{"id":174842,"date":"2008-10-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-10-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-s-v-gangapurwala-vs-whether-the-first-appellate-court-on-21-october-2008"},"modified":"2018-06-13T01:56:01","modified_gmt":"2018-06-12T20:26:01","slug":"mr-s-v-gangapurwala-vs-whether-the-first-appellate-court-on-21-october-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-s-v-gangapurwala-vs-whether-the-first-appellate-court-on-21-october-2008","title":{"rendered":"Mr. S.V.Gangapurwala vs Whether The First Appellate Court on 21 October, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Mr. S.V.Gangapurwala vs Whether The First Appellate Court on 21 October, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: V.R. Kingaonkar<\/div>\n
                                        (1)\n\n\n\n                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY\n\n                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD\n\n                             SECOND APPEAL NO. 119 OF 1991\n\n\n\n\n                                                                             \n     Ramprasad Bhagirath Agrawal\n\n\n\n\n                                                     \n     R\/o Kannad Dist-Aurangabad                                     APPELLLANT\n\n                VERSUS\n\n     Uttamchand Danmal Pande\n\n\n\n\n                                                    \n     R\/o Kannad Dist-Aurangabad                                     RESPONDENT\n\n                        .....\n     Mr. S.V.Gangapurwala, Advocate for the appellant\n     Mr. D.L.Agrawal, Advocate for the respondent\n                        .....\n\n\n\n\n                                        \n                                         [CORAM: V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.]\n                            ig           Reserved on   : 15.10.2008\n                                         Pronounced on : 21.10.2008\n                                         ----------------------------\n                          \n     JUDGMENT :\n<\/pre>\n
     1.         By    this       appeal, appellant        impugns         judgment<\/p>\n
     rendered         by     learned     Additional       District           Judge,<\/p>\n
     Aurangabad,       in an appeal (RCA No.279\/1989)                   reversing<\/p>\n
     money     decree rendered by learned Civil Judge                      (Senior<\/p>\n
     Division) in Special Civil Suit No.4\/1978.\n<\/p>\n
     2.         The    appellant, who is original plaintiff, and<\/p>\n
     respondent            are    inhabitants   of      same       town.          The<\/p>\n
     appellant’s       case before the trial court was that, out<\/p>\n
     of friendship with the respondent, he advanced amounts<\/p>\n
     of     Rs.10,000\/-          each on 5th July 1975 and            12th       July<\/p>\n
     1975     to him.        The respondent executed separate demand<\/p>\n
     promissory       notes       each at the time of advancement                   of<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:00:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                             (2)<\/span><\/p>\n
     the     amounts,         on both the occasions.            Though he            made<\/p>\n
     repeated          demands, yet the respondent did not pay                       the<\/p>\n
     amounts.           He,     therefore, issued demand notice                   dated<\/p>\n
     9th     July       1977,       which    was     duly    served           upon    the<\/p>\n
     respondent         on 11th July 1977.           The demand notice drew<\/p>\n
     blank.         Neither it was replied nor was complied with.\n<\/p>\n
     Consequently,            he    filed     suit   for     recovery           of    the<\/p>\n
     advanced amounts along with interest @ 1.5 % p.m.                               and<\/p>\n
     notice charges, totalling to Rs.28,450\/-.\n<\/p>\n
     3.           By    filing written statement (Exhibit-23)                        the<\/p>\n
     respondent denied the suit claim and averments made by<\/p>\n
     the     appellant.\n<\/p>\n
                              ig    He asserted that the          appellant           was\n\n     dealing        in money lending business.               He asserted             that\n                            \n     earlier        he had borrowed money from the appellant,                          on\n\n     several        occasions,        at exorbitant rate            of     interest.\n\n     According         to     him, though he executed the                 promissory\n      \n\n\n<\/pre>\n
     notes in question, on two occasions, yet he repaid the<\/p>\n
     amounts.           He    asserted       that he was      arrested           during<\/p>\n
     emergency period, during which the appellant exploited<\/p>\n
     the     situation,            exerted influence on his son and                   got<\/p>\n
     antedated         promissory notes under duress from him                        and<\/p>\n
     also     a     promissory note for Rs.3000\/-.                  He        contended<\/p>\n
     that     the promissory notes are without                    consideration.\n<\/p>\n
     He     denied       liability to pay the amounts.                   He     further<\/p>\n
     disputed          the claim of interest on the ground that                        it<\/p>\n
     is     highly excessive.            He submitted that appellant was<\/p>\n
     engaged        in money lending business without license and<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:00:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                         (3)<\/span><\/p>\n
     as such the suit was liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
     4.         The     parties went to trial over certain issues<\/p>\n
     struck     below        Exhibit-24.       They      adduced         oral      and<\/p>\n
     documentary        evidence in support of rival contentions.\n<\/p>\n
     The     trial     court     held      that   the      promissory           notes<\/p>\n
     (Exhibit-43        and     Exhibit-44) were duly proved by                    the<\/p>\n
     appellant.         The     trial court came to           the      conclusion<\/p>\n
     that     the     transaction was not of money lending.                        The<\/p>\n
     trial     court        further held that since           the      promissory<\/p>\n
     notes      did     not     show     agreement       of     interest,          the<\/p>\n
     transactions        are     not covered under the Bombay                   Money<\/p>\n
     Lenders<\/p>\n
                    Act, 1946.     The suit was, therefore, decreed.\n<\/p>\n
     The     first appellate court held that the                    transactions<\/p>\n
     indicated        money     lending.      The first appellate               court<\/p>\n
     relied     upon        provisions of the Bombay            Money       Lenders<\/p>\n
     Act,     1946     as     well as view taken by           this       Court       in<\/p>\n
     “Dharamdas Motibhai Wani V\/s Shidya Jatrya Bhil” (1971<\/p>\n
     MhLJ 608).        Hence, the appeal was allowed and the suit<\/p>\n
     was dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
     5.         The     second     appeal was admitted by                the      then<\/p>\n
     Hon’ble        Judge,     treating grounds No.10, 13 and 14                     of<\/p>\n
     the     appeal     memo as substantial questions of law.                          I<\/p>\n
     deem it proper to redraft the substantial questions of<\/p>\n
     law instead of reproducing the grounds of appeal memo.\n<\/p>\n
     The     substantial       questions      of law may be            stated        as<\/p>\n
     follows-\n<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:00:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                      (4)<\/span><\/p>\n
                 1.       Whether     the      first     appellate             court\n\n                 committed    patent error while interpreting the\n\n                 provisions     of Section 2 (9) (f) of the Bombay\n\n\n\n\n                                                                            \n                 Money Lenders Act, 1946?\n\n\n\n\n                                                    \n<\/pre>\n
                 2.     Whether in the facts and circumstances of<\/p>\n
                 the    present case, in absence of agreement                      to<\/p>\n
                 charge    interest on the advanced amounts,                     the<\/p>\n
                 transactions       could   be treated as            loans       and<\/p>\n
                 particularly       when    there is omission             in     the<\/p>\n
                 promissory     notes (Exhibit-43 and              Exhibit-44)<\/p>\n
                 as<\/p>\n
                       regards rate of interest and that in                     view<\/p>\n
                 of    admissions     of    the    respondent          regarding<\/p>\n
                 execution    of the promissory notes, the                    money<\/p>\n
                 decree    ought     to have been confirmed               by     the<\/p>\n
                 learned Additional District Judge?\n<\/p>\n
     6.          Mr.Gangapurwala       would      submit that          the      view<\/p>\n
     taken by Single Bench in “Dharamdas Motibhai Wani V\/s.\n<\/p>\n
     Shidya        Jatrya Bhil” (1971 MhLJ 608) is not in keeping<\/p>\n
     with     proper      interpretation of the provisions of                    the<\/p>\n
     Bombay        Money Lenders Act, 1946 and Section 80 of                     the<\/p>\n
     Negotiable        Instruments     Act, 1881.        He     would        submit<\/p>\n
     that     if      exclusion of the negotiable instruments,                     as<\/p>\n
     contemplated         under sub clause “f” of section 2 (9) is<\/p>\n
     to     be      considered,     then     even      other         negotiable<\/p>\n
     instruments        like cheque, demand draft etc.                 may      fall<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:00:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 (5)<\/span><\/p>\n
     within     the purview of Section 2 (2) and will have                                      to<\/p>\n
     be treated as instances of money lending business.                                         He<\/p>\n
     also     invited          my      attention to Section 2                    (6),      which<\/p>\n
     defines        the        expression “interest”.                 He would            submit<\/p>\n
     that      since           execution          of      the        promissory            notes<\/p>\n
     (Exhibit-43 and Exhibit-44) was duly proved, the money<\/p>\n
     decree     ought not to have been disturbed by the                                    first<\/p>\n
     appellate        court.              As     against       this,      Mr.D.L.Agrawal<\/p>\n
     supports the impugned judgment.\n<\/p>\n
     7.         Before          I     proceed to consider relevant                        legal<\/p>\n
     provisions           of     the       Bombay Money Lenders Act,                      it     is<\/p>\n
     worthy<\/p>\n
                to be noted that several documents were placed<\/p>\n
     on     record by the respondent \/ defendant in support of<\/p>\n
     his     contention             that       the plaintiff \/            appellant            was<\/p>\n
     dealing         in        money       lending         business.             The       first<\/p>\n
     appellate        court did not consider those documents.                                   As<\/p>\n
     a     matter     of        fact, it was necessary                  for       the      first<\/p>\n
     appellate        court          to        consider        the     import        of        such<\/p>\n
     documents, which are placed on record.                               The respondent<\/p>\n
     produced        on        record          certified       copies       of     judgments<\/p>\n
     (Exhibit-36           and       Exhibit-37)          in     Small        Causes           Suit<\/p>\n
     No.7\/1971        and Small Causes Suit No.13\/1971.                              He     also<\/p>\n
     placed     on        record copies of plaints and                        other        suits<\/p>\n
     filed by the appellant.                     It appears that the appellant<\/p>\n
     had     filed        a suit against son of the                     respondent              for<\/p>\n
     recovery        of        Rs.3,000\/-.             There     are      several          other<\/p>\n
     transactions,             which       are apparent on face of                     record.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:00:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                         (6)<\/span><\/p>\n
     The     appellant admitted that he had advanced amount to<\/p>\n
     one     Topanlal and also advanced certain amount to                         one<\/p>\n
     Bandu,        as per documents (Exhibit-38 and                Exhibit-39).\n<\/p>\n
     These        are     the     attending circumstances.            The      trial<\/p>\n
     court        seems     to have considered       these       transactions.\n<\/p>\n
     However, it was held that out of the said transactions<\/p>\n
     four     were        advanced without interest and,              therefore,<\/p>\n
     they     could        not be said to have been done in                 regular<\/p>\n
     course of business of money lending.\n<\/p>\n
     8.           The     demand notice (Exhibit-46) shows that the<\/p>\n
     appellant          demanded interest of Rs.7200\/- up to end of<\/p>\n
     June 1977 from the date of the relevant transactions @<\/p>\n
     1.5%     p.m.         He did not explain in the           demand        notice<\/p>\n
     that     the        interest was sought by way of damages.                     In<\/p>\n
     his     pleadings,           for the first time, he asserted                that<\/p>\n
     the amount of Rs.8400\/- was sought towards interest by<\/p>\n
     way     of     damages.         The oral evidence of          the      parties<\/p>\n
     comprise           of their own statements and version of                   DW-2<\/p>\n
     Shankarlal.            The     appellant stated that he gave                hand<\/p>\n
     loan     on both the occasions under the promissory notes<\/p>\n
     (Exhibit-43          and Exhibit-44).       He stated further               that<\/p>\n
     there        was no agreement to charge interest.                  He denied<\/p>\n
     loan     transactions with other persons against whom                          he<\/p>\n
     had     filed similar suits.             His version reveals that in<\/p>\n
     proceedings          initiated by one Fakirchand s\/o Dhannalal<\/p>\n
     at     Tehsil office, he was required to return                      utensils<\/p>\n
     of     said        Fakirchand.      The version of        the       appellant<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:00:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                           (7)<\/span><\/p>\n
     shows     that     he did not maintain any record about                               the<\/p>\n
     other     transactions made with the respondent.                                Though<\/p>\n
     he     maintained        regular       account         registers            of         his<\/p>\n
     business,        yet     the same were not produced before                            the<\/p>\n
     trial court.\n<\/p>\n
     9.         A     Single       Bench of this Court               in        “Dharamdas<\/p>\n
     Motibhai       Wani      V\/s.     Shidya Jatrya Bhil”                (1971           MhLJ<\/p>\n
     608) held:\n<\/p>\n
                “In     my opinion, whether interest is or is not<\/p>\n
                claimed       in the suits is totally irrelevant to<\/p>\n
                the<\/p>\n
                        determination           of    the       question         whether<\/p>\n
                these       were or were not advances at                       interest.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                The     plaintiff cannot by giving up interest in<\/p>\n
                the     suit       take     the transaction              out         of    the<\/p>\n
                provisions of the Money-lenders Act.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     10.        The         learned       Judge      proceeded            to     consider<\/p>\n
     definition of the expression “loan” as used in section<\/p>\n
     2,     sub section (9) of the Act.                   It is held that since<\/p>\n
     sub     clause (f) excludes other negotiable instruments,<\/p>\n
     except        promissory note.         The advance made on basis of<\/p>\n
     the     promissory        note,       therefore,           would          not        stand<\/p>\n
     excluded       from      the relevant provisions of the                         Bombay<\/p>\n
     Money Lenders Act 1946.               The learned Single Judge held<\/p>\n
     that     in     view     of     Section         80    of    the           Negotiable<\/p>\n
     Instruments Act, the interest could be charged whether<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:00:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                               (8)<\/span><\/p>\n
     it     was     agreed         or     not between          the     parties.            And,<\/p>\n
     therefore,         the       loan advanced on basis of                     promissory<\/p>\n
     note     would         be     an     advance at          interest.            With     the<\/p>\n
     result, it falls within the mischief of the provisions<\/p>\n
     of Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946 and hence Section 10<\/p>\n
     thereof is attracted.\n<\/p>\n
     11.          It        appears,         no     doubt,        that        the         other<\/p>\n
     negotiable             instruments           may    also        be      used         while<\/p>\n
     advancing           loans         and     interest         could        be      charged<\/p>\n
     notwithstanding              absence of any agreement between                          the<\/p>\n
     parties.            However,            such       instruments,          expect        the<\/p>\n
     category<\/p>\n
                       of promissory notes, may not come within the<\/p>\n
     ambit        of the definition of the word “loan” as used in<\/p>\n
     section        2 (9) of the Bombay Money Lenders Act,                               1946.\n<\/p>\n
     The     definition of the word “loan” used in sub section<\/p>\n
     9     will     have         to     be    interpreted         having          regard      to<\/p>\n
     intention         of        the    legislature.              Various         kinds       of<\/p>\n
     advances made have been excluded under sub clauses (a)<\/p>\n
     to     (f2).        For          example,      under sub        clause         (f2)      an<\/p>\n
     advance        made bona fide by any person carrying on                                any<\/p>\n
     business,         not       having       for       its    primary        object        the<\/p>\n
     lending        of money is excluded from the purview of                                the<\/p>\n
     definition         of expression “loan”.                   The advance made in<\/p>\n
     such a case need not be specifically without execution<\/p>\n
     of     any     negotiable instrument.                    Though it is           not      so<\/p>\n
     provided          under sub clause (f2) yet having regard                                to<\/p>\n
     the     other provisions like sub clauses (ee) and (f) it<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:00:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                            (9)<\/span><\/p>\n
     will     have to be said that such advances in respect of<\/p>\n
     sum     exceeding        Rs.3,000\/- shall not be on basis of                         a<\/p>\n
     promissory           note,        if they are to be kept outside                 the<\/p>\n
     purview of the Bombay Money Lenders Act.\n<\/p>\n
     12.          The      definition       of     expression        “business          of<\/p>\n
     money        lending”        as     stated in Section 2           (2),      covers<\/p>\n
     business        of advancing loans.             It is argued by learned<\/p>\n
     advocate        Mr.Gangapurwala             that isolated         transactions<\/p>\n
     cannot        fall     within        the ambit of      the      Bombay         Money<\/p>\n
     Lenders        Act, 1946, unless it is shown that the person<\/p>\n
     deals in series of transactions of advancing loans, as<\/p>\n
     a<\/p>\n
           part of his business.              He would invite my attention<\/p>\n
     to     the sub-section (6) of Section 2.                    He would submit<\/p>\n
     that     the       expression “interest” does not include                        any<\/p>\n
     sum     charged in accordance with the provisions of                             any<\/p>\n
     other law.           He would submit that the amount claimed by<\/p>\n
     the plaintiff was recoverable towards damages or under<\/p>\n
     the     provisions           of the Section 80 of           the      Negotiable<\/p>\n
     Instruments           Act.        Hence, it could not be regarded                  as<\/p>\n
     “interest”           charged under sub-section (6) of section 2<\/p>\n
     of     the     Act.      According to Mr.Gangapurwala,                    if     the<\/p>\n
     provisions           of sub section 2, sub-section (6) and sub-\n<\/p>\n
     section        (9) are read together, then the                    transactions<\/p>\n
     in     question        would not come within the ambit                    of     the<\/p>\n
     Bombay Money Lenders Act.\n<\/p>\n
     13.          Mr.Gangapurwala            seeks     to      rely       on     “Sohel<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:00:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                             (10)<\/span><\/p>\n
     Janmuhammed           Memon     & Ors V\/s.       State of          Maharashtra”\n<\/p>\n
     2006     ALL        MR (Cri) 2703.          It was a case in which                the<\/p>\n
     transaction           of     advancement       of loan on          strength         of<\/p>\n
     bills     of exchange was subject matter of the                            criminal<\/p>\n
     charge.        A Single Bench of this Court held that it was<\/p>\n
     excluded in view of Section 2 (9) (f) of the said Act.\n<\/p>\n
     He     also     seeks to rely on “Sureschandra                     Nandlal        V\/s<\/p>\n
     Lala     Gopikrishna           Gokuldas Agencies” 1996 (4) ALL                      MR<\/p>\n
     325.     It was a case in which the suit was founded on a<\/p>\n
     cheque        issued       by the defendant.          A Single           Bench      of<\/p>\n
     this     Court       held      that where the money              was      advanced<\/p>\n
     without        charging any interest, the transaction                          could<\/p>\n
     not be that of a lending and, therefore, provisions of<\/p>\n
     BML     Act     were       not attracted       to     such       transactions.\n<\/p>\n
     There     is no difficulty in holding that loan                           advanced<\/p>\n
     on     basis     of     a     cheque would      not       come       within       the<\/p>\n
     mischief of Section 2 (2) (9), in view of the specific<\/p>\n
     exclusion             made      in      sub         section          (9)         (f).\n<\/p>\n
     Mr.Gangapurwala further seeks to rely on “Bhanushankar<\/p>\n
     Jatashankar          Bhatt V\/s Kamal Tara Builders Pvt.                        Ltd.,<\/p>\n
     and another” (AIR 1990 BOM 140).                    In the given case it<\/p>\n
     was     held     that        Section    2     (9)     (f)      and       (f1)     are<\/p>\n
     constitutionally             valid.      He also relied             on     “Ganesh<\/p>\n
     Madhavrao        Hawaldar V\/s Mithalal Kishaolal Dave”                           1999<\/p>\n
     (1) MhLJ 110.\n<\/p>\n
     14.           The     definition        of    word “loan”, as              used     in<\/p>\n
     section 2 (9) does not exclude an advance of amount at<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:00:22 :::<\/span>
\n                                        (11)<\/span><\/p>\n
     interest       whether     it     would   be agreed       or     would       be<\/p>\n
     provided       under     Statute.     It is further clarified                by<\/p>\n
     the     expression       “whether of money or in kind”                before<\/p>\n
     stating the exclusion clauses, shown in sub-clause (a)<\/p>\n
     to     (f2).      Therefore,       it is not necessary           that      the<\/p>\n
     advance        of amount must be accompanied by an agreement<\/p>\n
     of interest between the parties.             It may be that under<\/p>\n
     the     provisions of law, may be like section 80 of                       the<\/p>\n
     Negotiable       Instruments       Act, it is      recoverable.              It<\/p>\n
     need     not be reiterated that exclusion available under<\/p>\n
     sub-clause       (f)     of sub-section (9) is limited to                  the<\/p>\n
     extent of other negotiable instruments, except that of<\/p>\n
     a<\/p>\n
           promissory note.          The transactions incorporated                in<\/p>\n
     both     the promissory notes (Exhibit-43 and Exhibit-44)<\/p>\n
     will     have to be, therefore, treated as money                    lending<\/p>\n
     transactions.          Whether the interest was claimed by way<\/p>\n
     of damages or not, is not the significant aspect.                          The<\/p>\n
     fact     remains that whatever was the label attached                        to<\/p>\n
     it, the plaintiff claimed amount of interest under the<\/p>\n
     demand notice as well in the plaint.\n<\/p>\n
     15.        The    evidence       on record shows that            appellant<\/p>\n
     (plaintiff) was dealing in money lending transactions.\n<\/p>\n
     There     were several other instances of his trading                        in<\/p>\n
     money lending.          Considered together, and having regard<\/p>\n
     to the provisions of Section 2 (2) and sub section (9)<\/p>\n
     (f)     of the BML Act, it will have to be said that                       the<\/p>\n
     suit filed by him was for recovery of loan advanced in<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:00:22 :::<\/span>
\n                                             (12)<\/span><\/p>\n
     the      course        of     money        lending       transaction.              The<\/p>\n
     provisions           of section 10 of the BML Act before it was<\/p>\n
     amended        w.e.f.       19.07.1975 required the court to stay<\/p>\n
     the     suit     on     application of the money                  lender         after<\/p>\n
     granting        him     time to produce money lending                      license.\n<\/p>\n
     It     also provided under sub-section (5) of section                               10<\/p>\n
     that the suits in respect of loans advanced by a money<\/p>\n
     lender        before     commencement           of the date of             the     Act<\/p>\n
     could     be saved.          The trial court wrongly                interpreted<\/p>\n
     this     provision          so as to mean that             the     transactions<\/p>\n
     before        amendment          of the BML Act       w.e.f.            19.07.1975<\/p>\n
     were     saved.         The       saving        clause     referred          to    the<\/p>\n
     transactions<\/p>\n
                            which      were before commencement                  of     the<\/p>\n
     original Act of 1946 and has no reference to saving of<\/p>\n
     such     transactions done before date of                      implementation<\/p>\n
     of the amended Act.\n<\/p>\n
     16.        Section          10    of     the     BML Act     would         make     it<\/p>\n
     manifest        that unless the Court is satisfied that                            the<\/p>\n
     money     lender        held a valid license, no decree can                         be<\/p>\n
     rendered        in     his favour.            If the court        is       satisfied<\/p>\n
     that     the money lender did not hold a valid license to<\/p>\n
     deal     in     money lending business, it is                    mandatory          to<\/p>\n
     dismiss        the suit.          In the present case, the appellant<\/p>\n
     did     not hold a valid license for the purpose of money<\/p>\n
     lending.         Obviously,            dismissal     of the suit            by     the<\/p>\n
     first     appellate          court       is      justified.            I    find    it<\/p>\n
     difficult        to     deviate         from     the view        taken      by     the<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:00:22 :::<\/span>
\n                                       (13)<\/span><\/p>\n
     learned     Single Judge in “Dharamdas Motibhai Wani                      v\/s<\/p>\n
     Sdhidya     Jatrya Bhil” 1971 MhLJ 608.            Considering            the<\/p>\n
     totality        of     the   circumstances    and      the        forgoing<\/p>\n
     discussion, I do not find any substance in the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     17.        In        the   result, the appeal is dismissed               with<\/p>\n
     costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                              [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ]
\n                                                    JUDGE<\/p>\n
     drp\/sa119-91<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:00:22 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Mr. S.V.Gangapurwala vs Whether The First Appellate Court on 21 October, 2008 Bench: V.R. Kingaonkar (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 119 OF 1991 Ramprasad Bhagirath Agrawal R\/o Kannad Dist-Aurangabad APPELLLANT VERSUS Uttamchand Danmal Pande R\/o Kannad Dist-Aurangabad RESPONDENT ….. Mr. S.V.Gangapurwala, Advocate […]<\/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-174842","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMr. S.V.Gangapurwala vs Whether The First Appellate Court on 21 October, 2008 - 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\/mr-s-v-gangapurwala-vs-whether-the-first-appellate-court-on-21-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr. S.V.Gangapurwala vs Whether The First Appellate Court on 21 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-s-v-gangapurwala-vs-whether-the-first-appellate-court-on-21-october-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-10-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-12T20:26:01+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-s-v-gangapurwala-vs-whether-the-first-appellate-court-on-21-october-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-s-v-gangapurwala-vs-whether-the-first-appellate-court-on-21-october-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr. S.V.Gangapurwala vs Whether The First Appellate Court on 21 October, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-12T20:26:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-s-v-gangapurwala-vs-whether-the-first-appellate-court-on-21-october-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2504,\"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\\\/mr-s-v-gangapurwala-vs-whether-the-first-appellate-court-on-21-october-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-s-v-gangapurwala-vs-whether-the-first-appellate-court-on-21-october-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-s-v-gangapurwala-vs-whether-the-first-appellate-court-on-21-october-2008\",\"name\":\"Mr. S.V.Gangapurwala vs Whether The First Appellate Court on 21 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-12T20:26:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-s-v-gangapurwala-vs-whether-the-first-appellate-court-on-21-october-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-s-v-gangapurwala-vs-whether-the-first-appellate-court-on-21-october-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-s-v-gangapurwala-vs-whether-the-first-appellate-court-on-21-october-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr. S.V.Gangapurwala vs Whether The First Appellate Court on 21 October, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Mr. S.V.Gangapurwala vs Whether The First Appellate Court on 21 October, 2008 - 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\/mr-s-v-gangapurwala-vs-whether-the-first-appellate-court-on-21-october-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr. S.V.Gangapurwala vs Whether The First Appellate Court on 21 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-s-v-gangapurwala-vs-whether-the-first-appellate-court-on-21-october-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-10-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-12T20:26:01+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-s-v-gangapurwala-vs-whether-the-first-appellate-court-on-21-october-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-s-v-gangapurwala-vs-whether-the-first-appellate-court-on-21-october-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr. S.V.Gangapurwala vs Whether The First Appellate Court on 21 October, 2008","datePublished":"2008-10-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-12T20:26:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-s-v-gangapurwala-vs-whether-the-first-appellate-court-on-21-october-2008"},"wordCount":2504,"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\/mr-s-v-gangapurwala-vs-whether-the-first-appellate-court-on-21-october-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-s-v-gangapurwala-vs-whether-the-first-appellate-court-on-21-october-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-s-v-gangapurwala-vs-whether-the-first-appellate-court-on-21-october-2008","name":"Mr. S.V.Gangapurwala vs Whether The First Appellate Court on 21 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-10-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-12T20:26:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-s-v-gangapurwala-vs-whether-the-first-appellate-court-on-21-october-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-s-v-gangapurwala-vs-whether-the-first-appellate-court-on-21-october-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-s-v-gangapurwala-vs-whether-the-first-appellate-court-on-21-october-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr. S.V.Gangapurwala vs Whether The First Appellate Court on 21 October, 2008"}]},{"@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\/174842","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=174842"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/174842\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=174842"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=174842"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=174842"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}