{"id":165629,"date":"2002-11-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-11-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishna-vanti-vs-modi-overseas-and-ors-on-15-november-2002"},"modified":"2016-04-25T20:20:54","modified_gmt":"2016-04-25T14:50:54","slug":"krishna-vanti-vs-modi-overseas-and-ors-on-15-november-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishna-vanti-vs-modi-overseas-and-ors-on-15-november-2002","title":{"rendered":"Krishna Vanti vs Modi Overseas And Ors. on 15 November, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Krishna Vanti vs Modi Overseas And Ors. on 15 November, 2002<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 101 (2002) DLT 482, 2003 (67) DRJ 1<\/div>\n
Author: S Mukherjee<\/div>\n
Bench: S Mukerjee<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
  S. Mukherjee, J.   <\/p>\n
   IA NO. 177\/02   <\/p>\n
 1. This application has been filed under Order 7
\nRule 11 by the defendants, primarily on the ground that
\nthere is a bar in law to the entertaining of the present
\nsuit, in terms of Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control
\nAct which reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
 “50. Jurisdiction of civil courts barred in
\nrespect of certain matters –\n<\/p>\n
 (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in
\nthis Act, no civil Court shall entertain
\nany suit or proceeding in so far as it
\nrelates to the fixation of standard rent
\nin relation to any premises to which this
\nAct applies or to eviction of any tenant
\nthere from or to any other matter which
\nthe Controller is empowered by or under
\nthis Act to decide, and no injunction in
\nrespect of any action taken or to be
\ntaken by the Controller under this Act
\nshall be granted by any civil court or
\nother authority.\n<\/p>\n
 (2) If, immediately before the commencement
\nof this Act, there is any suit or
\nproceeding pending in any civil court for
\nthe eviction of any tenant from any
\npremises to which this Act applies and
\nthe construction of which has been
\ncompleted after the 1st day of June,
\n1951, but before the 9th day of June,
\n1955, such suit or proceeding shall, on
\nsuch commencement, abate.\n<\/p>\n
 (3) If, in pursuance of any decree or order
\nmade by a court, any tenant has been
\nevicted after the 16th day of August,
\n1958, from any premises to which this Act
\napplies and the construction of which
\nhas been completed after the 1st day of
\nJune, 1951, but before the 9th day of
\nJune, 1955, then, notwithstanding
\nanything contained in any other law, the
\nController may, on an application made to
\nhim in this behalf by such evicted tenant
\nwithin six months from the date of
\neviction, direct the landlord to put the
\ntenant in possession of the premises or
\nto pay him such compensation as the
\nController thinks fit.\n<\/p>\n
 (4) Nothing in Sub-section (1) shall be
\nconstrued as preventing a civil court
\nfrom entertaining any suit or proceeding
\nfor the decision of any question of title
\nto any premises to which this Act applies
\nor any question as to the person or
\npersons who are entitled to receive the
\nrent of such premises.”\n<\/p>\n
 2. The contentions of the defendant\/applicant in
\nbrief, is that two eviction petitions have been filed by
\nthe plaintiff under the ground for eviction contemplated
\nby Section 14 of the Delhi Rent control Act, which
\nreads as under:\n<\/p>\n
  “14(1)(j) that the tenant has, whether before
\nor after the commencement of this Act,
\ncaused or permitted to be caused
\nsubstantial damage to the premises.”\n<\/p>\n
 3. These eviction petitions are stated to have been
\nfiled on the allegation of “substantial damage” to the
\npremises, and since the rent of the suit premises is less
\nthan Rs. 3,500\/- per month, it is submitted by the
\ndefendant that therefore to these premises only the said
\nspecial enactment (viz DRC Act) will apply, and plaintiff
\nis liable to be held to be confined to her remedies under
\nthe said Act only; and that as such she cannot take
\nrecourse to filing a civil suit involving a prayer for
\nrestoration of the premises back to the original
\ncondition, more particularly in view of Section 50 of the
\nDRC Act which ousts the jurisdiction of the civil Court.\n<\/p>\n
 4. The submission of learned counsel for the
\nplaintiff, on the other hand, is that there are prayers
\nfor permanent mandatory injunction also. Apart from
\nthat, according to learned counsel for plaintiff, the
\nRent Controller, under the DRC Act, has the option of
\neither ordering the restoration of the damage or of
\ngranting compensation to the landlord. The plaintiff in
\nthe present case, being desirous of only securing back
\nthe restoration of the premises, therefore he would be
\nentitled to pursue with the civil suit, notwithstanding
\nthe eviction petitions filed by her subsequent to the
\ninstitution of this suit.\n<\/p>\n
 5. The following relief have been claimed in the
\nprayer clause of the suit:\n<\/p>\n
 “(A) permanent injunction restraining the said
\ndefendant(s), its Directors, employees,
\nofficers, agents, security guards,
\ncontractors and\/or workmen from carrying
\nout any illegal and\/or unauthorised
\nconstruction in an around the demised
\npremises forming part of the building No.
\nG-11, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi-110 065;\n<\/p>\n
 (B) permanent injunction restraining the said
\ndefendant(s), its Directors, employees,
\nofficers, agents, security guards,
\ncontractors and workmen from carrying out
\nany damage much less substantial damage,
\nalterations, addition and\/or renovations
\nto the present original super structure
\nof the demised portions of the said
\npremises bearing No. G-11, Maharani Bagh,
\nNew Delhi-110 065 including the
\nfloorings and tilings thereof;\n<\/p>\n
 (C) mandatory injunction requiring the said
\ndefendant (s), its Directors, employees,
\nofficers, agents, security guards,
\ncontractors and workmen to restore the
\ndemised premises forming part of the
\nbuilding G-11, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi
\nto their original condition;\n<\/p>\n
 (D) permanent injunction restraining the said
\ndefendant (s), its Directors, employees,
\nofficials, agents, security guards,
\ncontractors and workmen from providing
\nunhindered and uninterrupted right to the
\nplaintiff, her family members, authorised
\nrepresentatives and\/or workmen to inspect
\nthe demised premises at all reasonable
\nhours, particularly after prior
\nintimation;\n<\/p>\n
 (E) permanent injunction against the said
\ndefendant (s), its security guards,
\ncontractors and workmen from obstructing,
\ninterfering and\/or hindering the
\nplaintiff’s right of free ingress and
\negress into the premises forming part of
\nthe building bearing No. G-11, Maharani
\nBagh, New Delhi-110 065 that are in the
\nactual, physical possession, use and
\noccupation of the plaintiff, i.e. one
\ngarage on the left hand side and two
\nservant quarters on the first floor of
\nthe annexe building;\n<\/p>\n
 (F) permanent injunction against the said
\ndefendant (s), its Directors, employees,
\nofficers, agents, security guards,
\ncontractors and workmen from subletting,
\nassigning or otherwise parting with the
\npossession or even from creating any
\nthird party interest in any form
\nwhatsoever in respect of the demised
\nportions of the premises interference in
\nthis suit;\n<\/p>\n
 (G) permanent injunction, against the said
\ndefendant (s), its Directors, employees,
\nofficers, agents, security guards,
\ncontractors and workmen from changing or
\nconverting the user of the demised
\nportions of the premises in reference in
\nthis suit from residential to
\ncommercial\/industrial;\n<\/p>\n
 (H) for such other or further reliefs
\nincluding costs of this suit as this
\nHon’ble Court may deem fit and or proper.\n<\/p>\n
 6. It would be appropriate to deal with the above
\nprayers item-wise.\n<\/p>\n
 7. As regards Prayers (A) and (B) by way of
\npermanent injunction for restraining the defendant from
\ncarrying out any illegal or unauthorised construction, it
\nis submitted by the learned counsel for the defendant
\nitself that defendant is prepared, without admitting any
\nof the contentions of the plaintiff, the statement may be
\nrecorded on defendants behalf that no construction work,
\nor addition, or alteration, or renovation of any kind
\nwhatsoever will be carried out in respect of the premises
\nin question.\n<\/p>\n
 8. As such, prayers ‘A’ and ‘B’ accordingly would no
\nlonger survive for consideration in view of the said
\nstatement made on behalf of the defendant. Prayer ‘C’
\nwill be deal with in detail hereinbelow after prayer G.\n<\/p>\n
 9. As far as prayer D is concerned, learned counsel
\nfor the defendant submits, that subject to being given
\nnotice and reasonable time for compliance, the defendant
\nhas no objection to the inspection of the demised
\npremises by the plaintiff, or by the authorised
\nrepresentative of the plaintiff. The said prayer also
\ntherefore does not survive for consideration.\n<\/p>\n
 10. As regards prayer E, learned counsel for the
\ndefendant has assured that in relation to one garage
\nwhich is in possession of the plaintiff, with entry from
\nthe back side, the ingress and egress of plaintiff, as
\nalso the use and occupation thereof by the plaintiff,
\nshall not be obstructed.\n<\/p>\n
 11. In response to prayer ‘F’ and ‘G’, learned
\ncounsel for the defendant has submitted that they
\nundertake not to carry out any of the activities referred
\nto in the said prayers E & G, and therefore these prayers
\nalso do not survive for consideration.\n<\/p>\n
 12. That leaves only prayer ‘C’. As regards Prayer C
\nregarding plaintiff’s claim for restoration of the
\npremises to their original condition, in this regard,
\nwhile it is no doubt true that in the case of some other
\nsub-clauses of Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control
\nAct, such as subletting, since injunctive relief cannot
\nbe granted by the Rent Controller, as such a Civil Suit
\nfor injunction may be maintainable at earliest stage viz
\nbefore subletting takes place, but once the premises have
\nbeen subjected to damage, as is the allegation in the
\npresent case, then the only remedy open to the land lord
\nof such premises, which are admittedly subject to the
\nDRC, Act viz having rental below Rs. 3500\/- per month,
\nwould be to approach the Rent Controller under Section
\n14(1) of the Act, and not by way of a civil suit.\n<\/p>\n
 13. Not only would Section 50 stand in the way, as a
\nbar to the suit, but even otherwise it is only
\nappropriate that in relation to such premises which are
\ncovered by the statutory provisions of the DRC Act, which
\nAct is duly containing both the right and remedy in this
\nbehalf, then it would be incumbent upon the plaintiff to
\ntake resort to that remedy only. As a corollary it would
\nfollow that it is not available to the landlord to take
\nrecourse to the remedy of filing a civil suit.\n<\/p>\n
 14. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon
\nthe judgment of Single Judge of this Court delivered in
\nSuit No. 2482\/94, titled  S.K. Mehta v. Consilium
\n(P) Ltd. wherein it was held, while dealing with an
\napplication under Section 10 CPC, that in view of the
\noptional nature of the alternative directions possible
\nunder the Rent Act, the proceedings of the civil suit
\nwill not be stated. That context was wholly different.
\nEven otherwise, once the parliament has legislated on the
\nmatter, and has laid down that Rent Controller may direct
\neither restoration of the premises, or may award damages,
\nas the case may be, then that would certainly over-ride
\nthe private rights of the landlord in this case in the
\ncontext of her contention that she would not be content
\nwith an award of damages even if statutorily so provided
\nand therefore she must be permitted to pursue her civil
\nsuit for relief of restoration back of the premises to
\ntheir original condition. In the view I am taking, I
\nfelt to need to go into the other crucial aspect that
\ninjunction is in any case, only a discretionary remedy.\n<\/p>\n
 15. Under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure
\nall suits are maintainable except for those which are
\nbarred. It is the admitted position that the suit
\npremises in the present case, having a rental below
\nRs. 3500\/- per month, fall within the scope of the Delhi
\nRent control Act. The only question which needs
\nconsideration is whether a regular civil suit will be
\nmaintainable in relation to a cause of action which is
\nalso covered by Section 50 of the Delhi Rent
\nControl Act. My attention has been drawn to the Division
\nBench of this Court in RFA (OS) 11\/94 titled  Fhiroz Adi
\nVandrevala v. Major Shanti Kumar Sharma reported at
\n1995(1) RLR page 720. It has been laid down in the said
\ncase that in view of the express provision of Section 50
\nof the Delhi Rent Control Act, the civil courts would not
\nhave jurisdiction in regard to matters which fall within
\nthe purview of the Rent Controller. It is not denied,
\nand it cannot be denied, that orders regarding
\nrestoration of the premises of their original condition
\ncan be obtained by recourse to Section 14 of the
\nsaid Act. It would follow therefore that the civil court
\nhas no jurisdiction to entertain such a suit which would
\nthen stand barred by law in terms of section 50 of the
\nAct also.\n<\/p>\n
 16. In the said Division Bench judgment, the appeal
\nwas allowed and the order of the Hon’ble Single Judge was
\nset aside only on the ground that the relief regarding
\npermanent injunction in protecting the peaceful
\npossession of the plaintiff, does not fall within the
\npurview of the Delhi Rent Control Act.\n<\/p>\n
 17. That is not the case in the present suit. Here
\nis a case which would fall squarely within the four
\ncorners of Section 14(1)(j) of the Act. In fact, the
\nplaintiff in her submissions has virtually accepted this
\nposition, because the plaintiff has primarily made a
\ngrievance to the fact that the Rent Controller while
\nexercising power under Section 14(1) of the Act, has
\nthe discretion to either direct restoration of the
\npremises to the original condition or to award damages.
\nThe emphasis of the plaintiff seems to be that the second
\nalternative relief regarding damages, being not
\nacceptable to the plaintiff, and hence the suit should be
\nheld to be maintainable for plaintiff’s satisfaction
\nregarding the first alternative of above relief, which
\nplaintiff wants to secure.\n<\/p>\n
 18. There is a fundamental fallacy in this argument.
\nOnce Parliament has enacted a law providing for these two
\neventualities in the case of a tenant to whom the Rent
\nAct applies, then where the tenant has committed breach
\nof the obligation towards the landlord by carrying out
\nunauthorised addition\/alteration, then the legal right
\nof the plaintiff shall stand governed and limited by the
\nlaw enacted by the Parliament for the said purpose, and
\nit would not be open to an individual to claim that just
\nbecause the other of the two alternatives of legal
\nredressal viz either restoration or damages, is not
\nacceptable to her, therefore in her individual case there
\nshould be an authorisation to by-pass the statutory
\nprovisions, by allowing the plaintiff in this case to
\nmaintain a civil suit, even where as in the present case,
\nthe plaintiff has elected to voluntarily take proceedings
\nunder the DRC Act which are now presently pending before
\nthe Court of Rent Controller.\n<\/p>\n
 19. Even if there was some doubt regarding the legal
\nposition so-long-as plaintiff had stuck to her guns
\nregarding maintainability of the civil suit as being the
\nonly proper and efficacious remedy, however, no soon as
\nthe plaintiff of her own free will, and violative, has
\ninstituted two eviction petitions against the defendant,
\nincluding on the ground of substantial damage to the
\npremises and the prayer for the restoration back of the
\nsame, there can be no manner of the doubt that the civil
\nsuit would not be maintainable in relation to prayer ‘C’
\nof the plaint, which as submitted above, is the only
\nsurviving prayer requiring consideration by this Court
\npursuant to the assurances\/concession in relation to
\nother prayers made by the learned counsel for the
\ndefendant during the arguments held in this matter.\n<\/p>\n
 20. There is another well-settled principle regarding
\nmaintainability of the civil suit, viz that if the right
\nand remedy are both contained in a special statute, then
\nthe general remedy of filing of a regular civil suit,
\nwill not be available. In this connection reference may
\nbe made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
\n Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke
\nof Bombay and Ors.,<\/a>  to
\nthe effect that where a right is created by statute and
\nthe method of enforcing the right or of redressing the
\ngrievance, is contained in the statute creating the
\nright, then the general remedy of suit will be impliedly
\nbarred.\n<\/p>\n
 21. In view of the above, and taking into account the
\nassurances\/concession of the defendant which have been
\nduly noted hereinabove in this judgment, the only relief
\nin the suit which survives for consideration viz prayer\n<\/p>\n
(c), stands clearly barred in view of the provisions of
\nSection 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act.\n<\/p>\n
 22. Accordingly the plaint is rejected in relation to
\nthe sole surviving prayer (c) as set out in the plaint.
\nAs regards all other prayers, the defendant is held bound
\nby the assurances as recorded in para 7 of the judgment.
\nOnce the defendant is held bound by the terms of the
\nassurances held out to this Court, no relief beyond the
\nsame is warranted in favor of the plaintiff in relation
\nto the other prayers (A)(B)(D)(E)(F)(G) and (H).\n<\/p>\n
 23. With the above observations, the plaint is
\nrejected and the suit disposed of in the above terms, but
\nwith no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Krishna Vanti vs Modi Overseas And Ors. on 15 November, 2002 Equivalent citations: 101 (2002) DLT 482, 2003 (67) DRJ 1 Author: S Mukherjee Bench: S Mukerjee JUDGMENT S. Mukherjee, J. IA NO. 177\/02 1. This application has been filed under Order 7 Rule 11 by the defendants, primarily on the ground […]<\/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-165629","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKrishna Vanti vs Modi Overseas And Ors. on 15 November, 2002 - 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\/krishna-vanti-vs-modi-overseas-and-ors-on-15-november-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Krishna Vanti vs Modi Overseas And Ors. on 15 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishna-vanti-vs-modi-overseas-and-ors-on-15-november-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-11-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-25T14:50:54+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishna-vanti-vs-modi-overseas-and-ors-on-15-november-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishna-vanti-vs-modi-overseas-and-ors-on-15-november-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Krishna Vanti vs Modi Overseas And Ors. on 15 November, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-11-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-25T14:50:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishna-vanti-vs-modi-overseas-and-ors-on-15-november-2002\"},\"wordCount\":2744,\"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\\\/krishna-vanti-vs-modi-overseas-and-ors-on-15-november-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishna-vanti-vs-modi-overseas-and-ors-on-15-november-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishna-vanti-vs-modi-overseas-and-ors-on-15-november-2002\",\"name\":\"Krishna Vanti vs Modi Overseas And Ors. on 15 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-11-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-25T14:50:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishna-vanti-vs-modi-overseas-and-ors-on-15-november-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishna-vanti-vs-modi-overseas-and-ors-on-15-november-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishna-vanti-vs-modi-overseas-and-ors-on-15-november-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Krishna Vanti vs Modi Overseas And Ors. on 15 November, 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":"Krishna Vanti vs Modi Overseas And Ors. on 15 November, 2002 - 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\/krishna-vanti-vs-modi-overseas-and-ors-on-15-november-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Krishna Vanti vs Modi Overseas And Ors. on 15 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishna-vanti-vs-modi-overseas-and-ors-on-15-november-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-11-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-25T14:50:54+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishna-vanti-vs-modi-overseas-and-ors-on-15-november-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishna-vanti-vs-modi-overseas-and-ors-on-15-november-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Krishna Vanti vs Modi Overseas And Ors. on 15 November, 2002","datePublished":"2002-11-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-25T14:50:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishna-vanti-vs-modi-overseas-and-ors-on-15-november-2002"},"wordCount":2744,"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\/krishna-vanti-vs-modi-overseas-and-ors-on-15-november-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishna-vanti-vs-modi-overseas-and-ors-on-15-november-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishna-vanti-vs-modi-overseas-and-ors-on-15-november-2002","name":"Krishna Vanti vs Modi Overseas And Ors. on 15 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-11-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-25T14:50:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishna-vanti-vs-modi-overseas-and-ors-on-15-november-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishna-vanti-vs-modi-overseas-and-ors-on-15-november-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishna-vanti-vs-modi-overseas-and-ors-on-15-november-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Krishna Vanti vs Modi Overseas And Ors. on 15 November, 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\/165629","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=165629"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/165629\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=165629"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=165629"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=165629"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}