{"id":163308,"date":"2002-08-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-08-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shoes-east-ltd-vs-shri-jainender-jain-and-shri-on-9-august-2002"},"modified":"2016-11-28T23:24:16","modified_gmt":"2016-11-28T17:54:16","slug":"shoes-east-ltd-vs-shri-jainender-jain-and-shri-on-9-august-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shoes-east-ltd-vs-shri-jainender-jain-and-shri-on-9-august-2002","title":{"rendered":"Shoes East Ltd. vs Shri Jainender Jain And Shri &#8230; on 9 August, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Delhi High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Shoes East Ltd. vs Shri Jainender Jain And Shri &#8230; on 9 August, 2002<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: . M Sharma<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: M Sharma<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>  Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.    <\/p>\n<p> 1. By this order I propose to dispose of the<br \/>\napplications registered under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC<br \/>\nread with Order 23 Rule 1 Sub-rule 4 CPC being IA<br \/>\nNo. 1722\/2002 in Suit No. 1506\/2001 filed on behalf<br \/>\nof some of the defendants and also IA No. 1312\/2002<br \/>\nin Suit No. 1508\/2001 under Order 23 Rule (1)(4) CPC<br \/>\nfiled on behalf of some of the defendants. The<br \/>\nplaintiff herein is common in both the suits. The<br \/>\napplications are also similar in nature and,<br \/>\ntherefore, both the applications are disposed<br \/>\nof by this common order.\n<\/p>\n<p> 2. The plaintiff herein earlier filed two<br \/>\nsuits before the Additional District Judge, which<br \/>\nwere registered as Suit No. 40\/2001 and Suit<br \/>\nNo. 41\/2001. The plaints of the said suits are<br \/>\nannexed with the applications, which are under<br \/>\nconsideration.\n<\/p>\n<p> 3. The following reliefs were prayed for by<br \/>\nthe plaintiff in suit No. 40\/2001 and the same are<br \/>\nextracted here as they are relevant for the purpose<br \/>\nof consideration of the application   <\/p>\n<p> &#8220;(i) A Decree of Declaration in favor of the<br \/>\nPlaintiff Company and against the Defendants<br \/>\nthereby declaring that the auction held on<br \/>\n28\/1\/2000 of the property bearing No. SFS-15, DSIDC<br \/>\nIndustrial complex, Nangloi, Delhi in favor of the<br \/>\nDefendants No. 1 to 3 by the Recovery Officer is<br \/>\nillegal, unfair, null and void and of no effect in<br \/>\nlaw.\n<\/p>\n<p> (ii) A Decree of Permanent Injunction in<br \/>\nfavor of the Plaintiff Company and against the<br \/>\nDefendants thereby restraining the Defendants,<br \/>\ntheir servants, agents, employees, officers,<br \/>\nrepresentatives, assignees or anybody claiming<br \/>\nthrough them or on their behalf from getting the<br \/>\nlease deed executed and registered in their favor<br \/>\nfrom DSIDC and further from alienating,<br \/>\ntransferring, selling, mortgaging, letting, part<br \/>\nwith the possession or otherwise creating any third<br \/>\nparty interest of any nature whatsoever in the suit<br \/>\nproperty bearing No. SFS-15, DSIDC Industrial<br \/>\nComplex, Nangloi, Delhi.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> 4. Similarly, the following reliefs were<br \/>\nprayed for by the plaintiff in suit No. 41\/2001,<br \/>\nwhich are extracted for the convenience:-\n<\/p>\n<p>  &#8220;(i) A Decree of Declaration in favor of the<br \/>\nplaintiff company and against the Defendants<br \/>\nthereby declaring that the auction held and<br \/>\nconducted on September 27, 2000 as also on<br \/>\nSeptember 30, 2000 of the suit goods machinery in<br \/>\nfavor of the Defendants No. 1 to 3 is bad, unfair,<br \/>\nillegal, null and void and of no effect in law.\n<\/p>\n<p> (ii) A Decree of Permanent Injunction in<br \/>\nfavor of the plaintiff company and against the<br \/>\nDefendants thereby restraining the Defendants,<br \/>\ntheir servants, agents, employees, officers,<br \/>\nrepresentatives and\/or anybody claiming through<br \/>\nthem or on their behalf from in any manner<br \/>\nwhatsoever alienating, transferring, selling,<br \/>\nmortgaging, letting, parting with the possession or<br \/>\notherwise creating third party interest of any<br \/>\nnature whatsoever in respect of the suit goods and<br \/>\nthe machinery.\n<\/p>\n<p> 5. Both the suits were listed before the<br \/>\nAdditional District Judge on 6.2.2001. The<br \/>\nAdditional District Judge ordered for registration<br \/>\nof the suits and after hearing the counsel<br \/>\nappearing for the plaintiff issued summons in both<br \/>\nthe suits and directed issuance of notice on the<br \/>\ninterim applications to the defendants. However,<br \/>\nno injunction was granted by the Additional<br \/>\nDistrict Judge on the said date and only issued<br \/>\nnotice on the said injunction application. On<br \/>\n14.2.2001, counsel for the plaintiff made a<br \/>\nstatement that the plaintiff would be withdrawing<br \/>\nthe suit on the ground that there are some<br \/>\ntechnical defects and sought for an adjournment to<br \/>\nseek instructions from the plaintiff. There was no<br \/>\nstatement of the counsel that he would seek liberty<br \/>\nto file a fresh suit. On 16.2.2001, when the suit<br \/>\nwas again listed before the Additional District<br \/>\nJudge, it was again stated by the counsel appearing<br \/>\nfor the plaintiff that there are some technical<br \/>\ninfirmities in the suit and, therefore, he has<br \/>\ninstructions to withdraw the suit. Even on that<br \/>\nday also no prayer was made that liberty be granted<br \/>\nto the plaintiff to file fresh suits on the same<br \/>\ncause of action. The suit was accordingly<br \/>\ndismissed as withdrawn. Therefore, before the<br \/>\ndefendants could be served, the aforesaid suits<br \/>\nwere withdrawn by the plaintiff. Thereafter the<br \/>\nplaintiff filed the present suits in this court<br \/>\nwith the following reliefs:\n<\/p>\n<p> &#8221; SUIT NO. 1506\/2001  <\/p>\n<p> i. A decree of Declaration in favor of the<br \/>\nPlaintiff Company and against the defendants<br \/>\nthereby declaring that the auction of the suit<br \/>\nproperty, being raw material, stocks as also the<br \/>\nplant and machinery lying in the premises bearing<br \/>\nNo. SFS-15, DSIDC Industrial Complex, Nangloi, New<br \/>\nDelhi, held on 30.1.2000 by the Recovery Officer is<br \/>\nillegal, unfair, null and void and of no effect in<br \/>\nlaw.\n<\/p>\n<p> ii. A Decree for Mandatory Injunction inter<br \/>\nalia directing the Recovery Officer being Defendant<br \/>\nNo. 14 herein to re-auction the suit property being<br \/>\nthe raw material, stocks as also the plant and<br \/>\nmachinery lying at SFS-15, DSIDC Industrial<br \/>\nComplex, Nangloi, New Delhi in the most genuine and<br \/>\nfair manner.\n<\/p>\n<p> &#8221; SUIT No. 1508\/2001   <\/p>\n<p> i. A decree of Declaration in favor of the<br \/>\nPlaintiff Company and against the defendants<br \/>\nthereby declaring that the auction of the suit<br \/>\nproperty, being Industrial Shed No. SFS-15, DSIDC<br \/>\nIndustrial Complex, Rohtak Road, New Delhi, held on<br \/>\n28.1.2000 by the Recovery Officer is illegal,<br \/>\nunfair, null and void and of no effect in law.\n<\/p>\n<p> ii. A Decree for Mandatory Injunction inter<br \/>\nalia directing the Recovery Officer being Defendant<br \/>\nNo. 12 herein to re-auction the suit property being<br \/>\nthe Industrial Shed No. SFS-15, DSIDC Industrial<br \/>\nComplex, Rohtak Road, New Delhi in the most genuine<br \/>\nand fair manner.\n<\/p>\n<p> 6. After service of summons and notice on<br \/>\nthe defendants, the defendants have entered<br \/>\nappearance and the aforesaid applications have been<br \/>\nfiled by some of the defendants praying for<br \/>\ndismissal of the suits on the ground that the suits<br \/>\nare barred under the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1<br \/>\nSub-rule (3) and (4) CPC.\n<\/p>\n<p> 7. I have heard the counsel appearing for<br \/>\nthe parties on the aforesaid contentions raised on<br \/>\nbehalf of some of the defendants. In the Suit<br \/>\nNo. 1506\/2001, the plaintiff has prayed or a decree<br \/>\nof Declaration declaring that the auction of the<br \/>\nsuit property, being raw material, stocks as also<br \/>\nthe plant and machinery lying in the premises in<br \/>\nthe auction held on 30.1.2000 by the Recovery<br \/>\nOfficer is illegal, unfair, null and void.\n<\/p>\n<p> 8. It is necessary to mention at this stage<br \/>\nthat the aforesaid auction of the raw materials was<br \/>\ndone pursuant to the orders dated 7.1.2000 of the<br \/>\nSupreme Court in SLP (C) 5214\/1999 and dated<br \/>\n8.9.2000 in IA No. 9 in Civil Appeal No. 2536\/2000.<br \/>\nThe Supreme Court earlier passed an order on<br \/>\n13.8.1999 directing sell of certain properties<br \/>\nbelonging to M\/s M.S. Shoes (East), the plaintiff<br \/>\nherein. The relevant portion of the order reads as<br \/>\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n<p>  &#8220;It appears that the ale which was<br \/>\ndirected to be held in the above said order<br \/>\nwas not held in view of the order dated<br \/>\n29.6.99 passed by the Presiding Officer,<br \/>\nDebts Recovery Tribunal, New Delhi.<br \/>\nHowever, the said order dated 29.6.99 has<br \/>\nsince been stayed by the Debts Recovery<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai in Appeal No. 83<\/span><br \/>\nof 1999 &#8230;.. We accordingly, direct<br \/>\nthat our order dated 14.5.99 directing the<br \/>\nsale of assets should be implemented<br \/>\nforthwith, the sale proceeds whereof shall<br \/>\nbe deposited in this Court which the<br \/>\nRegistrar (Judicial) shall deposit in a<br \/>\nfixed deposit in a nationalised bank for a<br \/>\nperiod of six months.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> 9. Having referred to the aforesaid earlier<br \/>\norder, it was further ordered by the Supreme Court<br \/>\non 7.1.2000 that the sale would go on as per<br \/>\nearlier directions of the Supreme Court and as<br \/>\nscheduled and the sale proceeds thereof shall be<br \/>\ndeposited in the Supreme Court Registry.\n<\/p>\n<p> 10. In the subsequent order dated 8.9.2000,<br \/>\nthe Supreme Court held that in order that the<br \/>\nauction-purchaser could have vacant possession of<br \/>\nthe property, a direction is issued to the Canara<br \/>\nBank to remove the goods and machinery within one<br \/>\nmonth from the property sold. It was further held<br \/>\nin the said order by the Supreme Court that the<br \/>\nCanara Bank would be entitled to sell the goods and<br \/>\nmachinery under hypothecation by auction, at the<br \/>\ncost and risk of debtors.\n<\/p>\n<p> 11. Pursuant to the aforesaid orders, the<br \/>\nauction was carried out by the Recovery Officer and<br \/>\nthe said auction is under challenge in the present<br \/>\nsuits. As is indicated from the Reliefs extracted<br \/>\nherein above, the earlier suits were also filed by<br \/>\nthe plaintiff wherein the first relief as prayed<br \/>\nfor in the said suits and the first relief prayed<br \/>\nfor in the present suits are identical in nature.<br \/>\nIn the said relief, the plaintiff has sought for a<br \/>\ndeclaration declaring the auction to be null and<br \/>\nvoid and illegal. In the present suits, the second<br \/>\nrelief that the plaintiff has prayed for is for a<br \/>\ndecree for mandatory injunction inter alia<br \/>\ndirecting the Recovery Officer to re-auction the<br \/>\nsuit property being the raw material, stocks as<br \/>\nalso the plant and machinery in a genuine and fair<br \/>\nmanner. So far the second relief is concerned, it<br \/>\nis to be noted that unless the first relief is<br \/>\ngranted, the second relief cannot be granted.<br \/>\nTherefore, the second relief, as sought for, is<br \/>\nentirely dependent on the grant or refusal of the<br \/>\nfirst relief by this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p> 12. In the earlier suit, the plaintiff apart<br \/>\nfrom relief A sought for another relief, namely,<br \/>\nfor grant of temporary injunction restraining the<br \/>\ndefendant from selling, transferring, alienating<br \/>\nthe suit property. In the said suit, no relief of<br \/>\nad interim injunction was granted and immediately<br \/>\nthereafter the suit was withdrawn. While<br \/>\nwithdrawing the aforesaid suit, no liberty was<br \/>\nprayed and availed of by the plaintiff. Although<br \/>\nit was stated by the counsel that in view of<br \/>\ninfirmities in the suit, the plaintiff is<br \/>\nwithdrawing the suit, however it is not stated in<br \/>\nthe orders of the Additional District Judge that any<br \/>\nsuch liberty to file a fresh suit was prayed for by<br \/>\nthe plaintiff. The suits were withdrawn without<br \/>\nany liberty to file fresh suits on the same cause of action.\n<\/p>\n<p> 13. In that view of the matter, in my<br \/>\nconsidered opinion, the provisions of Order 23 Rule<br \/>\n1(4) CPC are attracted. The relevant provisions<br \/>\nread as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p> &#8220;(4) Where the plaintiff &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p> (a) abandons any suit or part of claim under<br \/>\nSub-rule (1), or  <\/p>\n<p> (b) withdraws from a suit or part of a claim<br \/>\nwithout the permission referred to in Sub-rule (3),<\/p>\n<p>he shall be liable for such costs as the Court may<br \/>\naward and shall be precluded from instituting any<br \/>\nfresh suit in respect of such subject-matter or<br \/>\nsuch part of the claim.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> 14. So far relief &#8216;A&#8217; is concerned, in both<br \/>\nearlier and the suits they are identical in nature<br \/>\nwhereas relief &#8216;B&#8217; prayed for in the present suit<br \/>\nis entirely dependent on grant of relief &#8216;A&#8217; and,<br \/>\ntherefore, since the plaintiff had withdrawn the<br \/>\nearlier suits without liberty to institute fresh<br \/>\nsuits in respect of the same subject matter, the<br \/>\npresent suits are barred under Order 23 Rule 1<br \/>\nSub-rule 4 CPC read with Sub-rule 3 and, therefore,<br \/>\nthe plaints filed by the plaintiff in the present<br \/>\nsuits are liable to be rejected in view of<br \/>\nprovisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.\n<\/p>\n<p> 15. There is another aspect, which requires<br \/>\nattention at this stage. The present suits are<br \/>\nfiled by the plaintiff as is indicated above<br \/>\nseeking for almost similar relies as sought for in<br \/>\nthe suits earlier filed before the Additional<br \/>\nDistrict Judge. However, in the present plaints,<br \/>\nnot a whisper has been made by the plaintiff about<br \/>\nfiling of the earlier suits in the court of the<br \/>\nAdditional District Judge. Since submit matters<br \/>\nidentical, it was necessary for the plaintiff to<br \/>\nmention and disclose filing of earlier suits and<br \/>\nits withdrawal. There is, therefore, suppression of<br \/>\nmaterials facts by the plaintiff and it has not<br \/>\ncome with clean hands. This speaks volume with<br \/>\nregard to the conduct of the plaintiff. Be that as<br \/>\nit may, considering the entire facts and<br \/>\ncircumstances of the case and in the light of the<br \/>\ndiscussion above, I pass an order rejecting both<br \/>\nthe plaints in the present two suits in terms of<br \/>\nOrder 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.<br \/>\nBoth the applications are allowed and the suits<br \/>\nstand closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>  Crl.M.(M) No. 717\/2002 in Suit No. 1506\/2001 and<br \/>\nCrl.(M) M. No. 716\/2002 in Suit No. 1508\/2001  <\/p>\n<p> In view of the aforesaid order passed,<br \/>\ncounsel for the defendant states that he does not<br \/>\npress these applications at this stage.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court Shoes East Ltd. vs Shri Jainender Jain And Shri &#8230; on 9 August, 2002 Author: . M Sharma Bench: M Sharma JUDGMENT Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J. 1. By this order I propose to dispose of the applications registered under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with Order 23 Rule 1 Sub-rule 4 [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-163308","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Shoes East Ltd. vs Shri Jainender Jain And Shri ... on 9 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shoes-east-ltd-vs-shri-jainender-jain-and-shri-on-9-august-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shoes East Ltd. vs Shri Jainender Jain And Shri ... on 9 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shoes-east-ltd-vs-shri-jainender-jain-and-shri-on-9-august-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-28T17:54:16+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shoes-east-ltd-vs-shri-jainender-jain-and-shri-on-9-august-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shoes-east-ltd-vs-shri-jainender-jain-and-shri-on-9-august-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shoes East Ltd. vs Shri Jainender Jain And Shri &#8230; on 9 August, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-28T17:54:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shoes-east-ltd-vs-shri-jainender-jain-and-shri-on-9-august-2002\"},\"wordCount\":2032,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shoes-east-ltd-vs-shri-jainender-jain-and-shri-on-9-august-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shoes-east-ltd-vs-shri-jainender-jain-and-shri-on-9-august-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shoes-east-ltd-vs-shri-jainender-jain-and-shri-on-9-august-2002\",\"name\":\"Shoes East Ltd. vs Shri Jainender Jain And Shri ... on 9 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-28T17:54:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shoes-east-ltd-vs-shri-jainender-jain-and-shri-on-9-august-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shoes-east-ltd-vs-shri-jainender-jain-and-shri-on-9-august-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shoes-east-ltd-vs-shri-jainender-jain-and-shri-on-9-august-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shoes East Ltd. vs Shri Jainender Jain And Shri &#8230; on 9 August, 2002\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Shoes East Ltd. vs Shri Jainender Jain And Shri ... on 9 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shoes-east-ltd-vs-shri-jainender-jain-and-shri-on-9-august-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shoes East Ltd. vs Shri Jainender Jain And Shri ... on 9 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shoes-east-ltd-vs-shri-jainender-jain-and-shri-on-9-august-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-28T17:54:16+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shoes-east-ltd-vs-shri-jainender-jain-and-shri-on-9-august-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shoes-east-ltd-vs-shri-jainender-jain-and-shri-on-9-august-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shoes East Ltd. vs Shri Jainender Jain And Shri &#8230; on 9 August, 2002","datePublished":"2002-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-28T17:54:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shoes-east-ltd-vs-shri-jainender-jain-and-shri-on-9-august-2002"},"wordCount":2032,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shoes-east-ltd-vs-shri-jainender-jain-and-shri-on-9-august-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shoes-east-ltd-vs-shri-jainender-jain-and-shri-on-9-august-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shoes-east-ltd-vs-shri-jainender-jain-and-shri-on-9-august-2002","name":"Shoes East Ltd. vs Shri Jainender Jain And Shri ... on 9 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-28T17:54:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shoes-east-ltd-vs-shri-jainender-jain-and-shri-on-9-august-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shoes-east-ltd-vs-shri-jainender-jain-and-shri-on-9-august-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shoes-east-ltd-vs-shri-jainender-jain-and-shri-on-9-august-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shoes East Ltd. vs Shri Jainender Jain And Shri &#8230; on 9 August, 2002"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/163308","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=163308"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/163308\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=163308"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=163308"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=163308"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}