{"id":182136,"date":"2007-10-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-10-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunil-gupta-vs-kiran-girhotra-ors-on-9-october-2007"},"modified":"2015-12-18T14:10:33","modified_gmt":"2015-12-18T08:40:33","slug":"sunil-gupta-vs-kiran-girhotra-ors-on-9-october-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunil-gupta-vs-kiran-girhotra-ors-on-9-october-2007","title":{"rendered":"Sunil Gupta vs Kiran Girhotra &amp; Ors on 9 October, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Sunil Gupta vs Kiran Girhotra &amp; Ors on 9 October, 2007<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S.B. Sinha<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S.B. Sinha, Harjit Singh Bedi<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  4729 of 2007\n\nPETITIONER:\nSunil Gupta\n\nRESPONDENT:\nKiran Girhotra &amp; Ors\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 09\/10\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nS.B. Sinha &amp; Harjit Singh Bedi\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<br \/>\nW I T H<\/p>\n<p>CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 270 OF  2007<\/p>\n<p>[Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 6795 of 2007]<\/p>\n<p>S.B. SINHA, J :\n<\/p>\n<p>1.\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tThe question as to whether a purchaser of a property belonging to the<br \/>\ndeceased testator should be impleaded as a party in a probate proceedings is<br \/>\nthe question involved in this appeal which arises out of judgments and<br \/>\norders dated 31.08.2006 in C.M. (Main) No. 285 of 2005 and 13.11.2006<br \/>\npassed in Review Petition No. 393 of 2006  by a learned Single Judge of the<br \/>\nDelhi High Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tThe property in question admittedly belonged to one Har Bhagwan.<br \/>\nHe died on 03.11.1997.  He was survived by his wife, four daughters and<br \/>\ntwo sons.  Respondents herein are daughters of the said Har Bhagwan.  One<br \/>\nof the sons of Har Bhagwan was Raj Kumar.  Wife of Har Bhagwan has<br \/>\npassed away.  Allegedly, another son of Har Bhagwan was given in<br \/>\nadoption.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tHar Bhagwan executed a Will on 09.09.1997.  Respondents herein are<br \/>\nthe beneficiaries thereof.  They filed an application for grant of probate in<br \/>\nthe year 2000.  Both the sons of Har Bhagwan filed objections thereto.  Raj<br \/>\nKumar propounded another Will of the said Har Bhagwan which was<br \/>\nallegedly executed on 30.10.1997.  Indisputably, Raj Kumar executed two<br \/>\ndeeds of sale dated 20.06.2003 and 27.06.2003 in favour of one Amit<br \/>\nPahwa.  The properties purported to have been transferred by reason of the<br \/>\nsaid deeds of sale forming subject-matter of the grant under the  Will.  No<br \/>\nprobate was obtained in respect of the said Will dated 30.10.1997.  Even no<br \/>\nobjection from other legal heirs of the late Har Bhagwan was obtained.<br \/>\nImmediately after execution of the said deeds, the said Amit Pahwa entered<br \/>\ninto an  agreement to sell dated 25.07.2003 in  respect of one of the<br \/>\nproperties.   In furtherance thereto, a purported deed of sale is said to have<br \/>\nbeen executed in respect of the other property on 29.08.2003.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tAppellant herein  filed an application for his impleadment in the said<br \/>\nprobate proceedings.  It was allowed by an order dated 24.12.2004.  By<br \/>\nreason of the impugned judgment, the High Court has reversed the said<br \/>\njudgment and order on an application filed under Article 227 of the<br \/>\nConstitution of India by the respondents herein.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tMr. Raju Ramachandran, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf<br \/>\nof the appellant, in support of the appeal,  would submit that the High Court<br \/>\ncommitted a serious error insofar as it failed to take into consideration that in<br \/>\na proceeding under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, (for short, the Act)<br \/>\nthe court should always make an endeavour to avoid multiplicity of<br \/>\nproceedings.  It was contended that the courts power to implead a party,<br \/>\nwho, strito sensu,  may not be a necessary party is wide.  Strong reliance in<br \/>\nthis behalf has been placed on a decision in Banwarilal Shriniwas v. Kumari<br \/>\nKusum Bai and Others [AIR 1973 (MP) 69] as also in Seth Beni Chand<br \/>\n(since Dead) Now by <a href=\"\/doc\/1455214\/\">L.Rs. v. Smt. Kamla Kunwar and Others<\/a> [(1976) 4<br \/>\nSCC 554].\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tMr. O.P. Khadaria, learned counsel appearing on behalf of<br \/>\nRespondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Respondent No. 4, who appeared in person, on<br \/>\nthe other hand, submitted that the appellant is not a necessary party to the<br \/>\nproceeding and, thus, the impugned judgment should not be interfered with.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tChapter I of Part IX of the Act provides for grant of Probate and\/or<br \/>\nLetters of Administration.  A probate can be granted only to an executor<br \/>\nappointed by the Will.  Chapter III of the Act provides for revocation or<br \/>\nannulment for just cause.  Illustration appended to Section  263 of the Act<br \/>\nreads as under :\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t           Illustration\n<\/p>\n<p>(i)\tThe Court by which the grant was made had no<br \/>\njurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii)\tThe grant was made without citing parties who<br \/>\nought to have been cited.\n<\/p>\n<p>(iii)\tThe will of which probate was obtained was forged<br \/>\nor revoked.\n<\/p>\n<p>(iv)\tA obtained letters of administration to the estate of<br \/>\nB, as his widow, but it has since transpired that she<br \/>\nwas never married to him.\n<\/p>\n<p>(v)\tA has been taken administration to the estate of B<br \/>\nas if he had died intestate, but a will has since been<br \/>\ndiscovered.\n<\/p>\n<p>(vi)\tSince probate was granted, a latter will has been<br \/>\ndiscovered.\n<\/p>\n<p>(vii)\tSince probate was granted, a codicil has been<br \/>\ndiscovered which revokes or adds to the<br \/>\nappointment of executors under the will.\n<\/p>\n<p>(viii)\tThe person to whom probate was, or letters of<br \/>\nadministration were, granted has subsequently<br \/>\nbecome of unsound mind. <\/p>\n<p>9.\tIllustration (ii) provides  for revocation of grant if made without citing<br \/>\nparties who ought to have been cited.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\tSection 283 of the Act provides for the powers of the District Judge to<br \/>\ngrant probate, which is in the following terms :\n<\/p>\n<p>283. Power of District Judge.- (1) In all cases the<br \/>\nDistrict judge or District Delegate may, if he thinks<br \/>\nproper, &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>(a)\texamine the petitioner in person, upon oath;\n<\/p>\n<p>(b)\trequire further evidence of the due execution of the<br \/>\nwill or the right of the petitioner to the letters of<br \/>\nadministration, as the case may be;\n<\/p>\n<p>(c)\tissue citations calling upon all persons claiming to<br \/>\nhave any interest in the estate of the deceased to<br \/>\ncome and see the proceedings before the grant of<br \/>\nprobate or letters of administration.\n<\/p>\n<p>(2)\tThe citation shall be fixed up in some conspicuous<br \/>\npart of the court-house, and also the office of the<br \/>\nCollector of the district and otherwise published or made<br \/>\nknown in such manner as the Judge or District Delegate<br \/>\nissuing the same may direct.\n<\/p>\n<p>(3)\tWhere any portion of the assets has been stated by<br \/>\nthe petitioner to be situate within the jurisdiction of a<br \/>\nDistrict Judge in another State, the District Judge issuing<br \/>\nthe same shall cause a copy of the citation to be sent to<br \/>\nsuch other District Judge, who shall publish the same in<br \/>\nthe same manner as if it were a citation issued by<br \/>\nhimself, and shall certify such publication to the District<br \/>\nJudge who issued the citation..\n<\/p>\n<p>11.\tSection  307(1) of the Act provides for power of the Executor or<br \/>\nAdministrator to dispose of property in the following terms :\n<\/p>\n<p>307.  Power of executor or administrator to dispose of<br \/>\nproperty.-(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2),<br \/>\nan executor or administrator has power to dispose of the<br \/>\nproperty of the deceased, vested in him under section<br \/>\n211, either wholly or in part, in such manner as he may<br \/>\nthink fit.<\/p>\n<p>12.\tSons of late Har Bhagwan had entered Caveats.  Their objections<br \/>\nwould be considered in the probate proceedings.  Raj Kumar is not only<br \/>\nopposing grant of probate in favour of the respondents herein in respect of<br \/>\nthe Will date 09.09.1997;  but he himself is said to be claiming under a Will<br \/>\nexecuted by Late Har Bhagwan on 30.10.1997.\n<\/p>\n<p>13.\tA transferee of a property during the pendency of a proceeding is not<br \/>\na necessary party.  Citations are necessary to be made to only of those who,<br \/>\ninter alia,  claim through or under the Will or deny or dispute the execution<br \/>\nthereof.\n<\/p>\n<p>14.\tThe High Court in its impugned judgment has noticed that the<br \/>\nattesting witnesses of the Will had already been examined.  If the appellant<br \/>\nherein is impleaded as a party, the clock would be put back.  Before the High<br \/>\nCourt as also before us, arguments have been advanced in regard to conduct<br \/>\nof the appellant as also the fact that they are only speculators who had<br \/>\npurchased  litigated properties.  But we may not go thereinto.\n<\/p>\n<p>15.\tIn Banwarilal Shriniwvas (supra) whereupon Mr. Ramachandran has<br \/>\nplaced reliance, the High Court was considering the case of a purchaser in a<br \/>\nproceeding under Section 263 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>16.\tRaj Kumar evidently was aware of the proceedings.  If a proceeding<br \/>\nhad been initiated  for grant of probate, the appellant and\/or his predecessor,<br \/>\nShri Amit Pahwa would be deemed to have notice thereof.\n<\/p>\n<p>17.\tCitation, as is well-known,  should be conspicuously displayed  on a<br \/>\nnotice board.  Before purchasing the properties, Amit Pahwa and<br \/>\nconsequently the appellant had taken a calculated risk.  In a situation of this<br \/>\nnature, he is not a necessary party.  He took the risk of the result of the<br \/>\nprobate proceedings.  His apprehension that Raj Kumar may not take any<br \/>\ninterest in the litigation cannot by itself a ground for interfering with the<br \/>\nimpugned judgment.   It is speculative in nature.\n<\/p>\n<p>18.\tIn Seth Beni Chand (supra), whereupon reliance has been placed by<br \/>\nMr. Ramachandran, this Court was considering an argument as to whether<br \/>\nalienees of properties are entitled to citation in  probate proceedings.  This<br \/>\nCourt proceeded on the assumption that Banwarilal Shrinivas (supra) lays<br \/>\ndown the correct law.  But even therein a distinction was made stating that<br \/>\nthe alienee  was a transferee pendent lite.   The said decision, therefore, is an<br \/>\nauthority for the proposition that no citation need be issued to any person<br \/>\nwho had no right to the property prior to the commencement of the probate<br \/>\nproceedings.  This Court in no uncertain term opined that the alienees had no<br \/>\nright to be heard in the appeal  The said decision, therefore, runs counter to<br \/>\nthe submission of Mr. Ramachandran.\n<\/p>\n<p>19.\tWe may notice that a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in<br \/>\nIndian Associates v. Shivendra Bahadur Singh &amp; Others [104 (2003) DLT<br \/>\n820], opined that the court must be satisfied in regard to the execution of the<br \/>\nWill.  It is not concerned with any other arrangement.  It was held :\n<\/p>\n<p>\t26.  The respondent on the other hand have tried<br \/>\nto distinguish the cases relied upon by the appellant by<br \/>\ncontending that all those were cases where, certain<br \/>\npersons were allowed to intervene or were impleaded but<br \/>\nall were cases of family members and as such as the<br \/>\nappellant-herein, could apply to be made a party in<br \/>\nprobate proceedings.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t27.  During the hearing of the matter, we drew the<br \/>\nattention of both the parties to the provisions of Section<br \/>\n307 of the Succession Act, which made the permission of<br \/>\nthe court to be mandatory for purposes of transfer of<br \/>\nproperty by an administrator.  Both the parties were<br \/>\nheard on this aspect.    <\/p>\n<p>20.\tEven otherwise ordinarily a transferee pendent lite without leave of<br \/>\nthe court cannot be impleaded as a party.  [<a href=\"\/doc\/6908672\/\">See Bibi Zubaida Khatoon v.<br \/>\nNabi Hassan Saheb and Another<\/a>  (2004) 1 SCC 191].\n<\/p>\n<p>21.\tFurthermore, the plaintiff in the suit is the dominus litis.  If he intends<br \/>\nto take a calculated risk in the matter, the court may not exercise its<br \/>\ndiscretionary jurisdiction. [See Kasturi  v.  Iyyamerumal and Others  (2005)<br \/>\n6 SCC 733  Para 18 and  <a href=\"\/doc\/95529\/\">Dhannalal v. Kalawatibai &amp; Others<\/a> (2002) 6 SCC<br \/>\n16  Para 23]<\/p>\n<p>22.\tFor the reasons aforementioned, we do not find any merit in this<br \/>\nappeal, which is dismissed accordingly with costs.  Counsels fee assessed at<br \/>\nRs. 10,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n<p>23.\tIn view of the aforementioned judgment and order,  no orders are<br \/>\nnecessary to be passed in the contempt petition.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Sunil Gupta vs Kiran Girhotra &amp; Ors on 9 October, 2007 Author: S.B. Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, Harjit Singh Bedi CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 4729 of 2007 PETITIONER: Sunil Gupta RESPONDENT: Kiran Girhotra &amp; Ors DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09\/10\/2007 BENCH: S.B. Sinha &amp; Harjit Singh Bedi JUDGMENT: J U D G [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-182136","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Sunil Gupta vs Kiran Girhotra &amp; Ors on 9 October, 2007 - 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\/sunil-gupta-vs-kiran-girhotra-ors-on-9-october-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sunil Gupta vs Kiran Girhotra &amp; Ors on 9 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunil-gupta-vs-kiran-girhotra-ors-on-9-october-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-10-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-18T08:40:33+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sunil-gupta-vs-kiran-girhotra-ors-on-9-october-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sunil-gupta-vs-kiran-girhotra-ors-on-9-october-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sunil Gupta vs Kiran Girhotra &amp; Ors on 9 October, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-18T08:40:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sunil-gupta-vs-kiran-girhotra-ors-on-9-october-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1787,\"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\\\/sunil-gupta-vs-kiran-girhotra-ors-on-9-october-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sunil-gupta-vs-kiran-girhotra-ors-on-9-october-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sunil-gupta-vs-kiran-girhotra-ors-on-9-october-2007\",\"name\":\"Sunil Gupta vs Kiran Girhotra &amp; Ors on 9 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-18T08:40:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sunil-gupta-vs-kiran-girhotra-ors-on-9-october-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sunil-gupta-vs-kiran-girhotra-ors-on-9-october-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sunil-gupta-vs-kiran-girhotra-ors-on-9-october-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sunil Gupta vs Kiran Girhotra &amp; Ors on 9 October, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Sunil Gupta vs Kiran Girhotra &amp; Ors on 9 October, 2007 - 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\/sunil-gupta-vs-kiran-girhotra-ors-on-9-october-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sunil Gupta vs Kiran Girhotra &amp; Ors on 9 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunil-gupta-vs-kiran-girhotra-ors-on-9-october-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-10-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-18T08:40:33+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunil-gupta-vs-kiran-girhotra-ors-on-9-october-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunil-gupta-vs-kiran-girhotra-ors-on-9-october-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sunil Gupta vs Kiran Girhotra &amp; Ors on 9 October, 2007","datePublished":"2007-10-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-18T08:40:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunil-gupta-vs-kiran-girhotra-ors-on-9-october-2007"},"wordCount":1787,"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\/sunil-gupta-vs-kiran-girhotra-ors-on-9-october-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunil-gupta-vs-kiran-girhotra-ors-on-9-october-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunil-gupta-vs-kiran-girhotra-ors-on-9-october-2007","name":"Sunil Gupta vs Kiran Girhotra &amp; Ors on 9 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-10-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-18T08:40:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunil-gupta-vs-kiran-girhotra-ors-on-9-october-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunil-gupta-vs-kiran-girhotra-ors-on-9-october-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunil-gupta-vs-kiran-girhotra-ors-on-9-october-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sunil Gupta vs Kiran Girhotra &amp; Ors on 9 October, 2007"}]},{"@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\/182136","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=182136"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/182136\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=182136"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=182136"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=182136"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}