{"id":164576,"date":"2009-08-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-lal-kedia-vs-bimal-kumar-agrawal-on-26-august-2009"},"modified":"2015-09-28T09:15:06","modified_gmt":"2015-09-28T03:45:06","slug":"shyam-lal-kedia-vs-bimal-kumar-agrawal-on-26-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-lal-kedia-vs-bimal-kumar-agrawal-on-26-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"Shyam Lal Kedia vs Bimal Kumar Agrawal on 26 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Jharkhand High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Shyam Lal Kedia vs Bimal Kumar Agrawal on 26 August, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI\n                          Civil Revision No.554 of 2003\n            Shyam Lal Kedia      ...      ...      ...      ...          ...   Petitioner\n                                 Versus\n            Bimal Kumar Agarwal         ...      ...      ...          ...   Opp. Party\n                                ------\n<\/pre>\n<pre>            CORAM:         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. Y. EQBAL\n                                ------\n            For the Petitioner:        Mr. A.K. Sahani\n            For the Opp. Party:        M\/s. Rajiv Ranjan, K.P. Deo\n                                ------\n      Reserved on: 14.7.2009            Pronounced on: 26th August, 2009\n\nM. Y. Eqbal, J.    This revision application under Section 14(8) of the Bihar\n\n<\/pre>\n<p>            Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 is directed<br \/>\n            against the judgment and decree dated 30th September, 2003 passed<br \/>\n            by Subordinate Judge-III, Dumka in Title Eviction Suit No.11 of<br \/>\n            1999 whereby he has decreed the suit for eviction of the defendant<br \/>\n            from the suit premises on the ground of personal necessity.\n<\/p>\n<p>            2.     The plaintiff-Opp. Party&#8217;s case as given in the plaint is that<br \/>\n            the double storied building comprised within Holding No.161 and<br \/>\n            161\/119 (old\/new) Ward No.3\/10 originally belonged to Sita Devi<br \/>\n            Saraf, wife of Banarasi Lal Saraf. The plaintiff alleged to have<br \/>\n            purchased half portion of the ground floor towards western side<br \/>\n            along with its upper portion of the entire building by a registered<br \/>\n            sale deed dated 24.4.1997. The other portion towards eastern side<br \/>\n            was purchased by one Rajesh Kumar Tekriwal on the same day<br \/>\n            from Sita Devi Saraf. The plaintiff said to have got his name<br \/>\n            mutated in the Zamindari Sirista of Dumka Anchal and also in the<br \/>\n            Dumka Municipality and paid rent and municipal taxes. The<br \/>\n            plaintiff&#8217;s further case is that the defendant , namely Shyam Lal<br \/>\n            Kedia, was a month-to-month tenant under original vendor Sita<br \/>\n            Devi Saraf occupying the ground floor of the building on monthly<br \/>\n            rent of Rs.325\/-. After purchase, the plaintiff asked the defendant-<br \/>\n            petitioner to pay half of the rent, but he did not do so even after<br \/>\n            information given to him by the previous landlord Sita Devi Saraf.<br \/>\n            The plaintiff&#8217;s case is that he requires the suit premises reasonably<br \/>\n            and in good faith for his own use and occupation and for his family<br \/>\n            members. It is pleaded by the plaintiff that the purpose of purchase<br \/>\n            of the suit premises is for shifting his office and godown as the<br \/>\n            plaintiff is registered dealer of oxygen cylinder.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                2              Civil Revision No.554 of 2003<\/span><\/p>\n<p>3.     The defendant-petitioner contested the suit by filing written<br \/>\nstatement. The relationship of landlord and tenant has been denied<br \/>\nand disputed by the defendant and he further pleaded that he was<br \/>\ninducted as tenant of the entire ground floor of the building having<br \/>\nsix rooms and the entire upper portion of the building which is in<br \/>\noccupation of Shyamal Tekriwal. The defendant&#8217;s further case is<br \/>\nthat the description of the suit premises given in the plaint is vague<br \/>\nand self contradictory and also in conflict with the description<br \/>\ngiven in the sale deed. The defendant further denied and disputed<br \/>\nthe personal necessity alleged by the plaintiff as the same is neither<br \/>\nreasonable nor bona fide.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.     The trial Court framed the following seven issues for<br \/>\nconsideration: &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>              1. Is the suit as framed maintainable?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>              2. Is the suit barred by law of limitation?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>              3. Has the plaintiff any cause of action for the suit?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>              4. Is there any relationship of landlord and tenant<br \/>\n                   between the plaintiff and defendant?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>              5. Is the plaintiff reasonably and in good faith<br \/>\n                   require the suit property for          his personal<br \/>\n                   necessity?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>              6. Is the plaintiff entitled to get a decree of eviction<br \/>\n                   against the defendant?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>              7. To what other relief or reliefs the plaintiff is<br \/>\n                   entitled?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>5.     So far issue No.4 is concerned, the trial Court recorded a<br \/>\nfinding that the description of the suit premises given in Schedule<br \/>\n&#8216;A&#8217; of the plaint is neither vague nor misleading, contradictory or in<br \/>\nconflict with the sale deed.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.     On the issue of personal necessity (issue No.5), the trial<br \/>\nCourt came to a finding that the plaintiff requires the suit premises<br \/>\nreasonably and in good faith for his use and occupation and for<br \/>\noccupation of his family members. Consequently, the suit was<br \/>\ndecreed.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.     Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the<br \/>\npetitioner, assailed the impugned judgment as being contrary to the<br \/>\nfacts and evidence on record and is perverse in law. The learned<br \/>\ncounsel submitted that the Court below has not even taken into<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                            3                  Civil Revision No.554 of 2003<\/span><\/p>\n<p>consideration that even in eviction suit plaintiff is required to prove<br \/>\nhis prima facie title and to establish the relationship between<br \/>\nlandlord and tenant. Learned counsel then submitted that the<br \/>\nCourt below failed to take into consideration that the description<br \/>\ngiven in the sale deed does not tally with the description of the suit<br \/>\npremises given in the plaint and because of this vagueness, the suit<br \/>\nwas liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.     From perusal of the impugned judgment, it is evidently clear<br \/>\nthat the trial court has take into consideration the description given<br \/>\nin the sale deed and the description of the suit premises given in<br \/>\nthe plaint. It was categorically noticed that in the plaint there is<br \/>\nspecific mention about the description of the property by giving its<br \/>\nboundary as mentioned in the sale deed which identify the suit<br \/>\npremises. The area with boundary, plot no., holding no., etc have<br \/>\nalso been specifically mentioned in it. The description of the suit<br \/>\nproperty has also been fully supported by the witnesses examined<br \/>\nby the plaintiff. On the issue of personal necessity, the Court below<br \/>\nhas also considered the evidence adduced by the parties and<br \/>\nrecorded the finding with regard to personal necessity of the<br \/>\nplaintiff. However, the finding with regard to partial eviction was<br \/>\nnot given in the impugned judgment.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.     The Civil Revision was taken up for hearing on 6.1.2004 and<br \/>\na Bench of this Court after taking notice of the fact that there was<br \/>\nno finding on the issue of partial eviction, directed the Court below<br \/>\nto hear the parties and to accept further evidence and record a<br \/>\nfinding on the question of personal necessity. In compliance of the<br \/>\naforesaid order, the Court below further recorded finding on the<br \/>\nissue of partial eviction after giving opportunity of hearing to the<br \/>\nparties. On the issue of partial eviction, the Court below recalled<br \/>\nand examined the witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff and the<br \/>\ndefendant. The Court below found that the suit premises consist of<br \/>\nonly one kitchen and two small bathrooms in the northern side and<br \/>\ntherefore by dividing the suit premises and giving it to the<br \/>\ndefendant as suggested by him, the requirement of the plaintiff will<br \/>\nnot be fulfilled as because after that the suit premises will be<br \/>\nuseless for any purpose. The Court further found that the suit<br \/>\npremises is only 16 ft width in front and 70 ft long. If it is<br \/>\npartitioned, only 8 ft width in the front will be left. Hence, the very<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                             4             Civil Revision No.554 of 2003<\/span><\/p>\n<p>            object of the eviction of the defendant for starting business by the<br \/>\n            plaintiff will be frustrated.\n<\/p>\n<p>            10.    Having regard to the facts and evidence discussed above, I<br \/>\n            do not find any perversity in the impugned judgment. In my<br \/>\n            opinion, the impugned judgment passed by the Court below is in<br \/>\n            accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n<p>            11.    For the reasons aforesaid, I do not find any merit in this civil<br \/>\n            revision which is, accordingly, dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                                   (M. Y. Eqbal, J)<br \/>\nManoj\/ A.F.R.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Jharkhand High Court Shyam Lal Kedia vs Bimal Kumar Agrawal on 26 August, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Revision No.554 of 2003 Shyam Lal Kedia &#8230; &#8230; &#8230; &#8230; &#8230; Petitioner Versus Bimal Kumar Agarwal &#8230; &#8230; &#8230; &#8230; Opp. Party &#8212;&#8212; CORAM: THE HON&#8217;BLE MR. JUSTICE M. Y. EQBAL [&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":[8,18],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-164576","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jharkhand-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Shyam Lal Kedia vs Bimal Kumar Agrawal on 26 August, 2009 - 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\/shyam-lal-kedia-vs-bimal-kumar-agrawal-on-26-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shyam Lal Kedia vs Bimal Kumar Agrawal on 26 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-lal-kedia-vs-bimal-kumar-agrawal-on-26-august-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-28T03:45:06+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\\\/shyam-lal-kedia-vs-bimal-kumar-agrawal-on-26-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shyam-lal-kedia-vs-bimal-kumar-agrawal-on-26-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shyam Lal Kedia vs Bimal Kumar Agrawal on 26 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-28T03:45:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shyam-lal-kedia-vs-bimal-kumar-agrawal-on-26-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1143,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jharkhand High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shyam-lal-kedia-vs-bimal-kumar-agrawal-on-26-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shyam-lal-kedia-vs-bimal-kumar-agrawal-on-26-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shyam-lal-kedia-vs-bimal-kumar-agrawal-on-26-august-2009\",\"name\":\"Shyam Lal Kedia vs Bimal Kumar Agrawal on 26 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-28T03:45:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shyam-lal-kedia-vs-bimal-kumar-agrawal-on-26-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shyam-lal-kedia-vs-bimal-kumar-agrawal-on-26-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shyam-lal-kedia-vs-bimal-kumar-agrawal-on-26-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shyam Lal Kedia vs Bimal Kumar Agrawal on 26 August, 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":"Shyam Lal Kedia vs Bimal Kumar Agrawal on 26 August, 2009 - 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\/shyam-lal-kedia-vs-bimal-kumar-agrawal-on-26-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shyam Lal Kedia vs Bimal Kumar Agrawal on 26 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-lal-kedia-vs-bimal-kumar-agrawal-on-26-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-28T03:45:06+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\/shyam-lal-kedia-vs-bimal-kumar-agrawal-on-26-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-lal-kedia-vs-bimal-kumar-agrawal-on-26-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shyam Lal Kedia vs Bimal Kumar Agrawal on 26 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-28T03:45:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-lal-kedia-vs-bimal-kumar-agrawal-on-26-august-2009"},"wordCount":1143,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jharkhand High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-lal-kedia-vs-bimal-kumar-agrawal-on-26-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-lal-kedia-vs-bimal-kumar-agrawal-on-26-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-lal-kedia-vs-bimal-kumar-agrawal-on-26-august-2009","name":"Shyam Lal Kedia vs Bimal Kumar Agrawal on 26 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-28T03:45:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-lal-kedia-vs-bimal-kumar-agrawal-on-26-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-lal-kedia-vs-bimal-kumar-agrawal-on-26-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-lal-kedia-vs-bimal-kumar-agrawal-on-26-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shyam Lal Kedia vs Bimal Kumar Agrawal on 26 August, 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\/164576","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=164576"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/164576\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=164576"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=164576"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=164576"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}