{"id":185895,"date":"2009-08-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/guruprasad-jaiswal-vs-ramakant-gupta-on-27-august-2009"},"modified":"2018-12-04T01:15:02","modified_gmt":"2018-12-03T19:45:02","slug":"guruprasad-jaiswal-vs-ramakant-gupta-on-27-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/guruprasad-jaiswal-vs-ramakant-gupta-on-27-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"Guruprasad Jaiswal vs Ramakant Gupta on 27 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court<\/div>\n
Guruprasad Jaiswal vs Ramakant Gupta on 27 August, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n             HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR      \n\n\n\n\n\n             Misc. Criminal Case No.978 of 2004\n\n\n\n\n\n              Guruprasad  Jaiswal\n                               ...Petitioners\n\n\n\n                           Versus\n\n\n\n                   1.  Ramakant  Gupta\n\n                    2.  State  of Chhattisgarh\n                                            ...Respondents<\/pre>\n
     {Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
\n                      Procedure, 1973}<\/p>\n
!     Mr. Rajesh Pandey, counsel for the petitioner<\/p>\n
^     Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, counsel for respondent No.1
\n      Mr.   Akhil  Mishra,  Deputy  Govt.  Advocate  for   the State\/respondent No.2<\/p>\n
Honble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J <\/p>\n
       Dated:27\/08\/2009<\/p>\n
:       Judgment<\/p>\n
                         ORAL ORDER
\n                         (27-8-2009)\n<\/p>\n
1.    The  present petition under Section 482 of the Code  of
\n  Criminal  Procedure, 1973 (for short  `the  Code’)  is  for
\n  quashment  of  Criminal Complaint Case  No.38\/2003  pending
\n  before  the  Court  of  Judicial  Magistrate  First  Class,
\n  Ramanujganj.\n<\/p>\n
2.   Quashment is prayed on the ground that if the allegation
\n  made  in the complaint is admitted in its face value,  even
\n  then conviction of the petitioner under Sections 392, 394 &
\n  506 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. would not be possible
\n  on the ground that the petitioner has took out the vehicle in
\n  question in compliance of the agreement executed between the
\n  parties.\n<\/p>\n
3.    Brief facts leading to filing of this petition are that
\n  respondent  No.1 has purchased one bus under hire  purchase
\n  agreement  and the amount was financed by Shriram Transport
\n  Finance  Co.  Ltd. (for short `the Finance Company’).   The
\n  petitioner   is  administrator  of  the  Finance   Company.
\n  Respondent No.1 has paid the amount of loan.  On 15-12-2002
\n  at  about 4-5 p.m. the bus was standing in a work  shop  at
\n  Ambikapur.  The petitioner along with other persons came to
\n  the said work shop and forcefully tried to snatch the key of
\n  the  bus  from the conductor of the bus, they  used  filthy
\n  language and threatened the bus conductor & respondent No.1
\n  also, and after snatching the key of the bus they took  out
\n  the bus forcefully.  Respondent No.1 made a complaint to the
\n  Police  and  finally, filed complaint before  the  Judicial
\n  Magistrate First Class, Ramanujganj who made enquiry in terms
\n  of Chapter XV of the Code and registered criminal complaint
\n  case against the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
4.   I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
\n  the record of the Court below.\n<\/p>\n
5.    Learned  counsel  for the petitioner submits  that  the
\n  petitioner is Director of the Finance Company and the bus was
\n  purchased  under  hire  purchase agreement.   The  bus  was
\n  hypothecated to the Finance Company and before payment of all
\n  installments & dues, the Finance Company was owner of the bus
\n  and  it  has  a  right to take possession in terms  of  the
\n  agreement.  Clause 7 of the agreement authorizes the Finance
\n  Company to obtain re-possession of the vehicle after entering
\n  into  the  building, premises or place or site,  where  the
\n  vehicle was kept.  Therefore the petitioner has not committed
\n  any  offence  and  has acted under the  agreement  executed
\n  between both the parties.  Learned counsel placed reliance in
\n  the matter of Trilok Singh and others v. Satya Deo Tripathi1<\/a>
\n  in which it has been held by the Apex Court that launching of
\n  criminal prosecution by purchaser against financer – Dispute
\n  raised  was  purely of civil nature and criminal proceeding
\n  would  be  an  abuse of the process of the Court.   Learned
\n  counsel  further placed reliance in the matter of Charanjit
\n  Singh Chadha and others v. Sudhir Mehra2<\/a> in which it has been
\n  held  by  the  Apex  Court that if hire purchase  agreement
\n  provides the clause that financer was entitled to repossess
\n  the vehicle in case of default, repossession of vehicle would
\n  not  amount to any offence and criminal proceeding  on  the
\n  basis  of  such repossession would amount to abuse  of  the
\n  process of the Court.  Learned counsel also placed reliance
\n  in the matter of Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community and
\n  another  v. State of Maharashtra and another3 in which  the
\n  Apex Court has held that law declared by the same Bench  or
\n  larger  Bench  has  a  binding force and  in  case  of  any
\n  deviation,  the subsequent Bench is required to  refer  the
\n  matter before larger Bench.  Learned counsel further submits
\n  that the decision rendered in the matter of ICICI Bank Ltd.
\n  v.  Prakash  Kaur  and  others<\/a>4 is  judgment  per  incurian
\n  therefore,  same  is  not binding or having  force  of  law
\n  declared by the Apex Court.\n<\/p>\n
6.    On  the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1
\n  vehemently argued that in the present case, respondent No.1
\n  has paid all installments & dues to the Finance Company, the
\n  Finance Company that is to say, the petitioner & others, have
\n  not  only,  simply, took out the bus from the  premises  of
\n  respondent No.1, but they have entered into the  work  shop
\n  where  the bus was standing and after using filthy language
\n  and  intimidating  the  conductor of  the  bus,  forcefully
\n  snatched  the  key  and took out the bus  forcefully  after
\nthreatening  respondent  No.1.   The  act  committed  by  the
\n  petitioner is punishable under Sections 392, 394 & 506 read
\n  with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and if the allegation made in
\n  the complaint is admitted by the petitioner, same would  be
\n  sufficient  for  conviction of  the  petitioner  under  the
\n  aforesaid provisions.  Learned counsel further argued that at
\n  the   time  of  consideration  for  quashment  of  criminal
\n  proceeding in terms of Section 482 of the Code, the  Courts
\n  are  required  to see that if the allegation  made  in  the
\n  complaint  is  admitted in its face value, then  conviction
\n  would be possible or not.  Learned counsel placed reliance in
\n  the matter of ICICI Bank (supra), in which the Apex Court has
\n  held that forceful recovery of possession of vehicle brought
\n  on  hire  purchase by the officers of the Bank  to  restore
\n  recovery is deprecated and needs to be discouraged, Banks are
\n  required to resort to procedure recognized by law  to  take
\n  possession of vehicles in cases where borrower has committed
\n  default instead of resorting to strong arm tactics.\n<\/p>\n
7.   Clause 7 of the agreement reads as follows: –\n<\/p>\n
          “7.   The Hirer agrees to pay on demand,  all
\n          expenses incurred by the Owners in collecting
\n          or  attempting  to collect moneys,  including
\n          inter alia, for collection of cheques, visits
\n          of  representatives, etc. or in obtaining re-
\n          possession  or  attempting to re-possess  the
\n          vehicle  due to them, the Owners,  the  hire,
\n          and  for  the  purpose of each re-possession,
\n          leave  and  licence is hereby  given  to  the
\n          Owners,  their  agents or any  other  persons
\n          employed  by  them  to  enter  any  building,
\n          premises or place or site, where the  vehicle
\n          is  or  is supposed to be and take possession
\n          of  the  same  from the Hirer  or  any  other
\n          person  without being liable to any  suit  or
\n          other  proceedings by the Hirer or any person
\n          claiming under him.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
8.   Clause 7 of the agreement authorizes the Finance Company
\n  to repossess the vehicle even by entering into the premises
\n  of the purchaser where the vehicle is standing.\n<\/p>\n
9.    In  the matter of Charanjit (supra), the Apex Court has
\n  held that the Finance Company is authorized to enter into the
\n  premises of the purchaser for repossessing the vehicle  and
\n  they may repossess the vehicle.  Para 17 of the said judgment
\n  reads thus,
\n          “17. The hire-purchase agreement in law is an
\n          executory  contract of sale  and  confers  no
\n          right   in   rem  on  the  hirer  until   the
\n          conditions  for transfer of the  property  to
\n          him  have  been  fulfilled.   Therefore,  the
\n          repossession of goods as per the term of  the
\n          agreement  may  not amount  to  any  criminal
\n          offence.    The   agreement  (Annexure   P-1)
\n          specifically gave authority to the appellants
\n          to  repossess  the vehicle and  their  agents
\n          have  been  given  the  right  to  enter  any
\n          property   or  building  wherein  the   motor
\n          vehicle  was  likely to be kept.   Under  the
\n          hire-purchase agreement, the appellants  have
\n          continued to be the owners of the vehicle and
\n          even  if the entire allegations against  them
\n          are  taken as true, no offence was  made  out
\n          against  them.   The  learned  Single   Judge
\n          seriously  flawed in his decision and  failed
\n          to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by not
\n          quashing  the  proceedings initiated  against
\n          the  appellants.  We, therefore,  allow  this
\n          appeal  and set aside the impugned  judgment.
\n          The   complaint  and  any  other  proceedings
\n          initiated  pursuant  to  such  complaint  are
\n          quashed.”\n<\/p>\n
10.   In the matter of ICICI Bank (supra), the Apex Court has
\n  deprecated the practice of recovery of vehicle with the help
\n  of  musclemen.  Paras 16 & 28 of the said judgments read as
\n  follows: –\n<\/p>\n
          “16. Before we part with this matter, we wish
\n          to  make  it  clear that we do not appreciate
\n          the procedure adopted by the Bank in removing
\n          the  vehicle from the possession of the  writ
\n          petitioner.  The practice of hiring  recovery
\n          agents, who are musclemen, is deprecated  and
\n          needs  to  be  discouraged.  The Bank  should
\n          resort to procedure recognized by law to take
\n          possession  of  vehicles in cases  where  the
\n          borrower   may  have  committed  default   in
\n          payment of the instalments instead of  taking
\n          resort to strong-arm tactics.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          28.   In  conclusion,  we  say  that  we  are
\n          governed  by the rule of law in the  country.
\n          The  recovery of loans or seizure of vehicles
\n          could be done only through legal means.   The
\n          banks   cannot   employ   goondas   to   take
\n          possession by force.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
11.  As regards the question of binding force of law declared
\n  by the Apex Court in the matter of ICICI Bank (supra), in the
\n  light  of  previous  decision of the  coordinate  Bench  in
\n  Charanjit`s case in which the Apex Court has held that  the
\n  Finance Company has a right to enter into the premises  and
\n  repossess the vehicle, the Apex Court has not held that the
\n  Finance  Company  or the person in terms of  hire  purchase
\n  agreement are authorized to take repossession of the vehicle
\n  forcefully.\n<\/p>\n
12.   On the other hand, in the matter of ICICI Bank (supra),
\n  the Apex Court has deprecated and discouraged repossession of
\n  vehicle with the help of musclemen and resorting to  strong
\n  arm  tactics.  The Apex Court has further held that we  are
\n  governed by the rule of law in the country.  The recovery of
\n  loans or seizure of vehicles could be done only through legal
\n  means.  If the Finance Company enters into the premises and
\n  repossesses the vehicle without further commission of crime,
\n  the act may be within the ambits of hire purchase agreement,
\n  but if officers or person of the Finance Company forcefully
\n  enters  into  the premises of the purchaser and  forcefully
\n  takes the possession of the vehicle or at the time of taking
\n  forceful  possession of the vehicle commits other offences,
\n  same is not permissible under the garb of any agreement  or
\n  under  clause  7 of the said contract.  No  person  can  be
\n  authorized to commit offence under the garb of any agreement.
\n  People of India are governed by the rule of law and not  by
\n  the rule of muscle power.\n<\/p>\n
13.   In the matter of Charanjit (supra), the Apex Court  has
\n  not  held  that party under the hire purchase agreement  is
\n  empowered  to take forceful repossession of the vehicle  by
\n  committing further crime.  In the present case, according to
\n  the  material  collected on behalf of the complainant,  the
\n  petitioner  has taken forceful repossession of the  vehicle
\n  after  forcefully  making entry in the  premises  and  also
\n  committed other crimes.  Therefore, the law declared by the
\n  Apex  Court in the matter of ICICI Bank (supra) is not  the
\n  judgment per incurian and it is still binding as the law of
\n  land.\n<\/p>\n
14.   Power  under  Section 482 of the Code is  inherent  and
\n  exceptional  in  nature.   In  the  matter  of  M\/s.  Zandu
\n  Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and others v. Md. Sharaful  Haque
\n  and others<\/a>5 the Apex Court has held thus,
\n          “8.   Exercise of power under Section 482  of
\n          the  Code  in  a case of this nature  is  the
\n          exception and not the rule.  The Section does
\n          not  confer any new powers on the High Court.
\n          It  only  saves the inherent power which  the
\n          Court  possessed before the enactment of  the
\n          Code.  It envisages three circumstances under
\n          which   the  inherent  jurisdiction  may   be
\n          exercised, namely, (i) to give effect  to  an
\n          order  under the Code, (ii) to prevent  abuse
\n          of   the  process  of  court,  and  (iii)  to
\n          otherwise secure the ends of justice.  It  is
\n          neither  possible nor desirable to  lay  down
\n          any  inflexible rule which would  govern  the
\n          exercise   of   inherent  jurisdiction.    No
\n          legislative enactment dealing with  procedure
\n          can  provide for all cases that may  possibly
\n          arise.    Courts,  therefore,  have  inherent
\n          powers  apart from express provisions of  law
\n          which  are necessary for proper discharge  of
\n          functions  and duties imposed  upon  them  by
\n          law.    That  is  the  doctrine  which  finds
\n          expression   in  the  section  which   merely
\n          recognizes and preserves inherent  powers  of
\n          the  High Courts.  All courts, whether  civil
\n          or  criminal possess, in the absence  of  any
\n          express  provision,  as  inherent  in   their
\n          constitution,   all  such   powers   as   are
\n          necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong
\n          in course of administration of justice on the
\n          principle   “quando   lex   aliquid    alicui
\n          concedit,  concedere videtur et id  sine  quo
\n          res  ipsae  esse non potest”  (when  the  law
\n          gives  a  person anything it gives  him  that
\n          without   which  it  cannot  exist).    While
\n          exercising  powers  under  the  section,  the
\n          court  does not function as a court of appeal
\n          or revision.  Inherent jurisdiction under the
\n          section  though  wide  has  to  be  exercised
\n          sparingly,  carefully and  with  caution  and
\n          only  when such exercise is justified by  the
\n          tests  specifically laid down in the  section
\n          itself.   It  is  to be exercised  ex  debito
\n          justitiae to do real and substantial  justice
\n          for  the administration of which alone courts
\n          exist.   Authority  of the court  exists  for
\n          advancement of justice and if any attempt  is
\n          made to abuse that authority so as to produce
\n          injustice,  the  court has power  to  prevent
\n          abuse.   It  would be an abuse of process  of
\n          the  court  to allow any action  which  would
\n          result in injustice and prevent promotion  of
\n          justice.   In  exercise of the  powers  court
\n          would be justified to quash any proceeding if
\n          it  finds that initiation\/continuance  of  it
\n          amounts  to abuse of the process of court  or
\n          quashing of these proceedings would otherwise
\n          serve  the ends of justice.  When no  offence
\n          is  disclosed by the complaint, the court may
\n          examine  the  question  of  fact.    When   a
\n          complaint  is  sought to be  quashed,  it  is
\n          permissible  to  look into the  materials  to
\n          assess  what the complainant has alleged  and
\n          whether any offence is made out even  if  the
\n          allegations are accepted in toto.”\n<\/p>\n
15.   For the foregoing reasons, taking of cognizance against
\n  the petitioner is well founded and continuance of proceeding
\n  against him would not amount to abuse of the process of the
\n  Court.  Consequently, the petition is liable to be dismissed
\n  and it is hereby dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                                                        JUDGE<\/p>\n
f<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court Guruprasad Jaiswal vs Ramakant Gupta on 27 August, 2009 HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Misc. Criminal Case No.978 of 2004 Guruprasad Jaiswal …Petitioners Versus 1. Ramakant Gupta 2. State of Chhattisgarh …Respondents {Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973} ! Mr. Rajesh Pandey, counsel for the petitioner […]<\/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":[12,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-185895","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chattisgarh-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nGuruprasad Jaiswal vs Ramakant Gupta on 27 August, 2009 - 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\/guruprasad-jaiswal-vs-ramakant-gupta-on-27-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Guruprasad Jaiswal vs Ramakant Gupta on 27 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/guruprasad-jaiswal-vs-ramakant-gupta-on-27-august-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-03T19:45:02+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/guruprasad-jaiswal-vs-ramakant-gupta-on-27-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/guruprasad-jaiswal-vs-ramakant-gupta-on-27-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Guruprasad Jaiswal vs Ramakant Gupta on 27 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-03T19:45:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/guruprasad-jaiswal-vs-ramakant-gupta-on-27-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2386,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Chattisgarh High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/guruprasad-jaiswal-vs-ramakant-gupta-on-27-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/guruprasad-jaiswal-vs-ramakant-gupta-on-27-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/guruprasad-jaiswal-vs-ramakant-gupta-on-27-august-2009\",\"name\":\"Guruprasad Jaiswal vs Ramakant Gupta on 27 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-03T19:45:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/guruprasad-jaiswal-vs-ramakant-gupta-on-27-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/guruprasad-jaiswal-vs-ramakant-gupta-on-27-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/guruprasad-jaiswal-vs-ramakant-gupta-on-27-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Guruprasad Jaiswal vs Ramakant Gupta on 27 August, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Guruprasad Jaiswal vs Ramakant Gupta on 27 August, 2009 - 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\/guruprasad-jaiswal-vs-ramakant-gupta-on-27-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Guruprasad Jaiswal vs Ramakant Gupta on 27 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/guruprasad-jaiswal-vs-ramakant-gupta-on-27-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-03T19:45:02+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/guruprasad-jaiswal-vs-ramakant-gupta-on-27-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/guruprasad-jaiswal-vs-ramakant-gupta-on-27-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Guruprasad Jaiswal vs Ramakant Gupta on 27 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-03T19:45:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/guruprasad-jaiswal-vs-ramakant-gupta-on-27-august-2009"},"wordCount":2386,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Chattisgarh High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/guruprasad-jaiswal-vs-ramakant-gupta-on-27-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/guruprasad-jaiswal-vs-ramakant-gupta-on-27-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/guruprasad-jaiswal-vs-ramakant-gupta-on-27-august-2009","name":"Guruprasad Jaiswal vs Ramakant Gupta on 27 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-03T19:45:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/guruprasad-jaiswal-vs-ramakant-gupta-on-27-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/guruprasad-jaiswal-vs-ramakant-gupta-on-27-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/guruprasad-jaiswal-vs-ramakant-gupta-on-27-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Guruprasad Jaiswal vs Ramakant Gupta on 27 August, 2009"}]},{"@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\/185895","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=185895"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/185895\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=185895"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=185895"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=185895"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}