{"id":202580,"date":"2009-09-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vimal-prashant-salve-vs-4-babulal-on-7-september-2009"},"modified":"2017-11-25T01:59:43","modified_gmt":"2017-11-24T20:29:43","slug":"vimal-prashant-salve-vs-4-babulal-on-7-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vimal-prashant-salve-vs-4-babulal-on-7-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"Vimal Prashant Salve vs 4 Babulal on 7 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Vimal Prashant Salve vs 4 Babulal on 7 September, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: S. S. Shinde<\/div>\n
                                          1\n\n\n               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                             \n                    APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD\n\n\n\n\n                                                     \n                        WRIT PETITION NO. 1867 OF 2002\n\n\n\n\n                                                    \n     Vimal Prashant Salve,\n     Age 35 years, Occ. Service,\n     R\/o. Manmad, through\n     General Power of Attorney\n     Sri Prashant Shripati Salve,\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n     Age 58 years, Occ. Nil\n     R\/o. Vivekanand Nagar, Manmad,\n                       \n     District Nashik                                          ...Petitioner\n\n           Versus\n                      \n     1     Kolpewadi Gramin Bigarsheti\n           Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit\n           Kolpewadi, Tq. Kopargaon\n           District Ahmednagar\n      \n\n\n     2     Jagannath Fakira Deokar,\n   \n\n\n\n           Age42 years, Occ. Agri\n           R\/o. Takli, Tq. Kopargaon,\n           District Ahmednagar\n\n\n\n\n\n     3     Ramesh Suryabhan Gaikwad,\n           Age 29 years, Occ. Agriculture,\n           R\/o. as above.\n\n     4     Babulal s\/o Dadabhai Shaikh,\n           Age 35 years, Occ. Agriculture,\n\n\n\n\n\n           R\/o. R. No.2 and 3, Kolpewadi,\n           Tq. Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar                    ...Respondents\n\n\n                                         .....\n\n     Mr. V.D. Salunke, advocate for the petitioner\n\n     None appears for the respondents\n                                         .....\n\n\n\n\n                                                     ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:59:14 :::\n                                       2\n\n\n                                   CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                                   DATE OF RESERVING
\n                                   THE JUDGMENT                 : 02.09.2009<\/p>\n
                                   DATE OF PRONOUNCING
\n                                   THE JUDGMENT        : 07.09.2009<\/p>\n
     JUDGMENT:-\n<\/p>\n
     1     This writ petition is directed against the order dated 29.4.2002<\/p>\n
     passed by the Co-operative Appellate Court Mumbai,
\n                      ig                                               Bench at<\/p>\n
     Aurangabad in Misc. Appeal No. 13 of 2002.\n<\/p>\n
     2     The background facts of the case as as under:-\n<\/p>\n
            The petitioner herein is original opponent No.4 in dispute No.<\/p>\n
     561 of 2001 filed by the present respondent No.1 before the Co-\n<\/p>\n
     operative Court at Kopargaon. The said dispute was filed for recovery<\/p>\n
     of amount against respondents 2 to 4, whereas the present petitioner<\/p>\n
     was not made party to the dispute. The petitioner herein has<\/p>\n
     purchased the Tata Sumo jeep in question from original opponent No.<\/p>\n
     1, who is present respondent No.2.\n<\/p>\n
           The disputant advanced loan for an amount of Rs.1,86,400\/- to<\/p>\n
     opponent No.1 for which the opponent Nos. 2 and 3 are guarantors.\n<\/p>\n
     The loan amount was to be repaid in three installments of Rs.55,530\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:59:14 :::<\/span>
\n                                         3<\/span><\/p>\n
     with 21% interest. The opponent No.1, did not pay installment regularly<\/p>\n
     and on 18.9.1999 he sold vehicle to the present petitioner for an<\/p>\n
     amount of Rs.2,32,500\/- and the transaction was complete.\n<\/p>\n
           An agreement between the petitioner and original opponent No.<\/p>\n
     1 was by party agreement and the disputant was not party to the said<\/p>\n
     agreement. On 9.7.2001 the disputant filed an application for custody<\/p>\n
     of the vehicle. The vehicle was recovered from the possession of the<\/p>\n
     petitioner herein who was not party to that dispute.\n<\/p>\n
           On 24.9.1991, the petitioner herein filed application below Exh.\n<\/p>\n
     24 for adding him as party opponent No.4. The said application was<\/p>\n
     allowed. The petitioner filed another application below Exh.26 for<\/p>\n
     restoration of custody of the vehicle. The Co-operative Court has<\/p>\n
     allowed the said application and directed the disputant to release and<\/p>\n
     hand over the custody of the Tata Sumo Jeep bearing No. MH-17-\n<\/p>\n
     C-1949 to the present petitioner i.e. opponent No.4 subject to condition<\/p>\n
     that the opponent No.4 shall deposit Rs.1,00,000\/- with the disputant<\/p>\n
     within a period of six months.\n<\/p>\n
           Being aggrieved by the said order, the original disputant filed<\/p>\n
     appeal before the Co-operative Appellate Court. It is the case of the<\/p>\n
     present petitioner that the disputant was not aggrieved by order of the<\/p>\n
     Co-operative Court but he was interested to fix the installments,<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:59:14 :::<\/span>
\n                                           4<\/span><\/p>\n
     therefore, he filed appeal for modification of the order of the Co-\n<\/p>\n
     operative Court praying to direct the petitioner to pay monthly<\/p>\n
     installment of Rs.20,000\/-. The Co-operative Appellate Court passed<\/p>\n
     the impugned judgment and order on 29.4.2002 directing the petitioner<\/p>\n
     herein to deposit regularly the remaining amount as per the order of<\/p>\n
     the lower court till 15.5.2002 and he shall hand over the possession of<\/p>\n
     the vehicle to the disputant. On failure, the disputant will have right to<\/p>\n
     recover it through the Court. Hence, this writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
     3     Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, he<\/p>\n
     was not party to the original dispute. Therefore, there was no question<\/p>\n
     of passing any order against him. It is further submitted that the<\/p>\n
     agreement between the petitioner and owner of the vehicle was not<\/p>\n
     tripartite agreement and that was agreement between the petitioner<\/p>\n
     and the owner of the vehicle and therefore, the disputant was not<\/p>\n
     competent to seek execution of the said agreement. It is further<\/p>\n
     submitted that the agreement was hire purchase agreement between<\/p>\n
     the disputant and the borrower and guarantor and the present<\/p>\n
     petitioner was no way concern with the said agreement. It is further<\/p>\n
     submitted that the receiver appointed by the Court was suppose to<\/p>\n
     recover the possession of the vehicle from the custody of original<\/p>\n
     opponent No.1 and not from the petitioner. However, the court receiver<\/p>\n
     illegally recovered the possession of the vehicle from the custody of<\/p>\n
     the present petitioner. It is further submitted that when the original<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:59:14 :::<\/span>
\n                                          5<\/span><\/p>\n
     claim is not against the present petitioner, the Co-operative appellate<\/p>\n
     court was not suppose to pass any orders against the present<\/p>\n
     petitioner. Therefore, learned counsel relying on the pleading and the<\/p>\n
     grounds in the petition and annexures thereto, has submitted that the<\/p>\n
     Member, Co-operative Appellate Court has exceeded its jurisdiction<\/p>\n
     and therefore, the said order deserves to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
     4     Though the respondents are duly served and advocates have<\/p>\n
     entered their appearances on their behalf, however, none appears for<\/p>\n
     them. Reply filed by the respondents refers to the higher purchase<\/p>\n
     agreement and reply to the pleading made in the petition.\n<\/p>\n
     5     After hearing counsel for the petitioner and after perusal of the<\/p>\n
     reply filed by the respondents, I am of the considered view that the<\/p>\n
     Member, Maharashtra Co-operative Appellate Court has exceeded its<\/p>\n
     jurisdiction and passed the impugned judgment and order. In fact, the<\/p>\n
     judgment and order dated 24.9.2001 passed by the Co-operative<\/p>\n
     Court is an interim order on an application filed by the petitioner<\/p>\n
     herein. In the said order the petitioners herein was directed to deposit<\/p>\n
     Rs.1.00 lacs with disputant society within a period of six months from<\/p>\n
     the date of order and there was further direction to deposit the<\/p>\n
     remaining amount with disputant society within six months.\n<\/p>\n
     6     On careful perusal of the appeal filed by the original disputant, it<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:59:14 :::<\/span>
\n                                         6<\/span><\/p>\n
     appears that the appellant raised objection about maintainability of the<\/p>\n
     application filed by the petitioner before the Co-operative Court for<\/p>\n
     custody of the vehicle. There is also ground in the appeal that the<\/p>\n
     petitioner herein was opponent No.4, is not part to the original<\/p>\n
     proceeding. In para 9, the appellant i.e. original disputant has stated<\/p>\n
     that the learned lower court ought to have directed the opponent No.4<\/p>\n
     to deposit the amount of Rs.1.00 lacs by monthly installment and it<\/p>\n
     was also further stated in the said ground that in case amount of Rs.\n<\/p>\n
     1.00 lac is not paid within six months by the petitioner, the appellant<\/p>\n
     society will again have to approach lower court for attachment of the<\/p>\n
     vehicle and ultimately it was prayed that the impugned judgment and<\/p>\n
     order may be quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n
     7     It was open for the co-operative appellate court either to set<\/p>\n
     aside the order or to reject the appeal. The appellate court exceeded<\/p>\n
     its jurisdiction and in operative part of the order directed the opponent<\/p>\n
     No.4 to deposit the remaining amount as per the order of Co-operative<\/p>\n
     Court upto 15.5.2002 otherwise shall hand over the possession of<\/p>\n
     disputed vehicle to the disputant and if she fails the disputant will<\/p>\n
     have right to recover it through the court. So far as the direction to<\/p>\n
     hand over the possession of the vehicle to disputant or in case of<\/p>\n
     default in payment, is in excess of jurisdiction exercised by the<\/p>\n
     appellate court. In fact the appellate court was entertaining the appeal<\/p>\n
     against the interim order and while entertaining the appeal should<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:59:14 :::<\/span>
\n                                           7<\/span><\/p>\n
     have kept in mind that the original dispute is pending before the Co-\n<\/p>\n
     operative Court and pending original dispute virtually the appellate<\/p>\n
     court has granted final relief to the disputant by directing the present<\/p>\n
     petitioner opponent No.4 though he is not added as respondent in<\/p>\n
     original dispute. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order of the<\/p>\n
     appellate court is set aside. Writ petition is allowed. Rule made<\/p>\n
     absolute in the above terms.\n<\/p>\n
     8<\/span><\/p>\n
            It will be open for the Co-operative Court to pass necessary<\/p>\n
     orders in main dispute after hearing the respective parties in<\/p>\n
     accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
     9      Civil application, if any, stands disposed with.\n<\/p>\n
                                                            (S.S. SHINDE, J.)<\/p>\n
     rlj\/<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:59:14 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Vimal Prashant Salve vs 4 Babulal on 7 September, 2009 Bench: S. S. Shinde 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1867 OF 2002 Vimal Prashant Salve, Age 35 years, Occ. Service, R\/o. Manmad, through General Power of Attorney Sri Prashant Shripati […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-202580","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nVimal Prashant Salve vs 4 Babulal on 7 September, 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\/vimal-prashant-salve-vs-4-babulal-on-7-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vimal Prashant Salve vs 4 Babulal on 7 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vimal-prashant-salve-vs-4-babulal-on-7-september-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=\"2009-09-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-24T20:29:43+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vimal-prashant-salve-vs-4-babulal-on-7-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vimal-prashant-salve-vs-4-babulal-on-7-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vimal Prashant Salve vs 4 Babulal on 7 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-24T20:29:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vimal-prashant-salve-vs-4-babulal-on-7-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1240,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vimal-prashant-salve-vs-4-babulal-on-7-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vimal-prashant-salve-vs-4-babulal-on-7-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vimal-prashant-salve-vs-4-babulal-on-7-september-2009\",\"name\":\"Vimal Prashant Salve vs 4 Babulal on 7 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-24T20:29:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vimal-prashant-salve-vs-4-babulal-on-7-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vimal-prashant-salve-vs-4-babulal-on-7-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vimal-prashant-salve-vs-4-babulal-on-7-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vimal Prashant Salve vs 4 Babulal on 7 September, 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":"Vimal Prashant Salve vs 4 Babulal on 7 September, 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\/vimal-prashant-salve-vs-4-babulal-on-7-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vimal Prashant Salve vs 4 Babulal on 7 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vimal-prashant-salve-vs-4-babulal-on-7-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-24T20:29:43+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vimal-prashant-salve-vs-4-babulal-on-7-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vimal-prashant-salve-vs-4-babulal-on-7-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vimal Prashant Salve vs 4 Babulal on 7 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-24T20:29:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vimal-prashant-salve-vs-4-babulal-on-7-september-2009"},"wordCount":1240,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vimal-prashant-salve-vs-4-babulal-on-7-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vimal-prashant-salve-vs-4-babulal-on-7-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vimal-prashant-salve-vs-4-babulal-on-7-september-2009","name":"Vimal Prashant Salve vs 4 Babulal on 7 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-24T20:29:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vimal-prashant-salve-vs-4-babulal-on-7-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vimal-prashant-salve-vs-4-babulal-on-7-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vimal-prashant-salve-vs-4-babulal-on-7-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vimal Prashant Salve vs 4 Babulal on 7 September, 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\/202580","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=202580"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/202580\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=202580"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=202580"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=202580"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}