{"id":159090,"date":"2010-10-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-maruthi-finance-vs-smt-t-lakshmi-wo-late-d-gopal-on-20-october-2010"},"modified":"2014-06-13T14:53:50","modified_gmt":"2014-06-13T09:23:50","slug":"ms-maruthi-finance-vs-smt-t-lakshmi-wo-late-d-gopal-on-20-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-maruthi-finance-vs-smt-t-lakshmi-wo-late-d-gopal-on-20-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"M\/S Maruthi Finance vs Smt T Lakshmi W\/O Late D Gopal on 20 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S Maruthi Finance vs Smt T Lakshmi W\/O Late D Gopal on 20 October, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\nDated this the 20\"' day of Octeber, 2010\n\nBefore\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HULUVADI G_.R\/451533  3\n\nCriminal Appeals 612\/2008 c\/w 613, 014,00\/$15, 1519,_6.17,..\n\nand 616\/T2008 '\nBetween: V \n\nM\/s Marathi Finance _\n\nBy its GPA Holder ~\u00bb N G Mahr.is'ii~..\u00ab\n\n33 yrs, S\/0 Gurudevaru   -   ,  .. \n\nOff: # 27, Obbaiah Lane  _  1  \" v  giommon\nAkkipet, Bangalore 560\/053   *  \"  1  \"Appellant\n\n(By Nag Asstsu,    ' \"\nAnd:\nIn Cr}.\/A 612\/20080; A610\/8\/2000* \/0  '\n\nSmt T La}<:\u00a73hn1i'W\/c) I\/it'e'-Dv\ufb01ppai\n\n*VBu.\u00a7in<n:s.s"at:  Bhawani Wines\n\nBangaVl0.re 9  " V \nR\/a # 'E4\/'.?.\u00bb,7.I'" ax'\/ram, 2'" Cross\n\nTank Band' Road, 'N\u20ac'2..r'_H0te1 Amar\n\n V 'Sr.irampu-mm  Bangalore 560 02.1 Respondent<\/pre>\n
0′ i.”,l”i2._V(v}rln.A 613\/2508: 614\/2008; 615\/2008;
\n gm\/2003\/’;.\/.517\/2008; 619\/2008<\/p>\n
  Kumar S\/0 3-ate D Gopal
\n 0  at: M\/S Bhawani Wines
\n Affzznk Bund Road, Near H0162} Amar<\/p>\n
0*”\n<\/p>\n
Bangalore 9<\/p>\n
R\/a # 14\/2, 1″ Main, 2″” Cross<\/p>\n
Srirampuram, Bangalore 560 021 Respondent
\n(By Sri N Jagadeesh Baliga, Adv.)<\/p>\n
Appeals are filed under 3378(4) of the Code of Crivrni-nal<\/p>\n
Procedure praying to set aside the judgment dated 22.4.2QQ8:
\n18049\/2005; cc 18050\/2005; cc 1805}\/2005; cc 18O52!2OQ5′;\u00a7’j\u20acC”—–1A3
\n18053\/2005; cc 18054\/2005; cc 18055\/2005 and CC-~l~805@1\/2065\u00abl>y*_:u ~. ”<\/p>\n
the XIII Addl. CMM, Bangalore<\/p>\n
The Appeals coming on for Hearing thisiday; Courtvdeliyeredllthel<\/p>\n
following:\n<\/p>\n
These appeals   the order of acquittal
\npassed bypithe :5tddl’.:CMl\\”,E,\u00abBangalore in CC 18049\/2005; CC
\nljig\u00e9\ufb01o\/2QVt)’s’Zl *1l’8p05ij1~,in\u00a3ly and have borrowed a total amount of Rs.l9,00,000\/~<\/p>\n
 to pay interest at the rate of 21% pa. The amount was<\/p>\n
332″‘<\/p>\n
borrowed on 27.5.2003 and 28.5.2003. Apart from issuance tjiithe<\/p>\n
cheques towards the amount borrowed, accused also  <\/p>\n
demand promissory notes. In all, about 8 cheques_were,issued’ for”<\/p>\n
having borrowed the amount. Out of the cheques p_resen1ted;,_twotwwiere <\/p>\n
returned with an endorsement ‘account clo;~;ed’= and itherest were
\ndishonoured for insufficient funds.  trial coI.1rt”afterg inquiry.
\naccepting the version of the accused, di’smissed._al.1_tl1e complaints against<\/p>\n
which, these appeals are preferred._:’ _ b V _
\nHeard the cou_nse1a_repres\u00a7entingithe-.’part_ies.’  V<\/p>\n
According toiithie appellaritistvccuncsei, as admitted by the accused<\/p>\n
themselves, the ~accused’=hadrAtranisacitions with the complainant and used<\/p>\n
to borrowgarhount for reuewalof Excise License and also as and when<\/p>\n
  in Zrieediijo\ufb02moiaey. Admittedly, they have borrowed Rs.5 to 6<\/p>\n
crores_fro_m t”rre”eo1r;pla’i’nztut and they have repaid the same. in so far as<\/p>\n
these triansac_1’ior1s*”i are concerned, when the cheques issued were<\/p>\n
“presented forrealization, the same were dishonored. The contention of<\/p>\n
the accused that the earlier cheques issued have been misused, is totally<\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n
4<\/span><\/p>\n
false. Rather, the coniptainant has produced the dishonored cheques and,<\/p>\n
apart from that, in support of the money borrowed by the accuscd,”*the<\/p>\n
complainant has produced the on demand promissory notes ese-C_ute__d Vilyb’ <\/p>\n
the accused. However, by an erroneous reasoning, the trialpic-ourt_irely1n.,g’ ~<\/p>\n
upon M S Narayana Manon Vs State of Kertzla __-  ht’ <\/p>\n
39, has dismissed the complaints on th’e.4ground._thet the account bdolis
\nhave not been produced and accordingiliyss” tried to-draw an, adverse
\ninference.\n<\/p>\n
by them thefthere .was.’a_t’ra’nsact.ion.,and promptly from time to time, the
\namount has been. paid. But”;haviitgrcollected the cheques issued earlier<\/p>\n
in respect\u00e9of “different’transactions prior to 2001 which cheques have not<\/p>\n
beer1,’returned:’i1ack the accused, the complainant has misused the same<\/p>\n
ar1d,1″:h_er’eppisenforceable debt. Rightly, the trial court has<\/p>\n
dismissed’–t.he V-_comp’lair1ts which does not call for interference. It is aiso<\/p>\n
” argurnentvlthztt there was no necessity for the accused to borrow the<\/p>\n
amou’nt iinpiecewmeal and to issue Cheques for different amount and they<\/p>\n
c_ou’rd’hzive borrowed the entire amount in a single transaction.<\/p>\n
ll”\n<\/p>\n
-54<\/p>\n
5<\/span><\/p>\n
It is the contention of the counsel representing the respondents<\/p>\n
that in Ex.Dl series ~ cheques, there is signature of the agent <\/p>\n
complainant and it is a bearer cheque. it is h.is argument thatgthe” <\/p>\n
year commences from July and there was no necessity ‘for.,tVhe..accii’sed to’ ”<\/p>\n
borrow the amount during the month of Mays<\/p>\n
As per the ratio laid down bypthe A’pes”–Courti’in.yi.tl1e <\/p>\n
Rangappa Vs Mohan ~ AIR 2010 SC-11898, the. in’it.ia_ilg ;\u00a7”rt\u00a7\u00a7’Li1a;5tion
\nalways is in favour of the cozriplainapntiiiiandialso as  legally<\/p>\n
enforceable debt. It is for the acctliseditoii dispro:\/:’5″tthe_. presumption or<\/p>\n
rebut the presu1nptionKnVo.t_ionlyaby-probable explanation but, proof of<\/p>\n
explanation has tobe offered,” _ V” L
\nWhat is noticedgir: the present cases is, several on demand<\/p>\n
I-‘:pro_missory’ notes also have”‘be’en produced by the complainant apart from<\/p>\n
the’ chiegues  said to be dishonoured. Et is not in dispute that<\/p>\n
” *.there were transaetgoins between the complainant and the accused since.<\/p>\n
 ‘l  Mere.Vs_iignature of the agent on the back side of the bearer cheque<\/p>\n
i ‘bybitpself  not indicate that the amount has been received by the<\/p>\n
ta”\n<\/p>\n
complainant himself or through his agent when once the arnount”–h2is<\/p>\n
been paid throtigh cheques. Apart from that, on demandy..prorni_ss\u00e9\u00a7~ry” <\/p>\n
notes executed are of the year 2003-04. Even the <\/p>\n
payment being made is said to be during the East  or  Muighit <\/p>\n
the amount must have been drawn ‘early to’c_leposi.t thei..amoun\u20ac’: for <\/p>\n
renewal of the Excise License. The exiplianation   accused
\ncannot be accepted. The  the_V_y.’ea1<.2O04riAiThere was a
\ntransaction between the._complainan_t–.and_0 'acciused…throughout. The
\ncomplainant  lender  cheques apart from
\non demand  inttsupport of his case. The<\/p>\n
execution of the on de:33and<prorni'ssory notes is also not in dispute.<\/p>\n
in the regular"co_urse of business if the cheques were received by<\/p>\n
"the,ce.mplair1ant_f:om the accused towards security, as and when<\/p>\n
payiiaehts.wVere'p..made;""the accused could have demanded for return of<\/p>\n
those cheques.' The explanation offered by the accused though appears<\/p>\n
 '  pro_bab'l"e, but proof of explanation has not been produced to deny<\/p>\n
the  of the complainant. in the circumstances, the trial court relying<\/p>\n
" the judgment of this Court in Narayana Memm's case, tried to<\/p>\n
discard the case of the complainant even though the complainant was<\/p>\n
able to produce the dishonored cheques and also the on <\/p>\n
promissory notes executed by the accused. It is also not tnade hyr <\/p>\n
the accused, if at all they had insisted for one payrrrea.t.:':inis–tead of"<\/p>\n
different payments in different sums, that ithere…w.as no nieces'sity__ for .i<\/p>\n
them to execute several on demand no-t:es..__ The reasoning eassigned by; the<\/p>\n
triai court appears to be unjust.\n<\/p>\n
Further, it appears there  sorne  to the quantum of
\namount paid. According to the ithey,__i_lmade. the entire<\/p>\n
payment oni’:daily.basi.s, ..s_A\u00abccordi1ig to the complainant, apart from the<\/p>\n
cheques issued,\u00bb._there isv.also”o_n”deniand promissory notes executed by<\/p>\n
the accusedheing supyportingdocurnents. At this stage, the accused is<\/p>\n
irtakingydiffierent _stand and unnecessarily the proceedings are being<\/p>\n
araigaewi.\n<\/p>\n
lilo enablef\ufb01ie complainant as weil as the accused to produce<\/p>\n
~ \u00abfj;-frelevant rnaterial documents, impugned orders are set aside. Matter is<\/p>\n
“-reniitted  the trial court for disposal of the same in accordance with<\/p>\n
5.<\/p>\n
law, within three months from the date of receipt of the dfder.<\/p>\n
Meanwhile, accused to deposit an amount of Rs.1(} lakhs before. .’t\u00abi1\u00ab43’__’t’19\u00a7.jz:1VV” <\/p>\n
court within four weeks. The amount deposited would _be,\u00a7\u00a7uhjeeAt:’to’_t}2e ‘ ”<\/p>\n
result of the cases before the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals are allowed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court M\/S Maruthi Finance vs Smt T Lakshmi W\/O Late D Gopal on 20 October, 2010 Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE Dated this the 20″‘ day of Octeber, 2010 Before THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HULUVADI G_.R\/451533 3 Criminal Appeals 612\/2008 c\/w 613, 014,00\/$15, 1519,_6.17,.. and 616\/T2008 ‘ […]<\/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-159090","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S Maruthi Finance vs Smt T Lakshmi W\/O Late D Gopal on 20 October, 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\/ms-maruthi-finance-vs-smt-t-lakshmi-wo-late-d-gopal-on-20-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S Maruthi Finance vs Smt T Lakshmi W\/O Late D Gopal on 20 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-maruthi-finance-vs-smt-t-lakshmi-wo-late-d-gopal-on-20-october-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=\"2010-10-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-06-13T09:23:50+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\/ms-maruthi-finance-vs-smt-t-lakshmi-wo-late-d-gopal-on-20-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-maruthi-finance-vs-smt-t-lakshmi-wo-late-d-gopal-on-20-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\/S Maruthi Finance vs Smt T Lakshmi W\/O Late D Gopal on 20 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-13T09:23:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-maruthi-finance-vs-smt-t-lakshmi-wo-late-d-gopal-on-20-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1172,\"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\/ms-maruthi-finance-vs-smt-t-lakshmi-wo-late-d-gopal-on-20-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-maruthi-finance-vs-smt-t-lakshmi-wo-late-d-gopal-on-20-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-maruthi-finance-vs-smt-t-lakshmi-wo-late-d-gopal-on-20-october-2010\",\"name\":\"M\/S Maruthi Finance vs Smt T Lakshmi W\/O Late D Gopal on 20 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-13T09:23:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-maruthi-finance-vs-smt-t-lakshmi-wo-late-d-gopal-on-20-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-maruthi-finance-vs-smt-t-lakshmi-wo-late-d-gopal-on-20-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-maruthi-finance-vs-smt-t-lakshmi-wo-late-d-gopal-on-20-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\/S Maruthi Finance vs Smt T Lakshmi W\/O Late D Gopal on 20 October, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"M\/S Maruthi Finance vs Smt T Lakshmi W\/O Late D Gopal on 20 October, 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\/ms-maruthi-finance-vs-smt-t-lakshmi-wo-late-d-gopal-on-20-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S Maruthi Finance vs Smt T Lakshmi W\/O Late D Gopal on 20 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-maruthi-finance-vs-smt-t-lakshmi-wo-late-d-gopal-on-20-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-06-13T09:23:50+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\/ms-maruthi-finance-vs-smt-t-lakshmi-wo-late-d-gopal-on-20-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-maruthi-finance-vs-smt-t-lakshmi-wo-late-d-gopal-on-20-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S Maruthi Finance vs Smt T Lakshmi W\/O Late D Gopal on 20 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-13T09:23:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-maruthi-finance-vs-smt-t-lakshmi-wo-late-d-gopal-on-20-october-2010"},"wordCount":1172,"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\/ms-maruthi-finance-vs-smt-t-lakshmi-wo-late-d-gopal-on-20-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-maruthi-finance-vs-smt-t-lakshmi-wo-late-d-gopal-on-20-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-maruthi-finance-vs-smt-t-lakshmi-wo-late-d-gopal-on-20-october-2010","name":"M\/S Maruthi Finance vs Smt T Lakshmi W\/O Late D Gopal on 20 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-13T09:23:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-maruthi-finance-vs-smt-t-lakshmi-wo-late-d-gopal-on-20-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-maruthi-finance-vs-smt-t-lakshmi-wo-late-d-gopal-on-20-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-maruthi-finance-vs-smt-t-lakshmi-wo-late-d-gopal-on-20-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S Maruthi Finance vs Smt T Lakshmi W\/O Late D Gopal on 20 October, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/159090","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=159090"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/159090\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=159090"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=159090"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=159090"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}