{"id":177431,"date":"2011-08-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-07-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/simratmal-vs-kedarnath-on-1-august-2011"},"modified":"2015-05-07T13:04:31","modified_gmt":"2015-05-07T07:34:31","slug":"simratmal-vs-kedarnath-on-1-august-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/simratmal-vs-kedarnath-on-1-august-2011","title":{"rendered":"Simratmal vs Kedarnath on 1 August, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Bombay High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Simratmal vs Kedarnath on 1 August, 2011<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Shrihari P. Davare<\/div>\n<pre>                                              (1)\n\n\n           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,\n               AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                       \n                     Criminal Application No. 25 of 2010\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n    Simratmal s\/o. Hiralal Gandhi,\n    Age : 82 years,\n\n\n\n\n                                                              \n    Occupation : Nil,                                             .. Applicant\n    R\/o. Telikhunt, Ahmednagar.                                      (Original accused)\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n                  versus\n                           \n    1. Kedarnath s\/o. Badrinarayan Bang,\n       Age : 75 years,\n                          \n       Occupation : Business,\n       R\/o. 137\/2A, Mohan Baug,\n       Delhi Gate, Ahmednagar.\n      \n\n    2. Hiralal Simratmal &amp; Company,\n       Telikhunt, Ahmednagar.\n   \n\n\n\n    3. Ramlabai Subhash Gandhi,\n       Age : 52 years,\n       Occupation : Household,\n\n\n\n\n\n       R\/o. Ashish Bungalow,\n       Maniknagar, Ahmednagar,\n\n    4. Rajendra s\/o. Simratmal Gandhi,                            .. Respondents\n       Age : 51 years,                                               (Original complainant\n\n\n\n\n\n       Occupation : Business,                                         &amp; other co-accused)\n       R\/o. Surabhi Apartment,\n       Opp. I.T.I., Burudgaon Road,\n       Ahmednagar.\n\n                                     .......................\n\n\n\n\n                                                               ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:35:08 :::\n                                            (2)\n\n\n               Mr. V.S. Bedre, Advocate, for the applicant.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                    \n               Mr. L.B. Pallod, Advocate, for respondent no.1.\n\n\n\n\n                                                            \n               Respondent nos.2 and 4 served (Absent).\n\n               Mr. V.S. Badakh, Advocate, for respondent no.3.\n\n\n\n\n                                                           \n                                 ........................\n\n\n                                  CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.\n<\/pre>\n<pre>                        ig            DATE : 1ST AUGUST 2011\n                      \n    ORAL JUDGMENT :\n\n<\/pre>\n<p>    1.         Heard Adv. Mr. V.S. Bedre, for the applicant; Adv. Mr.<br \/>\n    L.B. Pallod, for respondent no.1, and Adv. Mr. V.S. Badakh, for<\/p>\n<p>    respondent no.3.\n<\/p>\n<p>    2.         None for respondent nos.2 and 4, although served.\n<\/p>\n<p>    3.         Rule.    Rule made returnable forthwith.                            With the<br \/>\n    consent of learned Counsel for parties, taken up for final hearing.\n<\/p>\n<p>    4.         By the present application preferred by the applicant<br \/>\n    (original accused) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal<br \/>\n    Procedure, 1973, prayed that the order passed by the learned 6th<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                            ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 17:35:08 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                     (3)<\/span><\/p>\n<p>    Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division) &amp; Judicial Magistrate (F.C.),<br \/>\n    Ahmednagar, on Exhibit 48, in Summary Trial Case No.<\/p>\n<p>    5065\/2007, dated 31st October 2009, be quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>    5.         The applicant herein is the original accused no.2 and<br \/>\n    the respondent no.1 herein is the original complainant.                 It is<\/p>\n<p>    contended that as there were close friendly relations between the<br \/>\n    applicant and respondent no.1, and since the applicant was in<\/p>\n<p>    need of amount, the complainant i.e. respondent no.1 herein paid<\/p>\n<p>    the amount of Rs. 50,000\/- by way of hand loan. It is further<br \/>\n    contended that the accused had given cheque of Rs. 50,000\/- on<\/p>\n<p>    20-5-2007 to the complainant. The complainant presented the<br \/>\n    said cheque for encashment purpose.          However, same was<\/p>\n<p>    dishonoured and returned unpaid with the endorsement of closure<br \/>\n    of account. Hence, the complainant issued notice to the accused<\/p>\n<p>    persons on 30-8-2007 which was received by them on or about<br \/>\n    5-9-2007 and 7-9-2007. However, inspite of the receipt of the<\/p>\n<p>    said notice, accused failed to pay the cheque amount to the<br \/>\n    complainant.   Hence, the complainant filed complaint under<br \/>\n    Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the<\/p>\n<p>    accused.\n<\/p>\n<p>    6.         It is the contention of the accused that the complainant<br \/>\n    misused the cheque which was misplaced and contended that<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                              ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 17:35:08 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                      (4)<\/span><\/p>\n<p>    there are material alterations in the cheque. Hence, the accused<br \/>\n    preferred an application Exhibit 48 before the learned trial court<\/p>\n<p>    on 26-10-2009 stating therein that he has grievance about<\/p>\n<p>    handwriting of the cheque, and therefore, requested the learned<br \/>\n    trial court to send the said cheque to the handwriting expert and<br \/>\n    call for the report in respect of name and date on the said cheque.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The complainant opposed the said application by filing his say,<br \/>\n    and submitted that there is no suggestion in the cross examination<\/p>\n<p>    conducted by the accused in respect of the prayer in the said<\/p>\n<p>    application. It is also contended in the said reply by the<br \/>\n    complainant, that the said application was preferred by the<\/p>\n<p>    accused at the belated stage and after recording statement of the<br \/>\n    accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,<\/p>\n<p>    1973. It is pointed out in the said say, that there is no reasonable<br \/>\n    cause to allow the said application and there are no bona fides of<\/p>\n<p>    the accused reflected in the said application, and the said<br \/>\n    application was preferred by the accused just to protract the<\/p>\n<p>    proceeding.   Considering the contents of the said application<br \/>\n    preferred by the accused, as well as, contents of the reply filed by<br \/>\n    the complainant, and also considering rival submissions<\/p>\n<p>    advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, learned trial<br \/>\n    court rejected the said application by order dated 31st October<br \/>\n    2009. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order, the<br \/>\n    accused i.e. applicant herein has preferred the present Application<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                               ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 17:35:08 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                      (5)<\/span><\/p>\n<p>    for the prayers as set out herein above.\n<\/p>\n<p>    7.         On perusal of the copy of the application dated 26th<\/p>\n<p>    October 2009, preferred by the applicant herein i.e. original<br \/>\n    accused before the learned trial court, it is apparent that the<br \/>\n    grievance of the accused was in respect of the handwriting on the<\/p>\n<p>    said cheque, more particularly, as regards, the name and date on<br \/>\n    the said cheque and not beyond that. At this juncture, it is<\/p>\n<p>    significant to note that there is no grievance of the accused in<\/p>\n<p>    respect of the signature on the said cheque. The complainant<br \/>\n    rightly objected to the said application stating that there was no<\/p>\n<p>    suggestion in the cross examination of the complainant<br \/>\n    conducted by the accused in respect of the grievance made in the<\/p>\n<p>    said application and the said application was preferred by the<br \/>\n    accused at the belated stage i.e. after recording statement of the<\/p>\n<p>    accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n<\/p>\n<p>    8.         In the said context, the learned trial court has rightly<br \/>\n    observed thus:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>              &#8221;      Section 20 of the Negogiable Instruments Act,<br \/>\n              1881, states that when a person signs and delivers<br \/>\n              blank cheque to another, he thereby gives prima<br \/>\n              facie authority to holder thereof to make or<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                               ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 17:35:08 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                      (6)<\/span><\/p>\n<p>              complete it for any amount specified therein and<br \/>\n              not exceeding the amount covered by stamp. After<\/p>\n<p>              perusal of said section 20, it appears that the<\/p>\n<p>              drawer of a cheque can issue blank cheque to other<br \/>\n              person and by his said act he gives an authority to<br \/>\n              said concern person to fill up its contents. After<\/p>\n<p>              combine reading of said section 20 and 138 of the<br \/>\n              &#8220;Act&#8221; it appears that to made out an offence in<\/p>\n<p>              question against the accused, the necessary<\/p>\n<p>              ingredient is that the cheque should be drawn on<br \/>\n              the account of drawer and it is immaterial the<\/p>\n<p>              contents therein are in whose handwriting as per<br \/>\n              section 20 of the &#8220;Act&#8221;&#8221;.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>    Accordingly, learned trial court has rightly rejected the said<\/p>\n<p>    application, after making the above observations.\n<\/p>\n<p>    9.         In the circumstances, considering factual, as well as,<br \/>\n    legal position, it is amply clear that there is no substance in the<br \/>\n    present application and the prayers made by the applicant \/<\/p>\n<p>    accused therein, and there is no glaring defect in the impugned<br \/>\n    order passed by the learned trial court, and hence, no interference<br \/>\n    is called for therein, by exercising inherent powers of this Court<br \/>\n    under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                              ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 17:35:08 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                          (7)<\/span><\/p>\n<p>    therefore, present Criminal Application deserves to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>    10.          In the result, present Criminal Application stands<\/p>\n<p>    dismissed, and Rule is discharged accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                        ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE )<br \/>\n                                                JUDGE<\/p>\n<p>                               &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.\n<\/p>\n<p>      bgp\/ka25<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 17:35:08 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Bombay High Court Simratmal vs Kedarnath on 1 August, 2011 Bench: Shrihari P. Davare (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Criminal Application No. 25 of 2010 Simratmal s\/o. Hiralal Gandhi, Age : 82 years, Occupation : Nil, .. Applicant R\/o. Telikhunt, Ahmednagar. (Original accused) versus 1. Kedarnath s\/o. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-177431","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Simratmal vs Kedarnath on 1 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/simratmal-vs-kedarnath-on-1-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Simratmal vs Kedarnath on 1 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/simratmal-vs-kedarnath-on-1-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-07-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-07T07:34:31+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\\\/simratmal-vs-kedarnath-on-1-august-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/simratmal-vs-kedarnath-on-1-august-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Simratmal vs Kedarnath on 1 August, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-07T07:34:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/simratmal-vs-kedarnath-on-1-august-2011\"},\"wordCount\":990,\"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\\\/simratmal-vs-kedarnath-on-1-august-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/simratmal-vs-kedarnath-on-1-august-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/simratmal-vs-kedarnath-on-1-august-2011\",\"name\":\"Simratmal vs Kedarnath on 1 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-07T07:34:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/simratmal-vs-kedarnath-on-1-august-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/simratmal-vs-kedarnath-on-1-august-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/simratmal-vs-kedarnath-on-1-august-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Simratmal vs Kedarnath on 1 August, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Simratmal vs Kedarnath on 1 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/simratmal-vs-kedarnath-on-1-august-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Simratmal vs Kedarnath on 1 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/simratmal-vs-kedarnath-on-1-august-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-07-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-07T07:34:31+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\/simratmal-vs-kedarnath-on-1-august-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/simratmal-vs-kedarnath-on-1-august-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Simratmal vs Kedarnath on 1 August, 2011","datePublished":"2011-07-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-07T07:34:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/simratmal-vs-kedarnath-on-1-august-2011"},"wordCount":990,"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\/simratmal-vs-kedarnath-on-1-august-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/simratmal-vs-kedarnath-on-1-august-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/simratmal-vs-kedarnath-on-1-august-2011","name":"Simratmal vs Kedarnath on 1 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-07-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-07T07:34:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/simratmal-vs-kedarnath-on-1-august-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/simratmal-vs-kedarnath-on-1-august-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/simratmal-vs-kedarnath-on-1-august-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Simratmal vs Kedarnath on 1 August, 2011"}]},{"@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\/177431","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=177431"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/177431\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=177431"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=177431"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=177431"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}