{"id":1629,"date":"2011-02-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-02-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/5-vijay-balaji-murkute-vs-bhagwan-on-4-february-2011"},"modified":"2018-08-14T08:15:11","modified_gmt":"2018-08-14T02:45:11","slug":"5-vijay-balaji-murkute-vs-bhagwan-on-4-february-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/5-vijay-balaji-murkute-vs-bhagwan-on-4-february-2011","title":{"rendered":"5] Vijay Balaji Murkute vs Bhagwan on 4 February, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
5] Vijay Balaji Murkute vs Bhagwan on 4 February, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: R. M. Savant<\/div>\n
                                       1\n\n\n          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF  BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                 \n                       BENCH  AT NAGPUR\n\n\n\n\n                                                         \n                     Second Appeal No.483\/2010\n\n\n\n    1] Murlidhar Haribhau Nimje, \n        Aged about 45 years, \n\n\n\n\n                                                        \n        R\/o Bhisi Takali, Chimur, \n        district Chandrapur. \n\n    2] Ramchandra Bapurao Adhal,\n\n\n\n\n                                          \n        Aged about 52 years, R\/o Chikli,\n        Tahsil Chimur, District Chandrapur.\n                          \n       (Both filed Scheme No. 126\/2007 before the \n        Assitt. Charity Commissioner).\n                         \n    3] Natu Mahadeo Gongal, \n         Aged about 57 years, \n         R\/o Sale Bhatti, Tahsil \n      \n\n         Bhivapur, District Nagpur. \n   \n\n\n\n    4] Pratap Trimbakrao Badkas, \n         Aged about 62 years, \n         R\/o Pande Layout, Khamla, \n         Nagpur.\n\n\n\n\n\n    5] Vijay Balaji Murkute,\n        Aged about 50 years, \n        R\/o Bhisi, Tahsil Chimur, \n        District Chandrapur.                  ..                      Appellants. \n\n\n\n\n\n         Versus \n\n    1. Bhagwan s\/o Dinbaji Jambhule,\n        Aged about 50 years, R\/o Dongrala,\n        Tahsil Chimur, District Chandrapur.\n\n    2. Dilip Maroti Gujbhe, \n        Aged about 42 years, \n        R\/o Dongrala, Tahsil Chimur,\n\n\n\n                                                         ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 16:49:34 :::\n                                          2\n\n        District Chandrapur. \n\n\n\n\n                                                                              \n        Nos. 1 and 2 filed Scheme No. 63\/2007\n        and MCA Nos. 7\/2010, 8\/2010 and 9\/2010)\n\n\n\n\n                                                      \n    3. Shyamrao Keshavrao Nagpure, \n        Aged about 56 years, R\/o Bhisi,\n        Tahsil Chimur, District Chandrapur.\n\n\n\n\n                                                     \n        (Filed MCA no.16\/2010)\n\n    4. Uttam Rane, \n        R\/o Dhenge Plot, Gurudeo Ward,\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n        Behind Dr. Milmile's Clinic,\n        Bhadrawati, Tq. Bhadrawati, \n                          \n        District Chandrpaur.                    \n\n    5. Anil Nathuji Dekate, \n                         \n        r\/o Bhisi, Tah. Chimur, \n        district Chandrapur. \n\n    6. Prakash Ramji Nannaware, \n      \n\n        r\/o Majra Bhadki, Post Khadsangi, \n        Tq. Chimur, Dist. Chandrapur. .                 Respondents. \n   \n\n\n\n                                 ...\n\n\n    Mr. P. C. Madkholkar, Advocate for the  appellants.\n\n\n\n\n\n    Mr. S. D. Abhaynkar, Advocate for respondents 1  and 5.\n    Mr. S. P. Bhandarkar, Advocate for respondent no.3.\n    Mr. S. V. Manohar, Advocate for respondents 2 and 6. \n    Mr. A. Naik, Advocate for respondent no.4.\n\n\n\n\n\n                                   .....\n\n\n\n                                     CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. \n<\/pre>\n
                                     DATED   :4\/2\/2011 <\/p>\n
    ORAL JUDGMENT :\n<\/p>\n
    1]            This Second Appeal takes exception to the judgment and <\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:49:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                         3<\/span><\/p>\n
    order dated 23.8.2010 passed in Misc. Civil Application Nos.7\/2010, <\/p>\n
    8\/2010, 9\/2010 and 16\/2010.   By the said order, Misc. Civil Appeal <\/p>\n
    No.   7\/2010   was   allowed.     The   order   of   the   Assistant   Charity <\/p>\n
    Commissioner dated 14th  February 2010 of   partly allowing scheme <\/p>\n
    application   No.   126\/2007   came   to   be   set   aside   and   the   scheme <\/p>\n
    application no.243\/2009  came to be partly  modified so as to include <\/p>\n
    three   persons   in   place   of   one   Nathu   Mahadeo   Ghughal,   Timmbak <\/p>\n
    Badkar and Vijay Murkute as adhoc trustees.\n<\/p>\n
    2]            The   genesis   of   the   dispute   involved   in   the   above <\/p>\n
    proceedings lie in the application filed under Section       41D of the <\/p>\n
    Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950.  The said application was filed by one <\/p>\n
    Nimje   which     came   to   be   allowed   by   the   Assistant   Charity <\/p>\n
    Commissioner and  the Board of Trustees, which was in charge of  the <\/p>\n
    public trust known as “Bhartiya Shikshan Sanstha, Bhisi” came to be <\/p>\n
    removed   and   an     adhoc   body   of   seven   persons   along   with   the <\/p>\n
    Assistant   Charity   Commissioner   came   to   be     appointed   as   Ad   hoc <\/p>\n
    trustees to administer the said trust.\n<\/p>\n
    3]              Some  of the  intervening  facts  are not relevant  for  the <\/p>\n
    purposes of the present matter   suffice is to say that thereafter the <\/p>\n
    matter was carried in appeal to the  Joint Charity Commissioner, who <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:49:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                           4<\/span><\/p>\n
    issued a direction to the Assistant Charity Commissioner to register a <\/p>\n
    Suo   Motu   scheme   proceeding   for   determining   a   scheme   for   the <\/p>\n
    administration   of the trust. The further direction was to dispose of <\/p>\n
    the  same within six months from the communication of the order to <\/p>\n
    him along with the other scheme proceedings pertaining to  the trust <\/p>\n
    if filed by the parties.     Accordingly, the scheme proceedings which <\/p>\n
    were   filed   and   came   to   be   filed   were   considered   by   the   Assistant <\/p>\n
    Charity   Commissioner.     The   suo   motu   scheme   proceeding   was <\/p>\n
    numbered as 243\/2009 whereas the scheme proceedings which was <\/p>\n
    filed by one Bhagwan Jambhule  was numbered as 63\/2007 and one <\/p>\n
    filed by Murlidhar Nimje  was numbered as 126\/2007.  The Assistant <\/p>\n
    Charity Commissioner approved the scheme in question by taking into <\/p>\n
    consideration   parts   of   all   the   schemes   which   had   been   submitted.\n<\/p>\n
    However,   insofar   as   the   present   proceedings     are   concerned,   the <\/p>\n
    Assistant  Charity Commissioner  appointed three trustees  to be    the <\/p>\n
    Adhoc  trustees  namely  Pratap  Badkas,  Nathu   Ghughal  and  Prakash <\/p>\n
    Bargad   along   with   the   other   seven   adhoc   trustees.       The   Trust <\/p>\n
    Management, therefore, comprised of 10   Ad hoc trustees as per the <\/p>\n
    order   of   the   Assistant   Charity   Commissioner.     The   matter   was <\/p>\n
    thereafter carried in appeal and   ultimately came before the District <\/p>\n
    Court by way of Misc. Civil Application Nos. 7\/2010, 8\/2010, 9\/2010 <\/p>\n
    and 16\/2010 impugning the various facets of the orders passed by the <\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:49:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                            5<\/span><\/p>\n
    Assistant   Charity   Commissioner.     The   First   Appellate   Court   i.   e.\n<\/p>\n
    learned   District   Judge   on   consideration   of   the   scheme   vis-a-vis   the <\/p>\n
    directions   issued   by   the   Joint   Charity   Commissioner     as   also <\/p>\n
    considering the credentials  of the said  three persons Pratap Badkas, <\/p>\n
    Nathu Ghughal and Prakash Bargad reached   a conclusion that they <\/p>\n
    are not fit persons for being appointed as the trustees of the trust in <\/p>\n
    question.   The learned District Judge was firstly  of the view that the <\/p>\n
    said scheme application No. 126\/2007 being filed   beyond the time <\/p>\n
    stipulated   by   the   Joint   Charity   Commissioner   could   not   have   been <\/p>\n
    taken   cognizance     of   by   the   Assistant   Charity   Commissioner.     As <\/p>\n
    regards the three persons namely Pratap Badkas, Nathu Ghughal and <\/p>\n
    Prakash Bargad, the learned District Judge was of the view that since <\/p>\n
    two   persons     out   of   three   persons   were   part   of   the   old   Board   of <\/p>\n
    Trustees  which was removed under Section 41D and the third person <\/p>\n
    being   removed   on   account   of   the   order   passed   by   this   Court, <\/p>\n
    therefore,   could   not   have   been   appointed   as   Adhoc   trustees.     The <\/p>\n
    learned District Judge  placed reliance upon two judgments  of   this <\/p>\n
    Court     reported   in  2005   (3)   Mh.L.J.   729     in   the   matter   of <\/p>\n
    Ramkrushan-Appa s\/o Vishweshwar-Appa and others Vs. Krushna <\/p>\n
    s\/o   Udayabhanji   Ingale   and   others        and   similarly   in  2010   (4) <\/p>\n
    Mh.L.J.   729   (Avinath   Ganpatrao   Shegaonkar   Vs.   Jayawant <\/p>\n
    Babasaheb Uttarwar).   By the said judgments, the Assistant Charity <\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:49:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                         6<\/span><\/p>\n
    Commissioner  while exercising powers under Section 50A is obligated <\/p>\n
    to see that only fit persons with honesty and integrity  are appointed <\/p>\n
    as  trustees.    The  learned  District Judge   therefore  by  the  impugned <\/p>\n
    judgment     and   order   substituted   the   said   three   trustees   namely <\/p>\n
    Pratap   Badkas,  Nathu  Ghughal   and  Prakash   Bargad  by   appointing <\/p>\n
    three   other   persons   namely   Uttam   Rane,   Anil   Dekate   and   Prakash <\/p>\n
    Nannaware, who were part of the scheme application being 63\/2007.\n<\/p>\n
           The   above   Second   Appeal   raises   the   following   substantial <\/p>\n
    question of law:-\n<\/p>\n
           “Whether   the   appointment   of   the   three   trustees,
\n           namely   Uttam   Rane,   Anil   Dekate   and   Prakash
\n           Nannaware is in accordance with the law applicable?”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    4]            In the course of the hearing of the above Second Appeal, <\/p>\n
    submissions and contra submissions as regards the credentials of the <\/p>\n
    said   three   persons   have   been   advanced.   While   on   behalf   of   the <\/p>\n
    appellants, the appointment of the said three persons is questioned on <\/p>\n
    the ground that the law laid down by this Court was not followed in <\/p>\n
    making their appointments.\n<\/p>\n
    5]            Per   contra,   on   behalf   of   the   respondents   the   said <\/p>\n
    appointments are sought to be justified   on the touchstone that the <\/p>\n
    said persons form part of the scheme bearing No.63\/2007 and part of <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:49:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                           7<\/span><\/p>\n
    the record which was before the Assistant Charity Commissioner and, <\/p>\n
    therefore, the appellants could not make a grievance or are estopped <\/p>\n
    from making a grievance of the same.\n<\/p>\n
    6]             A reading of the impugned  order discloses that insofar as <\/p>\n
    the said three persons are concerned, the learned District Judge has <\/p>\n
    only taken into consideration the fact that the   adhoc body of seven <\/p>\n
    persons had passed a Resolution in favour of the said three persons <\/p>\n
    being appointed as trustees.  It has to be borne in mind that the said <\/p>\n
    body   of   Adhoc   trustees   was   appointed   by   the   Assistant   Charity <\/p>\n
    Commissioner to conduct the affairs of the Trust in the aftermath of <\/p>\n
    the application filed under Section 41D  which came to be allowed.\n<\/p>\n
    7]               In my view, therefore, the learned District Judge   could <\/p>\n
    not have merely gone by Resolution passed by Adhoc body but ought <\/p>\n
    to have followed the law laid down  by this  Court in  the matter of <\/p>\n
    checking their credentials as it requires no debate that the interest of <\/p>\n
    the   trust     in   such   matters   is     the     paramount   consideration.   The <\/p>\n
    impugned   order   merely   states   that   there   is   a   resolution   passed   in <\/p>\n
    favour of the said three persons but does not disclose as to why they <\/p>\n
    are chosen for being appointed as trustees.   It was incumbent upon <\/p>\n
    the learned District Judge when he had though fit to remove the said <\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:49:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                             8<\/span><\/p>\n
    three persons for the reasons mentioned in the order, to also cite the <\/p>\n
    reasons as to why the said three persons   are fit   persons   for being <\/p>\n
    appointed by discussing their credentials.       In my view, the learned <\/p>\n
    District   Judge   having   not   done   so,     on   the   said   limited   aspect   as <\/p>\n
    regards  the    appointment of  the  said three  persons  namesly Uttam <\/p>\n
    Rane, Anik Dekate and Prakash Nannaware that the impugned order <\/p>\n
    is required to be set aside and the matter is required to be relegated <\/p>\n
    back to the learned District Judge, Warora  for a denovo consideration <\/p>\n
    as regards the appointment  of the said three new persons appointed <\/p>\n
    by the impugned order in the light of the law laid down by this  Court <\/p>\n
    in   the   judgments   (supra).     The   question   of   law   is   answered <\/p>\n
    accordingly.   The impugned order is accordingly required to be   set <\/p>\n
    aside   to   the   said   extent     and   the   matter   is   remanded   back   to   the <\/p>\n
    learned District Judge, Warora for a denovo  consideration.  On such <\/p>\n
    remand, the learned District Judge to decide the same within a period <\/p>\n
    of three months from the receipt of writ of this Court.   The learned <\/p>\n
    District   Judge   would     consider   the   credentials   of   the   said     three <\/p>\n
    persons and thereafter either appoint them or appointment any other <\/p>\n
    person\/persons whom he deems fit.  It is clarified that the impugned <\/p>\n
    order is set aside to the said limited extent.  The above Second Appeal <\/p>\n
    resultantly is allowed to the aforesaid extent.\n<\/p>\n
    8]             In the meanwhile, the present trustees would continue to <\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:49:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                     9<\/span><\/p>\n
    function   but would not take any major policy decision pending the <\/p>\n
    decision of the learned District Judge on remand.\n<\/p>\n
                                                               JUDGE <\/p>\n
    Ambulkar<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:49:34 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court 5] Vijay Balaji Murkute vs Bhagwan on 4 February, 2011 Bench: R. M. Savant 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No.483\/2010 1] Murlidhar Haribhau Nimje, Aged about 45 years, R\/o Bhisi Takali, Chimur, district Chandrapur. 2] Ramchandra Bapurao Adhal, Aged about 52 years, R\/o […]<\/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-1629","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\n5] Vijay Balaji Murkute vs Bhagwan on 4 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/5-vijay-balaji-murkute-vs-bhagwan-on-4-february-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"5] Vijay Balaji Murkute vs Bhagwan on 4 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/5-vijay-balaji-murkute-vs-bhagwan-on-4-february-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-14T02:45:11+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/5-vijay-balaji-murkute-vs-bhagwan-on-4-february-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/5-vijay-balaji-murkute-vs-bhagwan-on-4-february-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"5] Vijay Balaji Murkute vs Bhagwan on 4 February, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-14T02:45:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/5-vijay-balaji-murkute-vs-bhagwan-on-4-february-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1381,\"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\\\/5-vijay-balaji-murkute-vs-bhagwan-on-4-february-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/5-vijay-balaji-murkute-vs-bhagwan-on-4-february-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/5-vijay-balaji-murkute-vs-bhagwan-on-4-february-2011\",\"name\":\"5] Vijay Balaji Murkute vs Bhagwan on 4 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-14T02:45:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/5-vijay-balaji-murkute-vs-bhagwan-on-4-february-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/5-vijay-balaji-murkute-vs-bhagwan-on-4-february-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/5-vijay-balaji-murkute-vs-bhagwan-on-4-february-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"5] Vijay Balaji Murkute vs Bhagwan on 4 February, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"5] Vijay Balaji Murkute vs Bhagwan on 4 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/5-vijay-balaji-murkute-vs-bhagwan-on-4-february-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"5] Vijay Balaji Murkute vs Bhagwan on 4 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/5-vijay-balaji-murkute-vs-bhagwan-on-4-february-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-14T02:45:11+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/5-vijay-balaji-murkute-vs-bhagwan-on-4-february-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/5-vijay-balaji-murkute-vs-bhagwan-on-4-february-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"5] Vijay Balaji Murkute vs Bhagwan on 4 February, 2011","datePublished":"2011-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-14T02:45:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/5-vijay-balaji-murkute-vs-bhagwan-on-4-february-2011"},"wordCount":1381,"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\/5-vijay-balaji-murkute-vs-bhagwan-on-4-february-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/5-vijay-balaji-murkute-vs-bhagwan-on-4-february-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/5-vijay-balaji-murkute-vs-bhagwan-on-4-february-2011","name":"5] Vijay Balaji Murkute vs Bhagwan on 4 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-14T02:45:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/5-vijay-balaji-murkute-vs-bhagwan-on-4-february-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/5-vijay-balaji-murkute-vs-bhagwan-on-4-february-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/5-vijay-balaji-murkute-vs-bhagwan-on-4-february-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"5] Vijay Balaji Murkute vs Bhagwan on 4 February, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1629","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=1629"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1629\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1629"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1629"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1629"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}