{"id":171921,"date":"2009-11-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-vs-purshottam-on-21-november-2009"},"modified":"2015-08-01T12:04:48","modified_gmt":"2015-08-01T06:34:48","slug":"anil-vs-purshottam-on-21-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-vs-purshottam-on-21-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"Anil vs Purshottam on 21 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Anil vs Purshottam on 21 November, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: P. R. Borkar<\/div>\n
                                1\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY \n\n\n\n\n                                       \n                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n            CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.630 OF 2009\n                                IN\n           CRIMINAL APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 139 OF 2009\n\n\n\n\n                           \n                   \n     Anil s\/o Baburao Kataria,\n     age 42 years, occup.trading,\n                  \n     r\/o Shivneri Marg, Station\n     Road, Ahmednagar, Taluka           .. Applicant\/\n     and District Ahmednagar.           ori.complainant.\n      \n   \n\n\n\n            versus\n      \n     Purshottam s\/o Prabhakar Kawane\n\n\n\n\n\n     age 50 years, occup. service,\n     r\/of M.E.S. Colony, Solapur Rd.\n     Ahmednagar.                       .. Respondent.\n\n\n\n\n\n              ---------\n<\/pre>\n
     Shri P.S. Pawar, Advocate for applicant.
\n     Shri Amol N.Kanade, Adv. for Respondent.\n<\/p>\n
                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:20:13 :::<\/span>
\n                                   2<\/span><\/p>\n
                                      Coram: P.R. Borkar J.\n<\/p>\n
                                      Date : 21.11.2009.\n<\/p>\n
     ORAL JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
     1.        This is an application for leave to file <\/p>\n
     appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal <\/p>\n
     passed   by   the   learned   Judicial   Magistrate,   First <\/p>\n
     Class (1st Court), Ahmednagar in S.T.C. No.3528 of <\/p>\n
     2005 decided on 11.12.2008.\n<\/p>\n
     2.        Briefly   stated,   in   or   about   September-\n<\/p>\n
     October   2004,   present   Respondent   was   in   need   of <\/p>\n
     financial   help   and,   therefore,   he   requested   the <\/p>\n
     present   applicant   to   give   him   amount   of   Rs.4.00 <\/p>\n
     lakhs and assured to repay the same within one or <\/p>\n
     two   months.     The   applicant   paid   the   amount.\n<\/p>\n
     However,   according   to   the   applicant,     the <\/p>\n
     respondent   failed   to   repay   the   amount   and <\/p>\n
     therefore demand was raised by applicant pursuant <\/p>\n
     to   which   the   present   respondent     issued   cheque <\/p>\n
     dated 24.5.2005 drawn on Post Office Savings Bank, <\/p>\n
     Ahmednagar   Branch,   for   Rs.2.00   lakhs.   On <\/p>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:20:13 :::<\/span>
\n                                    3<\/span><\/p>\n
     25.5.2005, the applicant deposited that cheque in <\/p>\n
     the   said   bank   for   encashment,   but   the   same   was <\/p>\n
     dishonoured   on   the   ground   of   insufficiency   of <\/p>\n
     funds.\n<\/p>\n
     3.         Thereafter   on   4.6.21005,   the   applicant <\/p>\n
     issued  notice  to  the  Respondent calling upon  him <\/p>\n
     to   pay   the   amount   within   fifteen   days   and   since <\/p>\n
     the   amount   was   not   paid,   the   complaint   under <\/p>\n
     Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was <\/p>\n
     filed.   The   trial   court   took   cognizance   of   the <\/p>\n
     complaint   and   issued   notice   to   the   present <\/p>\n
     Respondent who then appeared in the matter.   The <\/p>\n
     trial   was   conducted   and   ultimately   the   order   of <\/p>\n
     acquittal   was   passed   which   is   sought   to   be <\/p>\n
     challenged by seeking leave of this court to file <\/p>\n
     appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     4.         Heard   Shri   P.S.Pawar,   learned   Advocate <\/p>\n
     for the applicant and Shri Amol N. Kakade Advocate <\/p>\n
     for   the   respective   parties.     Both   have   taken   me <\/p>\n
     through various documents and the judgment of the <\/p>\n
     trial   court.     The   trial   court   has   taken   into <\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:20:13 :::<\/span>
\n                                    4<\/span><\/p>\n
     consideration the admission given by the applicant <\/p>\n
     in   his   cross   examination   that   he   had   filed <\/p>\n
     criminal   cases   for   commission   of   offence <\/p>\n
     punishable   under   Section   138   of   the   Negotiable <\/p>\n
     Instruments Act, against the persons mentioned in <\/p>\n
     paragraph   20   of   the   judgment.   Those   persons   are <\/p>\n
     (1) Ananda Gahile, (2) Vijay Kale, (3), Rajendra <\/p>\n
     Dake,   (4)   Vinay   Khisti,   (5)   Shivaji   Chaure,   (6) <\/p>\n
     Santosh Malwade, (7) Akrur Kaspate, (8) Kanhayalal <\/p>\n
     Rathod, (9) Sachin Joshi and (10) Prakash late.\n<\/p>\n
     The applicant  denied  that  the  cases involved  the <\/p>\n
     amounts   total   of   which   is   more   than   Rs.80.00 <\/p>\n
     lakhs.\n<\/p>\n
     5.           It is argued on behalf of the Respondent <\/p>\n
     that the transactions with so many persons clearly <\/p>\n
     indicate that the transaction  with the Respondent <\/p>\n
     was not of a hand loan  transaction, but it was a <\/p>\n
     money         lending       transaction            and              the <\/p>\n
     complainant\/applicant   is   doing   money   lending <\/p>\n
     business without licence.\n<\/p>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:20:13 :::<\/span>
\n                                    5<\/span><\/p>\n
     6.         In   paragraph   16   of   the   judgment,   the <\/p>\n
     learned trial  court referred  to evidence  of DW-1 <\/p>\n
     Premlata   Balasaheb   Parkhe   at   Exh.50   who   is   an <\/p>\n
     employee   of     the   Income-tax   Department.     She <\/p>\n
     produced   income-tax   returns   of   the   present <\/p>\n
     applicant at Exhibits 52 and 53 and in paragraph <\/p>\n
     16 of the judgment, the trial court noted that the <\/p>\n
     total income of the applicant in the year 2002-03 <\/p>\n
     was Rs.60,000\/= and for the year 2003-04, it was <\/p>\n
     Rs.57,989\/= and it is amply clear that the person <\/p>\n
     having such income could not have lent amount of <\/p>\n
     Rs.4.00   lakhs   in   lump-sum   to   the   respondent-\n<\/p>\n
     accused.   There   is   no   other   documentary   evidence <\/p>\n
     led by the complainant to prove that he actually <\/p>\n
     lent   Rs.4.00   lakhs.     It   is   the   case   of   present <\/p>\n
     Respondent that he borrowed amounts of Rs.10,000\/= <\/p>\n
     and  Rs.20,000\/= from the applicant and repaid Rs.\n<\/p>\n
     50,000\/=.   However,   while   giving   loan,   the <\/p>\n
     applicant-complainant   had   obtained   blank   cheques <\/p>\n
     from the respondent   and taking advantage of the <\/p>\n
     same, the present case is filed.\n<\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:20:13 :::<\/span>
\n                                      6<\/span><\/p>\n
     7.         The   trial   court   has   come   to   the <\/p>\n
     conclusion that the complainant could not have an <\/p>\n
     amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs in lump sum at a time and <\/p>\n
     there   is   nothing   on   record   that   he   got   some <\/p>\n
     windfall   after   March   2004   so   that   he   could   give <\/p>\n
     loan   of   Rs.4.00   lakhs   at   a   time   to   the   accused-\n<\/p>\n
     respondent in September-October 2004. Moreover, it <\/p>\n
     appears from  the  admission  of  the  complainant  in <\/p>\n
     his cross examination referred to above   that he <\/p>\n
     is   doing   money   lending   business.   He   admitted   to <\/p>\n
     have   money   transactions   with   ten   persons   named <\/p>\n
     which ultimately resulted in their prosecution for <\/p>\n
     offence   punishable   under   Section   138   of   the <\/p>\n
     Negotiable Instruments Act.\n<\/p>\n
     8.         Shri   Amol   Kakade,   learned   Counsel     for <\/p>\n
     the   Respondent   has   filed   affidavit-in-reply   and <\/p>\n
     produced xerox copy of criminal M.A. No.16 of 2009 <\/p>\n
     filed by present applicant, whereby he  has sought <\/p>\n
     transfer of as many as 60 cases from one court to <\/p>\n
     another.   There   is   no   denial   of   this   document.\n<\/p>\n
     Averments in affidavit in reply and said  document <\/p>\n
     clearly shows  that  the  applicant  was  doing  money <\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:20:14 :::<\/span>
\n                                     7<\/span><\/p>\n
     lending   business   and   therefore,     inference   drawn <\/p>\n
     by   the   trial   court   cannot   be   said   to   be <\/p>\n
     unreasonable, but it is proper inference based on <\/p>\n
     admission before it.\n<\/p>\n
     09.        Here,   I   may   refer   to   the   provisions   of <\/p>\n
     the Bombay  Money-Lenders  Act,  1946. Section 5  of <\/p>\n
     the said Act lays down that no money lender shall <\/p>\n
     carry on business of money lending except in the <\/p>\n
     area for which he has been granted a licence and <\/p>\n
     except in accordance with the terms and conditions <\/p>\n
     of  such licence.   It  is not the case  of present <\/p>\n
     applicant-complainant   that   he   has   any   money <\/p>\n
     lending licence.  Section 10 of the Act lays down <\/p>\n
     that no court shall pass a decree in favour of a <\/p>\n
     money-lender in any suit to which said Act applies <\/p>\n
     unless   the   court   is   satisfied   that   at   the   time <\/p>\n
     when   the   loan   or   any   part   thereof,   to   which   the <\/p>\n
     suit relates was advanced, the money-lender held a <\/p>\n
     valid licence, and if the court is satisfied that <\/p>\n
     the money-lender did not hold a valid licence, it <\/p>\n
     shall dismiss the suit. In other  words, carrying <\/p>\n
     on money lending business without licence debars a <\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:20:14 :::<\/span>
\n                                    8<\/span><\/p>\n
     person from doing money lending and recovering the <\/p>\n
     amount   through   court.     As   per   explanation   to <\/p>\n
     Section   138   of   the   Negotiable   Instruments   Act <\/p>\n
     “debt   or   other   liability”means   a   legally <\/p>\n
     enforceable debt or other liability.   So, a loan <\/p>\n
     advanced by a money lender who is doing business <\/p>\n
     of money lending without licence is not a debt or <\/p>\n
     other  liability and provisions  of  Section  138  of <\/p>\n
     the Act will not apply to such transaction. In the <\/p>\n
     light   of   above,   it   cannot   be   said   that   in   the <\/p>\n
     present   case,   that   the     cheque   issued   by   the <\/p>\n
     Respondent in favour of the applicant was for the <\/p>\n
     liability enforceable in law.\n<\/p>\n
     10.        I may also refer to Section 32B(b) of the <\/p>\n
     said  Act,which  lays down  that  whoever  carries  on <\/p>\n
     the business of money-lending at any place without <\/p>\n
     holding a  valid licence authorising him to  carry <\/p>\n
     on   such   business   at   such   place,   shall,   on <\/p>\n
     conviction, be punished for the first offence with <\/p>\n
     imprisonment   of   either   description   which   may <\/p>\n
     extend to one year or with fine which may extend <\/p>\n
     to rupees one thousand and   five hundred or with <\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:20:14 :::<\/span>
\n                                     9<\/span><\/p>\n
     both and for the second or subsequent offence, in <\/p>\n
     addition to, or in lieu of, the penalty specified <\/p>\n
     in clause (i) with imprsonment which shall not be <\/p>\n
     less   than   two   years,   where   such   person   is   not   a <\/p>\n
     company,   and   with   fine   which   shall   not   be   less <\/p>\n
     than rupees five thousand, where such person is a <\/p>\n
     company.\n<\/p>\n
     11.<\/p>\n
                In   light   of   facts   and   circumstances   as <\/p>\n
     above, this is not a case wherein application for <\/p>\n
     leave   to   file   appeal   can   be   granted.   Hence, <\/p>\n
     application rejected.\n<\/p>\n
     pnd\/criap630.09                           (P.R.BORKAR, J.)<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:20:14 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Anil vs Purshottam on 21 November, 2009 Bench: P. R. Borkar 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.630 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 139 OF 2009 Anil s\/o Baburao Kataria, age 42 years, occup.trading, r\/o Shivneri Marg, Station Road, Ahmednagar, Taluka .. […]<\/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-171921","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAnil vs Purshottam on 21 November, 2009 - 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\/anil-vs-purshottam-on-21-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Anil vs Purshottam on 21 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-vs-purshottam-on-21-november-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-11-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-01T06:34:48+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\\\/anil-vs-purshottam-on-21-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anil-vs-purshottam-on-21-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Anil vs Purshottam on 21 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-01T06:34:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anil-vs-purshottam-on-21-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1235,\"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\\\/anil-vs-purshottam-on-21-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anil-vs-purshottam-on-21-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anil-vs-purshottam-on-21-november-2009\",\"name\":\"Anil vs Purshottam on 21 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-01T06:34:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anil-vs-purshottam-on-21-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anil-vs-purshottam-on-21-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anil-vs-purshottam-on-21-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Anil vs Purshottam on 21 November, 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":"Anil vs Purshottam on 21 November, 2009 - 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\/anil-vs-purshottam-on-21-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Anil vs Purshottam on 21 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-vs-purshottam-on-21-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-01T06:34:48+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\/anil-vs-purshottam-on-21-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-vs-purshottam-on-21-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Anil vs Purshottam on 21 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-01T06:34:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-vs-purshottam-on-21-november-2009"},"wordCount":1235,"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\/anil-vs-purshottam-on-21-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-vs-purshottam-on-21-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-vs-purshottam-on-21-november-2009","name":"Anil vs Purshottam on 21 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-01T06:34:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-vs-purshottam-on-21-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-vs-purshottam-on-21-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-vs-purshottam-on-21-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Anil vs Purshottam on 21 November, 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\/171921","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=171921"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/171921\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=171921"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=171921"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=171921"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}