{"id":201647,"date":"1962-12-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1962-12-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-v-godbole-vs-jagannath-fakirchand-on-12-december-1962"},"modified":"2015-03-18T11:38:13","modified_gmt":"2015-03-18T06:08:13","slug":"p-v-godbole-vs-jagannath-fakirchand-on-12-december-1962","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-v-godbole-vs-jagannath-fakirchand-on-12-december-1962","title":{"rendered":"P. V. Godbole vs Jagannath Fakirchand on 12 December, 1962"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">P. V. Godbole vs Jagannath Fakirchand on 12 December, 1962<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1963 AIR 1399, \t\t  1964 SCR  (1) 130<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S Das<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Das, S.K., Kapur, J.L., Sarkar, A.K., Hidayatullah, M., Dayal, Raghubar<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nP. V. GODBOLE\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nJAGANNATH FAKIRCHAND\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n12\/12\/1962\n\nBENCH:\nDAS, S.K.\nBENCH:\nDAS, S.K.\nKAPUR, J.L.\nSARKAR, A.K.\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\nDAYAL, RAGHUBAR\n\nCITATION:\n 1963 AIR 1399\t\t  1964 SCR  (1) 130\n\n\nACT:\nIncome-Tax-Escaped  income-Iimitation for  assessment-Saving\nprovision-Applicability\t and  constitutionality\t  of--Indian\nIncome-tax  Act 1922 (11 of 1922), s.  34-Indian  Income-tax\n(Amendment) Act, 1953 (25 of 1953), ss. 18, 31--Constitution\nof India, Art. 14.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nIn  pursuance  of  the directions  given  by  the  Appellate\nAssistant  Commissioner\t in connection with  the  appeal  of\nanother\t assessee,  the income-tax Officer on  February\t 18,\n1957, issued a notice under s. 34 (1) of the Indian  Income-\ntax  Act,  1922,  to  the  respondent  in  respect  of\t the\nassessment  years  1944.  45,  1945-46\tand  1946-47.\t The\nrespondent  contended  that the Income-tax  Officer  had  no\njurisdiction to assess him after four years of the expiry of\nthe year of assessment.\t The appellant\n131\ncontended that the , second proviso to s. 34 (3)  introduced\nby the Amending Act of 1953 saved the proceedings.\nHeld  (per  Das,  Kapur and Sarkar,  JJ.,  Hidayatullah\t and\nDayal,JJ., dissenting), that the proceedings were barred and\nwere not saved by the second proviso to s. 34 (3).\nPer  Das and Kapur, JJ. The second proviso to s. 34 did\t not\nrevive\tthe power to assess which hid already become  barred\nby s. 34 (3).\n<a href=\"\/doc\/128548\/\">S.   C. Prashar, Income-tax Officer v. Vasantsen  Dwarkadas,<\/a>\n[1964] Vol. 1 S. C. R. 29 followed.\nPer  Sarkar,  J.-The  second  proviso  to  s.  34  (3)\t was\nunconstitutional as it offended Art. 14 of the <a href=\"\/doc\/880344\/\">Constitution.\nThe  Commissioner  of Income-tax, Bihar &amp; Orissa  v.  Sardar\nLakhmir Singh,<\/a> [1964] Vol.1  S. C.R. 148, followed.\nPer  Hidayatullah and Dayal, JJ.-The notice and\t proceedings\nwere  valid.   The  assessment was governed  by\t the  second\nproviso to s. 34 (3) as amended in 1953 and by s. 31 of\t the\nAmending  Act of 1933.\tThe notice was further saved by\t the\nprovisions of the Amending Act of 1959.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 585 of 1960.<br \/>\nAppeal\tfrom the judgment and order dated September 4,\t1957<br \/>\nof  the Bombay High Court in Special Civil  Application\t No.<br \/>\n1400 of 1957.\n<\/p>\n<p>K. N. Rajagopal Sastri and P. D. Menon for the Appellants.<br \/>\nJ. B. Dadachanji, O. C.\t Mathur and Ravinder Narain for\t the<br \/>\nRespondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>1962.\tDecember 12.  The following separate judgments\twere<br \/>\ndelivered  by Das,J., Kapur, J., and Sarkar, J The  judgment<br \/>\nof  Hidayatullah and Raghubar Dayal, JJ., was  delivered  by<br \/>\nHidayatullah, J.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">132<\/span><\/p>\n<p>S. K. DAS, J.-The facts of this appeal\thave been stated  by<br \/>\nmy learned brother Kapur,J.  As I am in agreement with\thim,<br \/>\nI need not re-state the facts.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  assessment years were 1944-1945, 19451946 and  1946-47.<br \/>\nThe notice was issued by the Income-tax Officer on  February<br \/>\n18,  1957,  pursuant to a direction given by  the  Appellate<br \/>\nAssistant  Commissioner\t in an appeal of  another  assessee.<br \/>\nThe only question is whether the second proviso to sub-s (3)<br \/>\nof s. 34, as amended in 1953 saves the proceedings impugned.<br \/>\nFor  the  reasons given by me in <a href=\"\/doc\/128548\/\">S. C.\tPrashar,  Income-tax<br \/>\nOfficer\t v. Vasantsen Dwarkadas<\/a> (1), in which  judgment\t has<br \/>\nbeen  delivered\t to-day,  I would dismiss  the\tappeal\twith<br \/>\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n<p>KAPUR,\tJ.-This\t is an appeal brought on behalf\t of  Revenue<br \/>\nagainst\t the judgment and order of the High Court of  Bombay<br \/>\non a certificate granted by that Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>In  W. P. No. 1400\/57 the present respondent challenged\t the<br \/>\njurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to issue notice under<br \/>\ns. 34(1) of the Indian\t Act, hereinafter called the  &#8220;Act&#8221;.<br \/>\nThe  assessment years are 1944-45, 1945-46 and\t1946-47\t and<br \/>\nthe notice was issued by the Income-tax Officer on  February<br \/>\n18,  1957,  pursuant to a direction given by  the  Appellate<br \/>\nAssistant Commissioner in an appeal of another assessee that<br \/>\nthe  income  was the income of a partnership  of  which\t the<br \/>\nrespondent  and the other assessee were partners.  The\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  held  that  the\trespondent was\ta  stranger  to\t the<br \/>\nproceedings before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner\t and<br \/>\nthat  the second proviso to s. 34(3) of the Act under  which<br \/>\nthe  notice  was given was unconstitutional as\tit  offended<br \/>\nArt. 14 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n<p>(1)  [1964] Vol. 1 S.C.R. 29.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\"> 133<\/span><\/p>\n<p>The  facts of the appeal are these : The respondent was\t the<br \/>\nkarta of a Hindu Undivided Family which carried on  business<br \/>\nas  merchants  and commission agents in cotton,\t grains\t and<br \/>\nother commodities.  That Hindu Undivided Family was assessed<br \/>\nfor the assessment years 1944-45, 1945-46 and 1946-47.\t The<br \/>\nassessment for the year 1944-45 was completed by the Income-<br \/>\ntax  Officer  on  March 14, 1949, and an  appeal  was  taken<br \/>\nagainst\t  that\t assessment  to\t the   Appellate   Assistant<br \/>\nCommissioner  and was decided on February 9, 1956, and\tthen<br \/>\nan  appeal  was taken to the Income-tax\t Appellate  Tribunal<br \/>\nwhich  has  not been shown to have been\t decided.   For\t the<br \/>\nassessment  years  1945-46 and 1946-47\tthe  assessment\t was<br \/>\ncompleted  in  March and May, 1950,  respectively.   Appeals<br \/>\nwere  taken  against  these  assessments  to  the  Appellate<br \/>\nAssistant Commissioner who remanded the cases to the Income-<br \/>\ntax Officer and they have not yet been decided.\t As  regards<br \/>\nthe  assessment\t year 1946-47 a notice under  s.  34(1)\t was<br \/>\nissued\tand  the order in that case was passed on  March  6,<br \/>\n1956.  Against that order an appeal was taken to the  Appel-<br \/>\nlate  Assistant\t Commissioner which is\tstill  pending.\t  It<br \/>\nappears\t that for the year of assessment 1945-46  no  notice<br \/>\nunder s. 34(1) of the Act was issued.\n<\/p>\n<p>In  1946  the respondent on behalf of  the  Hindu  Undivided<br \/>\nFamily\tfiled  a suit against one  Jagannath  Ramkishan\t for<br \/>\nrendition  of accounts as the Munim of the respondent.\t His<br \/>\ndefence was that he was a partner and not a Munim which\t was<br \/>\naccepted and the suit was dismissed.  An appeal against that<br \/>\ndecree was dismissed by the High Court. Jagannath  Ramkishan<br \/>\ndied  during  the  pendency  of the  appeal  and  his  widow<br \/>\nKalavati  was impleaded.  In the meantime proceedings  under<br \/>\ns. 34(1) (a) of the Act were started against Kalavatibai for<br \/>\nthe assessment years 1944-45, 1945-46 and 1946-47 in respect<br \/>\nof  the business which her husband Jagannath  Ramkishan\t had<br \/>\nclaimed to be a partnership business of the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">134<\/span><br \/>\nrespondent&#8217;s Hindu Undivided Family and himself.  Two orders<br \/>\nwere  passed  by the Income-tax Officer\t for  those  ),cars.<br \/>\nKalavatibai  took  appeals  against  those  orders  and\t the<br \/>\nAppellate  Assistant  Commissioner on October 10,  1956,  in<br \/>\nallowing  those\t appeals gave a finding\t that  the  business<br \/>\nbelonged   to  the  partnership\t as  claimed  by   Jagannath<br \/>\nRamkishan and the Income-tax Officer was authorised to\tmake<br \/>\nassessments  under  the\t provisions of s.  34  on  the\tsaid<br \/>\npartnership  as\t also on the respondent for  the  assessment<br \/>\nyears 1944-45, 1915-46 and 1946-47.  Thereupon a notice\t was<br \/>\nissued with regard to the three assessment years on February<br \/>\n18,  1957, against M\/\/s Jagannath Fakirchand  and  Jagannath<br \/>\nRamkishan.   These notices were challenged and were held  to<br \/>\nbe  illegal.   Against\tthat order of the  High\t Court\tthis<br \/>\nappeal\tis brought on a certificate of the High Court  under<br \/>\nArt. 132(1) and Art. 133(1)(b) of the Constitution.<br \/>\nFor the reasons given in <a href=\"\/doc\/128548\/\">S. C. Prashanr, Income-tax Officer<br \/>\nv.  Vasantsen\tDwarkadas<\/a> (1), judgment in  which  has\tbeen<br \/>\ndelivered today, this appeal is dismissed with costs.<br \/>\nSARKAR\tJ.-This case is concerned with the three  assessment<br \/>\nyears  1944-45\t1945-46 and 1946-47.  The  assessee  is\t the<br \/>\nrespondent  Jagannath  Fakirchand,  the\t Karta\tof  a  Hindu<br \/>\nundivided family who had been assessed as such for the years<br \/>\n194445 to 1946-48, and appeals from the assessment orders in<br \/>\nrespect of these years were pending.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  assessee  had  filed  in 1946 a  suit  against  an\t ex-<br \/>\nemployee,  Jagannath  Ramkishan\t for  accounts\tof   certain<br \/>\ntransactions.  Jagannath Ramkishan contended that he was not<br \/>\nan employee but the transactions were the transactions of  a<br \/>\nbusiness  carried  on  in partnership between  him  and\t the<br \/>\nassessee.    The  trial\t court\tupheld\tthe  contention\t  of<br \/>\nJagannath Ramkishan.\n<\/p>\n<p>(1)  [1964] Vol. 1 S.C.R. 29.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">135<\/span><\/p>\n<p>The asessee appealed to he High Court of Bombay against\t the<br \/>\ndecision  of the trial court but in the\t meantime  Jagannath<br \/>\nRamkishan  had\tdied- and his wife,  Kalavatibai,  had\tbeen<br \/>\nsubstituted  in\t his place in that appeal.  The\t High  Court<br \/>\ndismissed  the\tappeal\tbut  said  nothing  as\tto   whether<br \/>\nJagannath Ramkrishan was a partner.\n<\/p>\n<p>In  the view of the decision in the appeal mentioned in\t the<br \/>\npreceeding   paragraph,\t the  revenue  authorities   started<br \/>\nproceedings  against  Kalavatibai under s.34(1) (a)  of\t the<br \/>\nIncome-tax Act and assessed her on the entire income in\t the<br \/>\naforesaid three years, realised from the said  transactions.<br \/>\nKalavatibai  then appealed from this assessment and  in\t the<br \/>\nappeal,\t she  contended that her husband&#8217;s  estate  was\t not<br \/>\nliable\tfor  the  tax on the entire  income  as\t the  income<br \/>\nbelonged  to  a firm of which her husband was only  one\t the<br \/>\npartners.   The\t appellate Assistant  Commissioner  accepted<br \/>\nthis contention of Kalavatibai and\tobserved : &#8220;In\tview<br \/>\nof my finding&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;   thatthe  business belonged to<br \/>\nthe partnership&#8230;&#8230;.the  Income-tax Officer is.  hereby<br \/>\nauthorised tomake  assessments under the provisions of\ts.<br \/>\n34  on\tthe said partnership as also on the  other  partner,<br \/>\nShri Jagannath Fakirchand for the assessment years  1944-45,<br \/>\n1945-46 and 1946-47.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>In  pursuance of this order the Income-tax  Officer  started<br \/>\nproceeding  under  s. 34 (3) of the  Income-tax\t Act,  1922,<br \/>\nagainst\t the  assessee by issuing a notice on  February\t 18,<br \/>\n1947,  calling\ton him to file a return in  respect  of\t the<br \/>\naforesaid three assessment years as that income had  escaped<br \/>\nassessment.  Thereupon the assessee moved the High Court  of<br \/>\nBombay\tunder  Art. 226 of the Constitution for\t a  writ  to<br \/>\nquash  the  aforesaid notice and  to  prohibit\t proceedings<br \/>\nbeing  taken thereunder.  The High Court allowed  the  writ.<br \/>\nHence this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">136<\/span><\/p>\n<p>The  only  question  in this appeal is\twhether\t the  second<br \/>\nproviso to s. 34 (3) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 as  amended<br \/>\nin  1953,  could  save the proceedings\timpugned.   For\t the<br \/>\nreasons\t mentioned  in my judgment in  <a href=\"\/doc\/880344\/\">The  Commissioner  of<br \/>\nIncome-tax,  Bihar &amp; Orissa v. Sardar Lakhmir Singh<\/a>  (1),  I<br \/>\nthink  that proviso is invalid as offending Art. 14  of\t the<br \/>\nConstitution  and  affords  no\tprotection  to\tthe  revenue<br \/>\nauthorities.   It may be added that the impugned notice\t was<br \/>\nissued\tin  consequence\t of  an\t order\tunder  s.  31  in  a<br \/>\nproceeding to which the assessee was not a party.\n<\/p>\n<p>       In the result the appeal is dismissed with costs.<br \/>\nFor  the judgment of Hidayatullah and Raghubar\tDayal,\tJJ.,<br \/>\nsee   <a href=\"\/doc\/128548\/\">S.  C.  Prashar,\tIncome-tax  Officer   v.   Vasantsen<br \/>\nDwarkadas,<\/a> ante p. 29.\n<\/p>\n<p>By  COURT : In accordance with the opinion of the  majority,<br \/>\nthis appeal is dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t  Appeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>(1) [1964] Vol. 1 S.C.R. 148.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\"> 137<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India P. V. Godbole vs Jagannath Fakirchand on 12 December, 1962 Equivalent citations: 1963 AIR 1399, 1964 SCR (1) 130 Author: S Das Bench: Das, S.K., Kapur, J.L., Sarkar, A.K., Hidayatullah, M., Dayal, Raghubar PETITIONER: P. V. GODBOLE Vs. RESPONDENT: JAGANNATH FAKIRCHAND DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12\/12\/1962 BENCH: DAS, S.K. BENCH: DAS, S.K. [&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-201647","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>P. V. Godbole vs Jagannath Fakirchand on 12 December, 1962 - 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\/p-v-godbole-vs-jagannath-fakirchand-on-12-december-1962\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P. V. Godbole vs Jagannath Fakirchand on 12 December, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-v-godbole-vs-jagannath-fakirchand-on-12-december-1962\" \/>\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=\"1962-12-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-18T06:08:13+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-v-godbole-vs-jagannath-fakirchand-on-12-december-1962#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-v-godbole-vs-jagannath-fakirchand-on-12-december-1962\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P. V. Godbole vs Jagannath Fakirchand on 12 December, 1962\",\"datePublished\":\"1962-12-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-18T06:08:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-v-godbole-vs-jagannath-fakirchand-on-12-december-1962\"},\"wordCount\":1401,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-v-godbole-vs-jagannath-fakirchand-on-12-december-1962#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-v-godbole-vs-jagannath-fakirchand-on-12-december-1962\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-v-godbole-vs-jagannath-fakirchand-on-12-december-1962\",\"name\":\"P. V. Godbole vs Jagannath Fakirchand on 12 December, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1962-12-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-18T06:08:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-v-godbole-vs-jagannath-fakirchand-on-12-december-1962#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-v-godbole-vs-jagannath-fakirchand-on-12-december-1962\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-v-godbole-vs-jagannath-fakirchand-on-12-december-1962#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P. V. Godbole vs Jagannath Fakirchand on 12 December, 1962\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"P. V. Godbole vs Jagannath Fakirchand on 12 December, 1962 - 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\/p-v-godbole-vs-jagannath-fakirchand-on-12-december-1962","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P. V. Godbole vs Jagannath Fakirchand on 12 December, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-v-godbole-vs-jagannath-fakirchand-on-12-december-1962","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1962-12-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-18T06:08:13+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-v-godbole-vs-jagannath-fakirchand-on-12-december-1962#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-v-godbole-vs-jagannath-fakirchand-on-12-december-1962"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P. V. Godbole vs Jagannath Fakirchand on 12 December, 1962","datePublished":"1962-12-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-18T06:08:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-v-godbole-vs-jagannath-fakirchand-on-12-december-1962"},"wordCount":1401,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-v-godbole-vs-jagannath-fakirchand-on-12-december-1962#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-v-godbole-vs-jagannath-fakirchand-on-12-december-1962","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-v-godbole-vs-jagannath-fakirchand-on-12-december-1962","name":"P. V. Godbole vs Jagannath Fakirchand on 12 December, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1962-12-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-18T06:08:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-v-godbole-vs-jagannath-fakirchand-on-12-december-1962#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-v-godbole-vs-jagannath-fakirchand-on-12-december-1962"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-v-godbole-vs-jagannath-fakirchand-on-12-december-1962#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P. V. Godbole vs Jagannath Fakirchand on 12 December, 1962"}]},{"@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\/201647","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=201647"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/201647\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=201647"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=201647"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=201647"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}