{"id":177425,"date":"1997-07-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1997-07-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-d-gupta-vs-ram-murti-anr-on-8-july-1997"},"modified":"2016-07-03T23:15:04","modified_gmt":"2016-07-03T17:45:04","slug":"p-d-gupta-vs-ram-murti-anr-on-8-july-1997","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-d-gupta-vs-ram-murti-anr-on-8-july-1997","title":{"rendered":"P.D. Gupta vs Ram Murti & Anr on 8 July, 1997"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
P.D. Gupta vs Ram Murti & Anr on 8 July, 1997<\/div>\n
Author: D Wadhwa<\/div>\n
Bench: S.C. Agrawal, D.P. Wadhwa<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nP.D. GUPTA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nRAM MURTI & ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t08\/07\/1997\n\nBENCH:\nS.C. AGRAWAL, D.P. WADHWA\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\n\t\t THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 1997
\nPresent:\n<\/p>\n
\t      Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.C. Agrawal
\n\t      Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.P. Wadhwa
\nYogesh K.  Jain, Sr.  Adv., Pravir  K. Jian, M.A. Khan, B.K.
\nSharma, and Rajiv Dutta, Addvs. with him for the appellant
\nIn-person for the Respondent in No.1
\nThe following  Judgment of the court was delivered :
\nD.P. WADHWA, J.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellant  is an  advocate practising\tin Delhi. He
\nha filed  this appeal under section 38 of the Advocates Act,
\n1961 (\tin short  the Act,) against order  dated May 4, 1996
\nof the\tDisciplinary Committee\tof Bar\t  council  of  India
\nholding him  guilty of\tmisconduct and\tsuspending him\tfrom
\npractice for  a period\tof one Year.  This  order by the Bar
\ncouncil of  India was  passed as the Disciplinary  committed
\nof the\tBar council  of Delhi\tcould  not  dispose  of\t the
\ncomplaint received  by it  with in a period of one year\t and
\nproceedings had thus been  transferred to the Bar council of
\nIndia  under section  36  B of the Act. Section 36 B enjoins
\nupon the  Disciplinary\t committee   of state Bar council to
\ndispose of  the complaint  receive by it under section 35 of
\nthe Act\t expeditiously\t and in\t  any  case  to conclude the
\nproceedings within  one case  to  conclude  the\t proceedings
\nwithin one  year  from\tthe  date  of  the  receipt  of\t the
\ncomplaint or the date of initiation of the proceedings if at
\nthe instance  of the state Bar Council. Under Section  35 of
\nthe Act\t  where\t on the\t receipt of a complaint or otherwise
\nthe state   bar\t council has  reason  to  believe  that\t any
\nadvocate on  it s  role has  been guilty  of professional or
\nother misconduct,  it shall   refer the case for disposal to
\nits Disciplinary Committee.\n<\/p>\n
     One Srikishan  Dass died  on January  5,  1980  leaving
\nbehind extensive properties, both movable and immovable. One
\nVidya wati claiming to be the sister and the only legal heir
\nof Srikishan  Dass filed a petition under Section 276 of the
\nIndian Succession Act in the court  of District Judge, Delhi
\nfor grant of probate\/letters of administration to the estate
\nof deceased  Srikishan Dass.  This   she filed\tin February,
\n1980.\tIt is  not that\t there was any will. The complainant
\nRam Murti  (who is  now respondent before us ) and tow other
\npersons also laid claim to the properties  of Srikishan Dass
\nclaiming themselves  to be   his heirs and propounding three
\ndifferent wills.  They also  filed separate proceeding under
\nsection 276 of the Indian succession Act before the District
\nJudge, Delhi.  Since there was disoute regarding inheritance
\nto the\tproperties of srikishan Dass, Vidya Wati also  filed
\na civil\t suit in  the Delhi  High Court\t for declaration and
\ninjunction  against   various\tdefendants   numbering\t 23,
\nincluding   the complainant  Ram Murti\twho is defendant No.\n<\/p>\n
21. This suit was filed on February, 10 1982. Vidya wati had
\nprayed for  a decree  of injunction   against the defendants
\nrestraining them  from trespassing into property bearing No.
\n4852 Harbans  Singh street,  24 Daryaganj, New Delhi or from
\ninterfering  with  or  disturbing  peaceful  possession\t and
\nenjoyment of  immovable properties detailed in Schedule-A to
\nthe plaint.  She also  sought a declaration that she was the
\nabsolute owner\tof the\tproperties mentioned  therein in the
\nschedule.   It\tis  not\t necessary  for\t us  to\t detail\t the
\nproperties  shown   in\tschedule-A   except  to\t note\t two
\nproperties at  24 Daryaganj,  New Delhi bearing No. 4852 and
\n4852-A. It  is stated  that this   suit is still  pending in
\nthe Delhi  High court  and all the proceedings under section
\n276 of\tthe Indian  Succession Act  filed by various persons
\nrelating to  the estate\t of Srikishan  Dass have  also\tbeen
\ntransferred from  the court of District Judge.\tDelhi to the
\nHigh court and are  being  tried alongwith the suit filed by
\nVidya wati  also filed various other  proceedings respecting
\nthe properties\tleft  by  deceased  Srikishan  Dass  against
\noccupants  or  otherwise.    P.D.  Gupta,  advocate  who  is
\nappellant before  us had been her counsel throughout  in all
\nthese proceedings. The complaint alleged against him is that
\nthough he  knew that   there was  doubt cast on the right of
\nVidya Wati  inheriting the  properties of  Srikishan Dass on
\naccount of  pendency of various proceedings and further that
\nthe complainant\t and others had alleged that she was in fact
\nan imposter and her claim to be sister of Srikishan Dass was
\nfalse\tyet P.D.  Gupta purchase  ground floor\t of property
\nbearing No.   4858-A  24 Daryaganj  from Vidya Wati by sale-
\ndeed dated  December 30,  1982. The complainant also alleged
\nthat Vidya  Wati had  been describing  herself either as the
\nreal  sister,  step  sister  or\t even  halfblood  sister  of
\nSrikishan Dass which fact was well  known to P.D. Gupta, her
\ncounsel.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  not for  us to go into the merits or demerits of
\nthe  controversy   raised  by\tthe   parties\tin   various
\nproceedings pending  in\t  the courts\tand  still  awaiting
\nadjudication, the  grievance of the complainant is as to how
\nan advocate  could purchase  property from  his client which
\nproperty is  the subject  matter of  dispute  between\t the
\nparties\t in a court  of law. During the course of hearing of
\nthis appealing\twas also  brought to our notice that  second
\nfloor\tof the property bearing No. 4858-A, 24 Daryaganj was
\npurchased by  Suresh Kumar Gupta son-in-low  of the advocate
\nP.D. Gupta   Sola the property purchased by him in November,
\n1987 for  a consideration  of Rs.  3,40,000\/-  in  December,
\n1982.\tIt is\tpointed\t out that  the facts  relating\t  to
\npurchase   of different\t portions of property No. 4858-A, 24
\nDaryagnaj and  subsequent sale\tby P.D.\t Gupta in buying the
\nproperty from  Vidya Wati in the circumstances aforesaid who
\nhad been  describing herself some time as half blood sister,
\nreal sister  or even  step-sister of  Srikishan Dass.\t The
\nexplanation given  by P.D.  Gupta is  that though Vidya Wati
\nwas step-sister\t of srikishan  Dass but\t  the  later  always
\ntreated her  like her real sister and that is how vidya Wati
\nalso at times described herself as real\t sister.\n<\/p>\n
     There are\tsome more  facts which\tcould also be noted.
\nVidya Wati herself has died and she is stated to be survived
\nby ger only daughter maya Devi who is also  now dead. before
\nher death Vidya Wati allegedly\texecuted a will in favour of
\nher grandson   Anand  Prakash bansal who is stated to be the
\nson of\tmaya Devi  bequeathing all  her properties  to\thim.
\nVidya Wati  died on  October 26, 1991 and Maya Devi on April
\n13, 1992, It is stated that P.P.  Bansal has been  acting as
\nGeneral Attorney of vidya Wati and instructing P.D. Gupta.\n<\/p>\n
     In support\t of his case  P.D. Gupta  filed affidavit of
\nAnand Prakash  Bansal wherein  it is  claimed that saledeeds
\nexecuted by  Vidya Wati in favour of P.D. Gupta and his son-
\nin low\t Suresh\t Kumar Gupta were without  any pressure from
\nany one\t and were  by free  will of  vidya Wati. P.D.  Gupta
\nhas claimed   that complaint filed by Ram Murti is motivated
\nand he\thimself had  no title to the properties of srikishan
\nDass being  no\t relation of  his and the will propounded by
\nhim had\t been found  to be  forged as opined by the CFSL\\CBI
\nlaboratory. The\t fact that the will propounded by the court.
\nIn the\taffidavit filed\t by P.D.  Gupta\t  in answer  to\t the
\ncomplaint of  Ram Murti\t he has\t stated that “Lala Srikishan
\nDass left  behind his sister Smt.  Vidya  Wati who succeeded
\nto the\testate on death of Lala Srikishan Dass and took over
\nthe entire  movable and\t immovable  estate.  Thereafter\t the
\ncomplainant and\t two other  persons propounded\twill of Lala
\nSrikishan Dass”.   This\t  statement  of P.D.  Gupta has been
\nverified by  him as  true and  correct to his knowledge.  It
\ndoes appear  to us  to be  rather odd for a lawyer to verify
\nsuch facts   to\t his knowledge.\t  It  is   claimed that when
\nSrikishan Dass\tdied, subject  immovable property  was\tplot
\nbearing No.4858-A,  24 Daryaganj measuring 1500 sq. feet and
\nthe same  was got  mutated in the name\tof Vidya Wati in the
\nrecords of  the Municipal  corporation of Delhi and then she
\ngot plan  sanctioned from  the\t Municipal corporation\t  of
\nDelhi for construction\tof the house on this  plot and which
\nshe did\t construct and got completion  certificate on August
\n28,   1981.  It is  peculiar, rather  astounding,  how could
\nVidya Wati  get the  property of  Srikishan Dass  mutated in
\nher name   when\t  she  is  yet\tto  be\tgranted\t letters  of
\nadministration or declaration  to her  title.\n<\/p>\n
     We\t examined   the\t two  sale-deeds  transferring\tthis
\nproperty, one  executed in favour of P.D. Gupta and other in
\nfavour\tof  his\t son-in-law  Suresh  Kumar    Gupta  and  we
\ncomplainant and the concerned parties.”\n<\/p>\n
     In the  sale deed\twhich\tis dated  December 30,\t1982
\nexecuted in  favour of\tP.D. Gupta   recitals  show that the
\nagreement to  sale was\tentered into   on September 3, 1980.
\nThe completion\tcertificate  of the building was obtained on
\nAugust\t28,  1981  Payment  of\tRs.  1,50000\/-\tmade  before
\nexecution of  the sale\tdeed on various dates from 3.8.80 to
\n20.11.1981 by  means of\t cheques except\t one payment  of Rs.
\n10.000\/- made by cash on September  3, 1980.  balance amount
\nof consideration  of Rs.  30,000\/- was\tpaid at\t the time of
\nregistration of\t the sale  deed there  is no  mention of any
\ncivil suit   respecting\t this property\tpending in  the High
\nCourt.\t Rather it  is stated  that vendor   had constructed
\nvarious floors\tand had\t assured\/represented to\t the  vendee
\nthat she had a good and marketable title to the property and
\nthe  same  was\tfree  form  all\t sorts\tof  liens,  charges,
\nencumbrances or others\tlike burdens, and in case any defect
\nin the\ttitle of  the vendor was later on proved, the vendor
\nundertook to  compensate the vendee for all losses,  damages
\nand claims, which might be caused to him in this regard.  In
\nthe other  sale deed  dated December  2,  1982\texecuted  in
\nfavour of  son-in-law of  P.D. Guta.  Which was filed during
\ncourse of  hearing course  of hearing  of this appeal, it is
\nmentioned that\tafter obtaining\t completion  certificate  on
\nAugust 28,1981\tVidya Wati  let out the second floor  of the
\nproperty comprising  five rooms,  kitchen,  two bathrooms on
\nmonthly rent  of rupees\t five hundred  to Suraj\t Bhan Gupta.
\nRecitals to  this deed\tshow that  in order  to retch better
\nprice Vidya  wati agreed  to sell  the property being second
\nfloor\twhich according\t to her was not giving\tgood  return
\nfor   consideration of Rs. 1,75,000\/- to Suresh Kumar Gupta.
\nNow this  Suresh Kumar Gupta  son-in-law  of P.D.  Gupta  is
\nno other  person   than the  son of  Suraj Bhan\t Gupta,\t the
\ntenant. There is no mention of any agreement to sell in this
\nsale-deed   but what  we find\tis that first payment of Rs.
\n20,000\/- towards  consideration was  made   on November\t  5,
\n1981, second  payment of  Rs.  25,000\/- on February 20, 1982
\nand third  of Rs.  30,000\/- on\tApril  26,  1982.    Balance
\nPayment has been made  at the time of execution of the\tsale
\ndeed on December 2, 1982.\n<\/p>\n
     Bar Council  of India has taken  note  of the following
\nfacts:\n<\/p>\n
1.   P.D. Gupta\t  claims to know  vidya wati since 1980 when
\nSrikishan Dass was alive. He knew Vidya wati closely and yet
\ncontradictory stands  were taken  by  Vidya  wati  when\t she
\nvaryingly  described  herself  as  half-blood  sister,\treal
\nsister or step-sister of Srikishan Dass. These contradictory
\nstands in  fact cast  doubt ion\t the very ekistence of Vidya
\nwati herself.\tThis also  created doubt about bona fides of
\nP.D.  Gupta  who seemed to be a family lawyer of vidya wati.\n<\/p>\n
2.   P.D. Gupta\t  knew\tthat the  property purchased  by him
\nfrom Vidya  wati was  subject\tmatter\t of litigation\t and
\ntitle of vidya wati to that property  was in doubt.\n<\/p>\n
3.   Hupe  property situated in Daryaganj Ganj was purchased
\nby P.D.\t Gupta\tfor a mere sum of Rs. 1,80,000\/- in 1982.\n<\/p>\n
4.   The agreement  for sale of property was entered into as
\nfor back  on  September 3,1980 and P.D. Gupta  had advancing
\nmoney Vidya  Wati from time to time which went to show\tthat
\nas per version of P.D. Gupta  knew Vidya Wati so closely how
\nVidya Wati  could take\tcontradictory stands  vis-a-vis\t her
\nrelationship with Srikishan Dass.\n<\/p>\n
     Bar Council  of India   was thus of view  that  conduct
\nof P.D.\t   Gupta    in\tcircumstance  s\t was  unbecoming  of
\nprofessional ethics  and conduct.\n<\/p>\n
     Bar Council of India also\tobserved :\n<\/p>\n
     ” It  is acknowledged  fact that  a
\n     lawyer conducting\tthe case  of his
\n     client has\t commanding  status  and
\n     can expert influence of his client.<\/p>\n
     As a  member of  the Bar it is  our
\n     common   knowledge\t that\t lawyers
\n     have    lawyers\t have\t started
\n     contracting with  the clients   and
\n     enter   into baroains  that in case
\n     of\t success   he  will   shore  the
\n     result.   Number  of  instanses  of
\n     Motor Accident  Claims.   No  doubt
\n     there is  no bar  for instances  to
\n     purchase property\tbut on\t account
\n     of\t  common  prudence specially law
\n     knowing person will never prefer to
\n     purchase the property, the title of
\n     which is under doubt.”\n<\/p>\n
     Finally it said:\n<\/p>\n
     ”\tBut   for  the\tpurpose\t of  the
\n     present complaint, having regard to
\n     all the  facts and circumstances of
\n     the case,\t the committee is of the
\n     opinion that  the\tconduct\t of  the
\n     respondent is  patently  unbecoming
\n     of\t   a\tlawyer\t  and\t against
\n     professional ethics.  Consequently,
\n     we\t feel\tthat  as   an  exemplary
\n     punishment,     Shri   P.D.   Gupta
\n     should be\tsuspended  form practice
\n     for a  period of  one year\t so that
\n     other erring lawyers  should  learn
\n     a\tlesson\tand  refrain  themselves
\n     form indulging in such practice.”\n<\/p>\n
     The question which rises for consideration is:
\n     In view  of the  aforementioned facts   is\t P.D.  Gupta
\nguilty of  professional or other misconduct and if so is the
\npunishment  awarded   to  him\t  disproportionate   to\t the
\nprofessional or\t other\t misconduct of\twhich  he  has\tbeen
\nfound guilty?\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. Y.K.\tJain,  learned\tcounsel\t appearing  for\t the
\nappellant P.D.\tGupta\tsubmitted that\tif in  a case\tlike
\nthis it\t  held\tthat   a lawyer\t was  guilty of professional
\nmisconduct particularly\t on complaint filed by an interested
\nperson like  Ram Murti\tno lawyer  would be  able to conduct
\nhenceforth the\tcase   of his  client fearlessly.   Mr. jain
\nsaid that  the aggrieved  person. if any, in this case would
\nhave been  either Vidya\t Wati. Her daughter maya Devi or her
\ngrand-son   Anand Prakash  Bansal and  neither of  them\t had
\ncomplained.   it was  also    submitted\t   that\t though\t the
\nproperty was  purchased by  P.D.   Gupta in  late  1982\t the
\ncomplaint by  Ram Murti\t was filed only on December 16 ,1922
\nMr.   Jain explained  that as  to how  Vidya Wati  had\tbeen
\nvaryingly described in various litigations was on account of
\ninstruction  form her or her Attorney and it was no fault of
\nP.D. Gupta   on\t that account. Then it was submitted that no
\nspecific charges  had  been    framed  in  the\tdisciplinary
\nproceedings which had caused prejudice to P.D. Gupta  in the
\nconduct of  his defence.   lastly,   it\t was contended\tthat
\nP.D.  Gupta  was  no longer  concerned with  the property as
\nhe had sold away the same.\n<\/p>\n
     There appears  to be  no substance\t in the substance of
\nmr. Jain.   P.D.  Gupta\t  was fully aware of the allegations
\nhe was to meet .  It was not a\tcomplicated  charge.  He has
\nbeen  sufficiently  long in practice.  The  arguments that a
\ncharge had  not been   formulated  appears to be more out of
\nthe discontentment   of\t P.D. Gupta  in being unable to meet
\nthe allegation\t. Now,\tP.D. Gupta  says  that he has washed
\noff his\t hands of the property and thus\t he is not guilty of
\nany misconduct.\t  That\tis not the issue. It is\t his conduct
\nin buying   the\t property, the\tsubject matter of litigation
\nbetween the  parties, from  his client\ton  which  he  could
\nexercise undue\tinfluence especially  when there was a doubt
\ncast on his client’s  title to the  property. Had P.D. Gupta
\nsold  the property back to Vidya Wati and got  the sale deed
\nin his\tfavour cancelled something could have been  said  in
\nhis  favour. But that is not so.  He sold the property to  a
\nthird person,  made property to a third person,\t made profit
\nand created  more complications\t in the\t pending suit.\tP.D.
\nGupta\tpurchased the  properties  which were subject matter
\nof dispute   for  himself   and also   for his son-in-law at
\nalmost throw away prices and thus he  himself became a party
\nto the\tlitigation .  conduct of P.D. Gupta  cannot  be said
\nto be above  board.  It is  not material that Vidya  Wati or
\nanyone claiming\t through her has not complained against him.
\nWe are\tconcerned with\tthe professional   conduct  of\tP.D.
\nGupta\tas a lawyer  conducting the case for his  client.  a
\nlawyer owes  duty to  be fair not only to his client but  to
\nthe court as well as to the opposite party in the conduct of
\nthe case.   Administration of Justice is stream which has to
\nbe dept\t pure\tand clean.   It\t has to\t be kept unpolluted.
\nAdministration\t of Justice  is not something which concerns
\nthe Bench  only.   It concerns\tthe Bar as well,  Bar is the
\nprincipal ground  for recruiting Judges.  No one  should  be
\nable to raise a finger about the conduct of a lawyer.  While
\nconducting the\tcase he\t functions  as officer of the court.
\nHere, P.D.  Gupta in  buying   the  property  as  in  effect
\nsubverted the  process of  justice.   His action  has raised
\nserious questions  about his  fairness in the conduct of the
\ntrial touching\this  professional    conduct  of  the  trial
\ntouching   his professional  conduct as an advocate.  By his
\naction he  has brought\tthe process  of administration\t  of
\njustice in disrepute.\n<\/p>\n
     Bar council  of India  and state  Bar   councils\t are
\nstatutory bodies  under\t  the Act.   These  bodies  performs
\nvarying functions   under the Act and the rules framed their
\nunder.\tBar   council  of  India    has\t laid  standards  of
\nprofessional conduct  for   the members.  code of conduct in
\nthe circumstances  can never be exhaustive.  Bar  council of
\nIndia and  state Bar  councils are representative  bodies of
\nthe  Advocates\t on  their  rolls    and  are  charged\twith
\nresponsibility\t of maintaining\t discipline amongst  members
\nand punish  those who  go astray  from the path of rectitude
\nset out\t for them.   In the present case the Bar  council of
\nIndia, through\tits disciolinary  committee,  has considered
\nall the\t  relevant  circumstances  and\thas  come    to\t the
\nconclusion   that P.D.\tGupta,\t  advocate  is\t  guilty  of
\nmisconduct and\twe see\tno reason  to take a different view.
\nWe also\t  find\tno ground  to interfere\t with the punishment
\nawarded to P.D. Gupta  in the circumstances of the case.\n<\/p>\n
     The charge\t of professional  or other  misconduct by an
\nadvocate is  a serious\tmatter\tand has to be considered and
\ndisposed of  by the  Disciplinary committee  of a  state Bar
\ncouncil expeditiously  and with\t in period  of one year.  We
\nare  unable   to  comprehend  as  to  why  the\tDisciplinary
\nCommittee of  the Delhi Bar council could not dispose of the
\nmatter\t within\t  the prescribed time  frame and it was left
\nthe apex  body to deal with it.\n<\/p>\n
     The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India P.D. Gupta vs Ram Murti & Anr on 8 July, 1997 Author: D Wadhwa Bench: S.C. Agrawal, D.P. Wadhwa PETITIONER: P.D. GUPTA Vs. RESPONDENT: RAM MURTI & ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08\/07\/1997 BENCH: S.C. AGRAWAL, D.P. WADHWA ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T THE 8TH DAY […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-177425","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nP.D. Gupta vs Ram Murti & Anr on 8 July, 1997 - 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\/p-d-gupta-vs-ram-murti-anr-on-8-july-1997\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P.D. Gupta vs Ram Murti & Anr on 8 July, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-d-gupta-vs-ram-murti-anr-on-8-july-1997\" \/>\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=\"1997-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-03T17:45:04+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-d-gupta-vs-ram-murti-anr-on-8-july-1997#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-d-gupta-vs-ram-murti-anr-on-8-july-1997\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P.D. Gupta vs Ram Murti & Anr on 8 July, 1997\",\"datePublished\":\"1997-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-03T17:45:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-d-gupta-vs-ram-murti-anr-on-8-july-1997\"},\"wordCount\":3172,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-d-gupta-vs-ram-murti-anr-on-8-july-1997#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-d-gupta-vs-ram-murti-anr-on-8-july-1997\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-d-gupta-vs-ram-murti-anr-on-8-july-1997\",\"name\":\"P.D. Gupta vs Ram Murti & Anr on 8 July, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1997-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-03T17:45:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-d-gupta-vs-ram-murti-anr-on-8-july-1997#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-d-gupta-vs-ram-murti-anr-on-8-july-1997\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-d-gupta-vs-ram-murti-anr-on-8-july-1997#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P.D. Gupta vs Ram Murti & Anr on 8 July, 1997\"}]},{\"@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":"P.D. Gupta vs Ram Murti & Anr on 8 July, 1997 - 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\/p-d-gupta-vs-ram-murti-anr-on-8-july-1997","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P.D. Gupta vs Ram Murti & Anr on 8 July, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-d-gupta-vs-ram-murti-anr-on-8-july-1997","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1997-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-03T17:45:04+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-d-gupta-vs-ram-murti-anr-on-8-july-1997#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-d-gupta-vs-ram-murti-anr-on-8-july-1997"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P.D. Gupta vs Ram Murti & Anr on 8 July, 1997","datePublished":"1997-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-03T17:45:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-d-gupta-vs-ram-murti-anr-on-8-july-1997"},"wordCount":3172,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-d-gupta-vs-ram-murti-anr-on-8-july-1997#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-d-gupta-vs-ram-murti-anr-on-8-july-1997","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-d-gupta-vs-ram-murti-anr-on-8-july-1997","name":"P.D. Gupta vs Ram Murti & Anr on 8 July, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1997-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-03T17:45:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-d-gupta-vs-ram-murti-anr-on-8-july-1997#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-d-gupta-vs-ram-murti-anr-on-8-july-1997"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-d-gupta-vs-ram-murti-anr-on-8-july-1997#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P.D. Gupta vs Ram Murti & Anr on 8 July, 1997"}]},{"@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\/177425","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=177425"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/177425\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=177425"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=177425"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=177425"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}