{"id":177991,"date":"2010-03-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-matter-of-an-application-vs-opp-party-on-25-march-2010"},"modified":"2016-09-02T08:09:10","modified_gmt":"2016-09-02T02:39:10","slug":"in-the-matter-of-an-application-vs-opp-party-on-25-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-matter-of-an-application-vs-opp-party-on-25-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"In The Matter Of An Application … vs Opp.Party on 25 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Orissa High Court<\/div>\n
In The Matter Of An Application … vs Opp.Party on 25 March, 2010<\/div>\n
I.Mahanty, J.\n<\/pre>\n
HIGH COURT OFIORISSA: CUTTACK
\nCRLMC No. 2189 of 2009<\/p>\n
In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
\nProcedure. ‘<\/p>\n
Petitioner<\/p>\n
Smt. Laxmidevi Ram<\/p>\n
-Versus-\n<\/p>\n
Opp.Party<\/p>\n
. . \u00bb . no<\/p>\n
Tifupati Electra Marketing Pvt. Ltd..,<\/p>\n
: M\/ s G.Madaris,S.K.Pradhan,<\/p>\n
‘ For Petitioner
\nM.Dalai, B.K.Mishra 85 J.Pal.\n<\/p>\n
For Opp. Party : Mr. D.Das.\n<\/p>\n
PRESENT:\n<\/p>\n
THE HON ‘BLE MR.JUSTICE INDRAJIT MAHANTY
\nDate of hearing: 25.3.2010 Date of Judgment: 25.3.2010
\nIn this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner-
\nSmt. Laxmidevi Ram has prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance
\ndated 17.3.2008 passed in I.C.C. No. 847 of 2008 by the learned SDJM,<\/p>\n
Bhubaneswar in respect of the present petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
2. – Mr.Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the<\/p>\n
petitioner who was a Director of M\/ s L.P.Electronics (Orissa) Private<\/p>\n
Limited, has been implicated as an accused in a proceeding under<\/p>\n
Section 138 of the N.I: Act, inter alia, only for the reason of her having<\/p>\n
been named as Director of such company. He asserts that other<\/p>\n
similarly placed Directors had also \ufb01led application under Section 482
\nCr.P.C. for quashing of order of cognizance, namely, Sri Om Prakash
\nRam and Sri Deepak Kumar Ram in CRLMC Nos. 1051 and 1900 of
\n2008 which were disposed of on 19.5.2009, whereby Hon’ble Mr.
\nJustice B.K.Patel came to a conclusion that there were no express
\naverments made in the complaint petition that any of the petitioners
\ntherein was either in-charge or and \/ or was responsible to the accused
\ncompany .for the conduct of the business of the company. Therefore
\nrelying on Section 141 of the N .I.Act, the learned Single Judge came to
\nhold that the learned counsel for the opposite party Was constrained to<\/p>\n
admit that the complaint petition does not contain such averrnents as<\/p>\n
required under Sectionl’4lof the N .1. Act for implicating the Directors<\/p>\n
who are petitioners therein. Accordingly, the CRLMCS were allowed and ,<\/p>\n
order of cognizance in so far as it concerned other Directors was
\ndirected to be quashed.\n<\/p>\n
3. Mr. Pal further contends that the present petitioner is
\nsimilarly circumstanced as the Director, Who had moved the CRLMC<\/p>\n
mentioned herein above and against whom order of cognizance has<\/p>\n
been quashed.\n<\/p>\n
4. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the complainant–opposite party<\/p>\n
relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
\nMalwa Cotton and Spinning Mills Ltd. Vrs. Virsa Singh Sindhu and
\nOrs., reported in 2008 CriLJ 4316 in which their Lordships came to a
\nconclusion that the claim of the petitioner therein that he has resigned
\nfrom the Directorship of the defaulting Company prior to the date on
\nwhich the cheque had been issued was a matter which should be
\nproved in course of trial and therefore, came to a conclusion that the<\/p>\n
High Court yvas not justified in quashing the proceeding in the said<\/p>\n
case. He further placed reliance on a reference made therein to an
\nearlier judgment in the case of N.Rangachari Vrs. Bharat Sanchar
\nNigam Ltd., reported in 2007 CriLJ 2448 in which it is observed that in
\nthe commercial World having a transaction with a company is entitled
\nto presume that the Directors of the company are in charge of the
\naffairs of the company. If any restrictions on their powers are placed by<\/p>\n
the memorandum of articles of the company, it is for the Directors to<\/p>\n
establish it at the trial.\n<\/p>\n
5. Sn” Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand<\/p>\n
placed reliance upon the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court<\/p>\n
in the case of National Small Industries Corporation Limited Vs.<\/p>\n
Harmeet Singh Paintal and Another, reported in<\/p>\n
MANU\/SC\/0112\/2010 which was disposed of on 15.2.2010. In the said
\njudgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has referred to its earlier
\njudgment in the case of N..Rangachari (supra), the relevant portion of<\/p>\n
Which in paragraphs 9, 10 and 1 1 thereof are as folloWs:-\n<\/p>\n
“Section 138 of the Act refers about penalty in
\ncase of dishonour of cheque for insufficiency of funds in
\nthe account. We are more concerned about Section 141
\ndealing with offences by Companies which reads as<\/p>\n
under. _\n<\/p>\n
141. Offences by companies–(1) If the person<\/p>\n
committing an offence under Section 138 is a company,
\nevery persons Who, at the time the offence Was
\ncommitted was in charge-of, and was responsible to the
\ncompany for the -conduct of the business of the
\ncompany, as Well as the company, shall be deemed to
\nbe guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be
\nproceeded against and punished accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
Provided that nothing contained in this Sub-
\nsection shall render any person liable to punishment if
\nhe proves that the offence was committed Without his
\nknowledge, of that he had exercised all due diligence to
\nprevent the commission of such offence.\n<\/p>\n
Provided further that Where a person is
\nnominated as a Director of a company by Virtue of his<\/p>\n
i<\/p>\n
%\u00bb<\/p>\n
holding any of\ufb01ce or employment in the Central
\nGovernment or State Government or a \ufb01nancial<\/p>\n
corporation owned or controlled by the Central
\nGovernment or the State Government, as the case may
\nbe, he shall not be liable for prosecution under this
\nChapter.\n<\/p>\n
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-
\nsection (1), where any offence under this Act has been
\ncommitted by a company and it is proved that the
\noffence has been committed with the consent or
\nconnivance of, or is attributable to, any neglect on the
\npart of, any director, manager, and secretary or other
\nofficer of the company, such director, manager,
\nsecretary or other of\ufb01cer shall also be deemed to be
\nguilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded
\nagainst and punished accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
EXplanation- For the purposes of this section,-
\n‘company’ means any body corporate and includes a
\nfirm or other association of individuals; and<\/p>\n
‘director’ in relation to a firm, means a partner in the
\n\ufb01rm.\n<\/p>\n
It is very clear from the above provision that what
\nis required is that the persons who are sought to be
\nmade vicariously liable for a criminal offence under
\nSection 141 should be, at the time the offence was
\ncommitted, was in–charge of, and was responsible to
\nthe company for the conduct of the business of the
\ncompany.” Every person connected with the company
\nshall not fall within the ambit of the provision. Only
\nthose persons who were in-charge of and responsible
\nfor the conduct of the business of the company at the
\ntime of commission of an offence will be liable for
\ncriminal action. It follows from the fact that if a
\nDirector of a Company who was not in–charge of and
\nwas not responsible for the conduct of the business of
\nthe company at the relevant time, will not be liable for a
\ncriminal offence under the provisions. The liability
\narises from being in-charge of an responsible for the
\nconduct of the business of the company at the relevant
\ntime when the offence was committed and not on the
\nbasis of merely holding a designation or of\ufb01ce in a<\/p>\n
company.\n<\/p>\n
10. Sections 141 is a penal provision creating
\nvicarious liability, and which, as per settled law, must
\nbe strictly construed. It is therefore, not sufficient to
\nmake a bald cursory statement in a complaint that the
\nDirector (arrayed as an accused) is in charge of and
\nresponsible to the company for the conduct of the
\nbusiness of the company Without anything more as to
\nthe role of the Director. But the complaint should spell
\nout as to how and in What manner Respondent No.1
\nwas in-charge of or was responsible to the accused
\ncompany for the conduct of its business. This is in
\nconsonance with strict interpretation of penal statutes,
\nespecially, Where such statutes create vicarious liability.
\nA company may have a number of Directors and to
\nmake any or all the directors as accused’ in a complaint
\nmerely on the basis of a statement that they are in-
\ncharge of and responsible for the conduct of the
\nbusiness of the company Without anything more is not
\na sufficient or adequate ful\ufb01llment of the requirements
\nunder Section 141.\n<\/p>\n
11. In a catena of decisions, this Court has held
\nthat for making Directors liable for the offences
\ncommitted by the company under Section 141 of the
\nAct, there must be speci\ufb01c averments against the
\nDirectors, showing as to how and in What manner the
\nDirectors were responsible for the conduct of the<\/p>\n
business of the company.”\n<\/p>\n
6. In consideration of the above, in paragraph–lO of the
\njudgment referred to by the I-Ion’b1e Supreme Court in the case of
\nMalwa Cotton (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court hasilaid down three<\/p>\n
categories of persons covered by Section 141 which are as fol1ows:–\n<\/p>\n
(1) The company Who committed the offence.\n<\/p>\n
(2) Everyone who was in charge of and was
\nresponsible for the business of the company.
\n(3) Any other person who is a director or a
\nmanager or a secretary or officer of the
\ncompany With whose connivance or due to
\nwhose neglect the company has committed the<\/p>\n
offence.\n<\/p>\n
7. In the present case the complaint petition it-self has been
\nannexed as AnneXure–l and in paragraph–7(i) the complainant has<\/p>\n
made the following complaint, which reads as follows:–\n<\/p>\n
“7(i} Since Mr. Rajendra Prasad Ram is
\nManaging Director of the company and
\nMrs. Lakshmi Devi Ram, Mr. Ashok Kumar Ram, Mr.
\nNiranjan Prasad Ram and Mr. Deepak Kumar Ram are
\nthe Directors of the company and are committed and
\nlooking after the day to day business of the company in
\ntheir respective individual capacity and jointly as
\nDirectors of the company, for which all of them are
\nresponsible in one Way and other for the conduct of the
\nbusiness of the company as well as company and the
\naccused company has issued the cheque in
\nconsultation with all Directors in order to liquidate their
\nliability but subsequently Witha View to defraud the
\nclaim of complainant knowing fully Well their liability
\npurposefully have defaulted to pay to the complainant.
\nThe complainant company officials have time to time
\ncontacted all the Directors of the accused company
\nbefore and after issue of cheque but to defraud the
\nclaim of complainant has stopped payment of the
\ncheque when they did not have suf\ufb01cient balance to<\/p>\n
cover the cheque amount…”\n<\/p>\n
8. On a reading of Section 141 of the N.I. Act vis–a-vis the<\/p>\n
complaint made in this application it would be clear that necessary _<\/p>\n
averments to implicate a Director such as the present petitioner for
\nhaving connived or neglected in committing the offence, has not been
\nclearly imade. Admittedly the Managing Director Sri Rajendra Prasad
\nRam had been impleded as accused No.2 in the complaint petition and
\nit is the said Managing Director who had issued the cheque in question
\nand the dishonour of such cheque is the subject matter of the
\ncomplaint. Further I \ufb01nd that in CRLMC Nos. 1051 85 1900 of 2008
\nHon’ble Mr. Justice B.K.Patel of this Court had also come to a
\nconclusion that Section 141 of the Act was required to be strictly<\/p>\n
complied With and by making ambiguous statement regarding<\/p>\n
involvement of other Directors other than the Managing Director, the
\nrequirement of Section 141 of the N.I. Act was not complied with and
\ntherefore, in the absence of any such statement as required under
\nSection 141 of NI. Act Vis–a–Vis the present petitioner, there is no scope
\nfor her prosecution and therefore, the cognizance order passed against
\nthe present petitioner is quashed’.\n<\/p>\n
The learned counsel for the O.P. states that the case has
\nremained pending before the learned SDJM, Bhubaneswar since 2008
\nand thus, more than two years have lapsed in the meantime prays for a
\ndirection for early disposal. Therefore, the learned SDJ M is directed to
\ntake up the matter and dispose of the same expeditiously in accordance<\/p>\n
with law preferably Within a period of four months from the date of V<\/p>\n
communication of this order.\n<\/p>\n
Interim orders, if any, stand vacated.\n<\/p>\n
‘ ~ 94-3, l\\\/’\u00a39\/l\/\\CU’T\\’l;7’)j.\n<\/p>\n
, , , . _ . . ….1_….__…_…..\n<\/p>\n
ORISSA HIGH comer, CUTTACK
\n25m March,20lQ \/AKD<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Orissa High Court In The Matter Of An Application … vs Opp.Party on 25 March, 2010 I.Mahanty, J. HIGH COURT OFIORISSA: CUTTACK CRLMC No. 2189 of 2009 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ‘ Petitioner Smt. Laxmidevi Ram -Versus- Opp.Party . . \u00bb . no Tifupati […]<\/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":[8,25],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-177991","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-orissa-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nIn The Matter Of An Application ... vs Opp.Party on 25 March, 2010 - 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\/in-the-matter-of-an-application-vs-opp-party-on-25-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"In The Matter Of An Application ... vs Opp.Party on 25 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-matter-of-an-application-vs-opp-party-on-25-march-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-03-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-02T02:39:10+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/in-the-matter-of-an-application-vs-opp-party-on-25-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/in-the-matter-of-an-application-vs-opp-party-on-25-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"In The Matter Of An Application … vs Opp.Party on 25 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-02T02:39:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/in-the-matter-of-an-application-vs-opp-party-on-25-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2013,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Orissa High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/in-the-matter-of-an-application-vs-opp-party-on-25-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/in-the-matter-of-an-application-vs-opp-party-on-25-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/in-the-matter-of-an-application-vs-opp-party-on-25-march-2010\",\"name\":\"In The Matter Of An Application ... vs Opp.Party on 25 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-02T02:39:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/in-the-matter-of-an-application-vs-opp-party-on-25-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/in-the-matter-of-an-application-vs-opp-party-on-25-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/in-the-matter-of-an-application-vs-opp-party-on-25-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"In The Matter Of An Application … vs Opp.Party on 25 March, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"In The Matter Of An Application ... vs Opp.Party on 25 March, 2010 - 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\/in-the-matter-of-an-application-vs-opp-party-on-25-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"In The Matter Of An Application ... vs Opp.Party on 25 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-matter-of-an-application-vs-opp-party-on-25-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-02T02:39:10+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-matter-of-an-application-vs-opp-party-on-25-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-matter-of-an-application-vs-opp-party-on-25-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"In The Matter Of An Application … vs Opp.Party on 25 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-02T02:39:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-matter-of-an-application-vs-opp-party-on-25-march-2010"},"wordCount":2013,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Orissa High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-matter-of-an-application-vs-opp-party-on-25-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-matter-of-an-application-vs-opp-party-on-25-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-matter-of-an-application-vs-opp-party-on-25-march-2010","name":"In The Matter Of An Application ... vs Opp.Party on 25 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-02T02:39:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-matter-of-an-application-vs-opp-party-on-25-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-matter-of-an-application-vs-opp-party-on-25-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-matter-of-an-application-vs-opp-party-on-25-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"In The Matter Of An Application … vs Opp.Party on 25 March, 2010"}]},{"@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\/177991","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=177991"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/177991\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=177991"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=177991"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=177991"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}