\n                \n            Gadhinglaj, Dist.Kolhapur.\n        (b) Shri Prakash Maruti Tade,\n            Age:46, Occup. Agriculture,\n            R\/o. As above.\n      \n\n        (c) Shri Balkrushna Maruti Tade,\n            Occu. Education, R\/Kagoshima,\n   \n\n\n\n            Dist.Raigad.\n        (d) Sou.Mangal Mahesh Bhopale,\n            Age:35, Occup.Household,\n            R\/o. Shimoga (Karnataka)\n\n\n\n\n\n        (e) Malan Babasaheb Prabhalkar,\n            R\/o.Bindu Chowk, Bhui Galli,\n            Kolhapur, Dist.Kolhapur.\n\n    (2) United India Insurance Company Ltd.\n\n\n\n\n\n        A\/P Main Road, Gadhinglaj,\n        Tal.Gadhinglaj, Dist.Kolhapur.\n\n    (3) Shri Balkrishna Maruti Tade,\n        Age : Major, R\/o.Kadgaon, near\n        S.T.Stand, Tal.Gadhinglaj,\n        Dist.Kolhapur.                ...Respondents\n                                      (orig. Opponent\n                                       Nos. 1 & 3)\n\n\n\n\n                                     ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:59:20 :::\n                                       2\n\n                           ....\n    Mr.Sudhakar G.Thorat,Advocate, for the appellant.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                         \n    Mr.Amit Borkar, Advocate, for respondent nos.\n    1(a), 1(b), 1(d), 1(e) & 3;\n\n\n\n\n                                                 \n    Shri Ranjan B. Tripathi i\/by S.M.Vidyarthi for\n    respondent no.2.\n                           ....\n\n\n\n\n                                                \n                                CORAM       : J.H.BHATIA,J.\n<\/pre>\n
                                DATE        : 8th September, 2009.\n\n    ORAL JUDGMENT :\n\n\n\n\n                                   \n      1.The    appellant\n                        ig      has       preferred            this         appeal\n\n<\/pre>\n
        against the dismissal of his Motor Accident<\/p>\n
        Claims Petition No. 129 of 2000 by the Motor<\/p>\n
        Accident       Claim   Tribunal,          Gadhinglaj.                   With<\/p>\n
        consent of the counsel for the parties, the<\/p>\n
        appeal       is   immediately           taken      up      for        final<\/p>\n
        hearing.\n<\/p>\n
      2. It   is   a   case    of   the     appellant            that       on      7th<\/p>\n
        August 1995 at 8.30 p.m. he was travelling by<\/p>\n
        his motor cycle bearing no. DEW-9197.                               He was<\/p>\n
        proceeding        towards     Kadgaon.           At      that         time,<\/p>\n
        another motor cycle bearing No. MEH-386 came<\/p>\n
        in    high     speed   from       the    opposite           direction.\n<\/p>\n
        Respondent no.3 drove the motor cycle rash and<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:59:20 :::<\/span>
\n                                     3<\/span><\/p>\n
       negligently     and dashed the motor cycle of the<\/p>\n
       appellant     due    to     which       he      fell         down        and<\/p>\n
       sustained          several            injuries               including<\/p>\n
       fractures. After the occurrence, he was taken<\/p>\n
       to the hospital of Dr.Kolhapure and from there<\/p>\n
       he was shifted to the hospital at Miraj, where<\/p>\n
       he was required to take treatment for long<\/p>\n
       time.     He claimed that due the injuries, he<\/p>\n
       had suffered partial permanent disability and<\/p>\n
       he   is   unable    to    discharge           his      work        as      an<\/p>\n
       agriculturist.            Therefore,           he       claimed            an<\/p>\n
       amount of Rs.4,28,500\/- as compensation.                                 The<\/p>\n
       offending     vehicle        was       owned          by       deceased<\/p>\n
       respondent     no.1-Maruti            Appa       Tade         and        was<\/p>\n
       insured     with     respondent          no.2-United                 India<\/p>\n
       Insurance Company Ltd.\n<\/p>\n
     3. The respondent nos.1 and 3 filed their Written<\/p>\n
       Statements    at     Exh.        24   and     respondent               no.2<\/p>\n
       filed its Written Statement at Exh.28.                                 They<\/p>\n
       denied that the accident had taken place due<\/p>\n
       to the rash and negligent driving of the motor<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:59:20 :::<\/span>
\n                                      4<\/span><\/p>\n
       cycle bearing no. MEH-386. They also denied<\/p>\n
       that the said motorcycle was involved in the<\/p>\n
       said accident. They also denied the injuries<\/p>\n
       and     partial    permanent            disability             and        the<\/p>\n
       expenses incurred by petitioner\/appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     4.The Trial Court framed several issues on the<\/p>\n
       basis of the contentions of the petitioner and<\/p>\n
       after     hearing
\n                    ig         the        evidence          led         by       the<\/p>\n
       petitioner,       the    Trial          Court        came        to       the<\/p>\n
       conclusion that the petitioner had failed to<\/p>\n
       prove that in the accident, the motor cycle<\/p>\n
       baring No. MEH-386 belonging to respondent no.\n<\/p>\n
       1 was involved.           In the result, the claim<\/p>\n
       petition came to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
     5. The    learned     counsel             for       the         appellant<\/p>\n
       vehemently contends that the Trial Court had<\/p>\n
       unnecessarily given importance to the delay in<\/p>\n
       lodging the F.I.R.            According to him, taking<\/p>\n
       into     consideration            the     evidence              of        the<\/p>\n
       petitioner    and       the       eye   witnesses             Dattatray<\/p>\n
       Patil and Nishikant Patil, it should have been<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:59:20 :::<\/span>
\n                                       5<\/span><\/p>\n
       held   that       the    accident            had        taken          place<\/p>\n
       involving     the       said       motor       cycle          and        that<\/p>\n
       respondent      no.3     was       rash      and       negligent             in<\/p>\n
       driving the vehicle and responsible for the<\/p>\n
       accident.\n<\/p>\n
     6.On the other hand, the learned counsel for<\/p>\n
       respondents       vehemently             contended            that         the<\/p>\n
       F.I.R. was lodged about 2\u00bd years after the<\/p>\n
       alleged accident and almost immediately after<\/p>\n
       lodging   the     F.I.R.,          the    claim        petition            was<\/p>\n
       filed. In view of delay of 2 1\/2 years in<\/p>\n
       lodging     the     F.I.R.,          there          was         no       spot<\/p>\n
       panchanama or seizure of the vehicle, which<\/p>\n
       was involved in the accident.                     It is contended<\/p>\n
       that the appellant himself is a police Patil<\/p>\n
       and therefore, the delay in lodging the report<\/p>\n
       becomes     important          and       therefore            his        oral<\/p>\n
       testimony could not be given much importance.\n<\/p>\n
     7.The only point for my consideration is whether<\/p>\n
       the accident had taken place due to the rash<\/p>\n
       and negligent driving of the motor cycle No.<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:59:20 :::<\/span>
\n                                     6<\/span><\/p>\n
       MEH-386 by respondent no.3.\n<\/p>\n
     8.On perusal of the record and the evidence, it<\/p>\n
       appears that the alleged accident had taken<\/p>\n
       place on 7th August 1995 at about 8.30 p.m. on<\/p>\n
       Gadhinglaj-Kadgaon           Road.           The         petitioner<\/p>\n
       himself,     was    driving        the    motor         cycle          No.<\/p>\n
       DEM-9197.     other       two       witnesses            namely            :\n<\/p>\n
       Dattatraya    Patil\n                    ig          and      Nishikant         Patil            were\n\n       also   proceeding       on     another     motor         cycle         and\n                  \n<\/pre>\n
       they claim to have seen the accident. As per<\/p>\n
       the evidence of the appellant and these two<\/p>\n
       witnesses,    the       motor     cycle     No.MEH-386               came<\/p>\n
       from the opposite side, respondent no.3 was<\/p>\n
       driving the same rashly and due to the rash<\/p>\n
       and negligent driving,               he gave the dash to<\/p>\n
       the motorcycle of the petitioner, due to which<\/p>\n
       the petitioner fell down and suffered several<\/p>\n
       injuries.          He    was      immediately             taken          to<\/p>\n
       hospital     of    Dr.Kolhapure           by      Dattatraya               &<\/p>\n
       Nishikant Patil.         The appellant also examined<\/p>\n
       Dr.Milind    Kulkarni,           Orthopedic        Surgeon           from<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:59:20 :::<\/span>
\n                                     7<\/span><\/p>\n
       Miraj,      who     had    examined      and        treated            the<\/p>\n
       appellant from time to time.                  He deposed that<\/p>\n
       he   had      suffered       compound          fractures               and<\/p>\n
       therefore, he was required to be operated on<\/p>\n
       three occasions and his treatment continued<\/p>\n
       intermittently from 8th August 1995                            to 25th<\/p>\n
       April 1996. He also deposed that the appellant<\/p>\n
       has suffered partial permanent disability to<\/p>\n
       the extent of 70%.\n<\/p>\n
     9.In   view    of     the     medical     evidence             and       the<\/p>\n
       evidence of the appellant as well as Nishikant<\/p>\n
       Patil, it can be held that in the accident of<\/p>\n
       motor      cycle,     the        appellant       had         suffered<\/p>\n
       several      injuries        resulting           into          partial<\/p>\n
       permanent         disability.       However,          before           the<\/p>\n
       liability     to     pay     the    compensation               can       be<\/p>\n
       fastened on the respondents, it is necessary<\/p>\n
       to prove that motor cycle No.MEH-386 belonging<\/p>\n
       to the respondent no.1 was being driven by<\/p>\n
       respondent no.3, at the relevant time and due<\/p>\n
       to   the    rash    and     negligent      driving           of      that<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:59:20 :::<\/span>
\n                                 8<\/span><\/p>\n
       motor cycle, the accident had taken place.\n<\/p>\n
     10.Record    reveals     that   even    though          the       said<\/p>\n
       accident had taken place on 7th August 1995, no<\/p>\n
       report was lodged about the accident with the<\/p>\n
       police till 26th January 1998, when for the<\/p>\n
       first time, the statement of the appellant was<\/p>\n
       recorded by the Head Constable Krishna Saturam<\/p>\n
       Bhiguda.    On that basis, F.I.R. was registered<\/p>\n
       on 26th January 1998 and Crime No. 13\/1998 came<\/p>\n
       to be registered.       The record reveals that the<\/p>\n
       appellant himself is a police Patil and for a<\/p>\n
       period of eight months after the accident, he<\/p>\n
       was taking treatment.         From his own admission<\/p>\n
       it appears that he used to go to the police<\/p>\n
       station    as   well    and   Tahasildar           office           to<\/p>\n
       discharge his official functions as a police<\/p>\n
       Patil.     As a police Patil, he was well aware<\/p>\n
       that whenever any such accident or any crime<\/p>\n
       is committed, immediately a report should be<\/p>\n
       lodged with the police.         But he did not take<\/p>\n
       care to lodge such report for a period of<\/p>\n
                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:59:20 :::<\/span>
\n                                     9<\/span><\/p>\n
     about 2 \u00bd years.               According to him, he had<\/p>\n
     asked     the    Medical           Officer       to        inform          the<\/p>\n
     police.     He did not examine Dr.Kolhapure of<\/p>\n
     Gadhinglaj,       in    whose       hospital          he     was        first<\/p>\n
     taken.       From       there       he    was       taken          to      the<\/p>\n
     hospital at Miraj of Dr.Milind Kulkarni, where<\/p>\n
     he was taking treatment for a long time. The<\/p>\n
     evidence of Dr.Kulkarni also does not reveal<\/p>\n
     that the appellant had told him that he had<\/p>\n
     suffered    injuries       in       an    accident             involving<\/p>\n
     motor    cycle     bearing         No.MEH-386.                 Normally,<\/p>\n
     whenever, such injured person is brought to<\/p>\n
     the hospital, Casual Medical Officer records<\/p>\n
     the circumstances in which the injuries are<\/p>\n
     caused.         Here,    the       appellant         or      the        other<\/p>\n
     witnesses,       who     claim       to           have        seen         the<\/p>\n
     accident, did not tell the Doctor that the<\/p>\n
     accident had taken place because of or with<\/p>\n
     the motor cycle No.MEH-386                  Hence, the Medical<\/p>\n
     Officer had not taken note of the same.                                      If<\/p>\n
     such note would be available on the record of<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:59:20 :::<\/span>
\n                                       10<\/span><\/p>\n
       the hospital and particularly admission papers<\/p>\n
       of     theappellant,          it     could          be      said         that<\/p>\n
       immediately after the accident, the appellant<\/p>\n
       or some other witness had stated that such and<\/p>\n
       such    vehicle       was     involved         in    the       accident.\n<\/p>\n
       However, it appears that no such statement was<\/p>\n
       made even before the Medical Officer.\n<\/p>\n
     11.Importance of lodging the F.I.R., immediately<\/p>\n
       after the incident, cannot be overemphasised.\n<\/p>\n
       Firstly,        the    F.I.R.        discloses              the        facts<\/p>\n
       immediately after the incident. On the basis<\/p>\n
       of     which,     investigation            could         be      properly<\/p>\n
       held.     Statement           of     witnesses                could          be<\/p>\n
       recorded. Spot Panchanama could be made and<\/p>\n
       the concerned vehicle could be seized. Wheel<\/p>\n
       Marks and other marks on the spot of accident<\/p>\n
       and the damage, if any, to the vehicle, could<\/p>\n
       be useful in finding out whether the accident<\/p>\n
       had    taken     place      due     to    rash       and       negligent<\/p>\n
       driving of the alleged offending vehicle.                                    In<\/p>\n
       the     present       case,     as       the    F.I.R.           was       not<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:59:20 :::<\/span>
\n                                    11<\/span><\/p>\n
       lodged, no such investigation could be made,<\/p>\n
       no panchanama could be made, no vehicle could<\/p>\n
       be seized from the spot. In the circumstances,<\/p>\n
       all    possible       evidence,         which           could           be<\/p>\n
       available,      was    completely         lost.              In       the<\/p>\n
       circumstances, it would be difficult to place<\/p>\n
       implicit reliance on the oral testimony of the<\/p>\n
       claimant that the accident had taken place due<\/p>\n
       to rash and negligent driving of the motor<\/p>\n
       cycle bearing No. MEH-386.\n<\/p>\n
     12.The    trial    court      minutely         considered               the<\/p>\n
       evidence before coming to the conclusion that<\/p>\n
       the    appellant      had   failed      to      establish             the<\/p>\n
       motor cycle bearing No. MEH-386 was involved<\/p>\n
       in the said accident and that accident had<\/p>\n
       occurred due to rash and negligently driving<\/p>\n
       of that vehicle by respondent no.3. As the<\/p>\n
       appellant failed to prove these basic issues,<\/p>\n
       the question of granting any compensation to<\/p>\n
       him as against respondent nos. 1 to 3 would<\/p>\n
       not arise. I do not find any fault with the<\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:59:20 :::<\/span>
\n                                12<\/span><\/p>\n
       approach of the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
     13.Therefore,   there    is    no    substance                in      the<\/p>\n
       present   appeal      and    it     is      liable           to       be<\/p>\n
       dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
     14.In the result, the appeal stands dimissed.\n<\/p>\n
                                         (J.H.BHATIA,J.)<\/p>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:59:20 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Gadhinglaj vs 3) Shri Balkrishna Maruti Tade on 8 September, 2009 Bench: J. H. Bhatia 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 554 OF 2009 Shivajirao Nilkanthrao Patil Age : 50, Occup.:Agriculture & Business, R\/o.Kadgaon, Tal.: Gadhinglaj, Dist.Kolhapur …Appellant (Orig.Claimant) V\/s. (1) Maruti Appa […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-131608","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nGadhinglaj vs 3) Shri Balkrishna Maruti Tade on 8 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gadhinglaj-vs-3-shri-balkrishna-maruti-tade-on-8-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gadhinglaj vs 3) Shri Balkrishna Maruti Tade on 8 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gadhinglaj-vs-3-shri-balkrishna-maruti-tade-on-8-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-03T23:55:19+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\\\/gadhinglaj-vs-3-shri-balkrishna-maruti-tade-on-8-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gadhinglaj-vs-3-shri-balkrishna-maruti-tade-on-8-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gadhinglaj vs 3) Shri Balkrishna Maruti Tade on 8 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-03T23:55:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gadhinglaj-vs-3-shri-balkrishna-maruti-tade-on-8-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1532,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gadhinglaj-vs-3-shri-balkrishna-maruti-tade-on-8-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gadhinglaj-vs-3-shri-balkrishna-maruti-tade-on-8-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gadhinglaj-vs-3-shri-balkrishna-maruti-tade-on-8-september-2009\",\"name\":\"Gadhinglaj vs 3) Shri Balkrishna Maruti Tade on 8 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-03T23:55:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gadhinglaj-vs-3-shri-balkrishna-maruti-tade-on-8-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gadhinglaj-vs-3-shri-balkrishna-maruti-tade-on-8-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gadhinglaj-vs-3-shri-balkrishna-maruti-tade-on-8-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gadhinglaj vs 3) Shri Balkrishna Maruti Tade on 8 September, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Gadhinglaj vs 3) Shri Balkrishna Maruti Tade on 8 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gadhinglaj-vs-3-shri-balkrishna-maruti-tade-on-8-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gadhinglaj vs 3) Shri Balkrishna Maruti Tade on 8 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gadhinglaj-vs-3-shri-balkrishna-maruti-tade-on-8-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-03T23:55:19+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\/gadhinglaj-vs-3-shri-balkrishna-maruti-tade-on-8-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gadhinglaj-vs-3-shri-balkrishna-maruti-tade-on-8-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gadhinglaj vs 3) Shri Balkrishna Maruti Tade on 8 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-03T23:55:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gadhinglaj-vs-3-shri-balkrishna-maruti-tade-on-8-september-2009"},"wordCount":1532,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gadhinglaj-vs-3-shri-balkrishna-maruti-tade-on-8-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gadhinglaj-vs-3-shri-balkrishna-maruti-tade-on-8-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gadhinglaj-vs-3-shri-balkrishna-maruti-tade-on-8-september-2009","name":"Gadhinglaj vs 3) Shri Balkrishna Maruti Tade on 8 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-03T23:55:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gadhinglaj-vs-3-shri-balkrishna-maruti-tade-on-8-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gadhinglaj-vs-3-shri-balkrishna-maruti-tade-on-8-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gadhinglaj-vs-3-shri-balkrishna-maruti-tade-on-8-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gadhinglaj vs 3) Shri Balkrishna Maruti Tade on 8 September, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/131608","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=131608"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/131608\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=131608"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=131608"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=131608"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}