{"id":211263,"date":"2002-09-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-09-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-virumal-parveen-kumar-vs-gokal-chand-hari-chand-on-27-september-2002"},"modified":"2017-10-05T02:36:35","modified_gmt":"2017-10-04T21:06:35","slug":"shri-virumal-parveen-kumar-vs-gokal-chand-hari-chand-on-27-september-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-virumal-parveen-kumar-vs-gokal-chand-hari-chand-on-27-september-2002","title":{"rendered":"Shri Virumal Parveen Kumar vs Gokal Chand Hari Chand on 27 September, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Delhi High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Shri Virumal Parveen Kumar vs Gokal Chand Hari Chand on 27 September, 2002<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S Mukherjee<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S Mukerjee<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p> S. Mukherjee, J. <\/p>\n<p> 1. This is a suit for perpetual injunction for<br \/>\nrestraining the use of trade mark &#8220;555&#8221;, passing of and<br \/>\nrendition of accounts etc. In brief, the case of the<br \/>\nplaintiff is that the plaintiff adopted the trade mark<br \/>\n&#8220;555&#8221; Along with the device of Swan with a distinctive<br \/>\ncolour combination in 1989 for buttons, safety pins,<br \/>\nhooks, eye-lets, fasteners etc. On account of continuous<br \/>\nand long user the plaintiff has acquired proprietary<br \/>\nrights in the above trademark and the above trademark is<br \/>\ngenerally associated with name of the plaintiff and is<br \/>\nconsidered as a standard of quality of goods. The<br \/>\nplaintiff is stated to have built up a huge reputation<br \/>\nand good-will in the market in respect of the above<br \/>\nproducts under the said trade mark. The plaintiff is<br \/>\nalso stated to be lawful proprietor of the said trade<br \/>\nmark under class 26. The plaintiff is stated to be first<br \/>\nadopter, originator, author and owner of the copy right<br \/>\nin the labels used for packaging purposes of the<br \/>\nproducts. The plaintiff is also stated to have large and<br \/>\nextensive sale of products under the said trade mark<br \/>\nthroughout the country and is also stated to be spending<br \/>\nsubstantial amount on the publicity of the trade mark.\n<\/p>\n<p> 2. The plaintiff has filed a statement showing the<br \/>\nannual sale of the products.\n<\/p>\n<p> 3. The plaintiff has further stated that he is the<br \/>\nlawful proprietor of the trade mark and has got exclusive<br \/>\nright to the user thereof. The plaintiff has further<br \/>\nstated that it has been taking actions against the<br \/>\ninfringers of such trade mark. It is also stated that<br \/>\nplaintiff filed a suit against M\/s. Shruti Fastners Ltd.<br \/>\nbearing suit No. 1273\/1997. It is further stated that<br \/>\nvide an order dated 23rd June, 1997, this Court<br \/>\nrestrained the defendant in the above said suit from<br \/>\nusing the trade mark &#8220;555&#8221; in respect of buttons and<br \/>\nsafety pins. The said suit is said to have been decreed.\n<\/p>\n<p> 4. The defendants as per the allegation of the<br \/>\nplaintiff, were appointed as distributors\/dealers of the<br \/>\nplaintiff in the year 1991. In the year 1998, the<br \/>\ndealership\/distributorship of the defendant was<br \/>\ncancelled\/terminated and thereafter the defendant with<br \/>\ndishonest intention, allegedly, started selling his goods<br \/>\nunder a deceptively similar trade mark &#8220;Asian 555&#8221; with<br \/>\nan identical colour combination, get up and arrangement<br \/>\nof the carton. The plaintiff has stated that the<br \/>\npurchasers and intending purchasers of the products, are<br \/>\ngenerally the lay public, domestic servants and ladies<br \/>\nwhich is generally a unwary class of purchasers. The<br \/>\nconfusion and deception in relation to such class of<br \/>\npurchaser, is inevitable because of the close and<br \/>\ndeceptive similarity of the mark adopted by defendant for<br \/>\nthe purpose of passing of its inferior and substandard<br \/>\ngoods as the quality goods of the plaintiff. In these<br \/>\ncircumstances, the present suit came to be filed.\n<\/p>\n<p> 5. Along with the suit, I.A. No. 9348 of 98 under<br \/>\nOrder 39 Rules 1 &amp; 2, was filed and on 15.9.98, an<br \/>\nexparte ad-interim injunction was granted in favor of<br \/>\nthe plaintiff. The said application was heard and<br \/>\nthereafter vide order dated 10th August, 2000, this Court<br \/>\nvacated the stay on the ground of pendency of a suit<br \/>\nbearing No. 2098\/95 filed by one M\/s. Needle Industries<br \/>\nagainst the plaintiff herein and the plaintiff had not<br \/>\ndisclosed this fact.\n<\/p>\n<p> 6. The present application has been filed in view of<br \/>\ncertain subsequent developments. It is stated by the<br \/>\nplaintiff that in the suit that was filed by M\/s. Needle<br \/>\nIndustries against the present plaintiff, initially this<br \/>\nCourt had granted adinterim injunction on 29th March,<br \/>\n2000 in favor of M\/s. Needle Industries and had<br \/>\nrestrained the present plaintiff from using trade mark<br \/>\n&#8220;555&#8221;. Thereafter, the present plaintiff filed an appeal<br \/>\nagainst the said order. The said appeal came to be<br \/>\nregistered as FAO (OS) No. 115\/2000. In the said appeal,<br \/>\nthe Division Bench of this Court firstly stayed the<br \/>\nimpugned order dated 29th March, 2000, and then<br \/>\nultimately the plaintiff&#8217;s appeal itself has been allowed<br \/>\nby holding that in spite of the fact that M\/s. Needle<br \/>\nIndustries were holding registered trade mark &#8220;555&#8221;, but<br \/>\nit had no right to restrain the defendant in those<br \/>\nproceedings (viz the present plaintiff), because for the<br \/>\nlast 40 years M\/s. Needle Industries themselves were not<br \/>\nusing the said trade mark in India, and the said mark was<br \/>\nbeing used by the present plaintiff continuously for<br \/>\na substantially long period. Therefore, the present<br \/>\nplaintiff was held to be having a better right than M\/s.<br \/>\nNeedle Industries.\n<\/p>\n<p> 7. In view of above said subsequent developments, the<br \/>\npresent second application under Order 39 Rules 1 &amp; 2 has<br \/>\nbeen filed thereby seeking injunction against the<br \/>\ndefendant.\n<\/p>\n<p> 8. I find from the record that on the earlier<br \/>\noccasion the ad-interim injunction granted in favor of<br \/>\nthe plaintiff, had been vacated on the ground that the<br \/>\nplaintiff had concealed the fact that a suit had been<br \/>\nfiled against the plaintiff, by M\/s Needle Industries and<br \/>\ntherefore the right of the plaintiff itself was under a<br \/>\ncloud. However, as on the date of the subsequent<br \/>\ninjunction application, which is now under consideration<br \/>\nin the present order, the plaintiff\/applicant has<br \/>\nsucceeded before the Division Bench in the appeal<br \/>\npreferred by the plaintiff\/applicant against the stay<br \/>\norder obtained by M\/s Needle Industries vis-a-vis the<br \/>\nplaintiff, and in fact in a way prima facie proved its<br \/>\nright to the trademark &#8216;555&#8217;. Such right in fact has<br \/>\nbeen found to be on a better footing in favor of present<br \/>\nplaintiff, than the registered owner of the trademark<br \/>\n&#8216;555&#8217; viz M\/s Needle Industries.\n<\/p>\n<p> 9. It is not disputed by the defendant that the<br \/>\ndefendant had been a distributor of the plaintiff, or<br \/>\nthat the plaintiff has been using the said mark for the<br \/>\nlast about fifteen years. A comparison of the carton of<br \/>\nthe plaintiff with that of the defendant, would go to<br \/>\nshow that prima facie there has been a close resemblance<br \/>\nand deceptive similarity between the mark of plaintiff<br \/>\nand defendant. In the absence of any plausible<br \/>\nexplanation on the part of defendant as to why it adopted<br \/>\nthis mark and in view of the fact that the defendant<br \/>\nitself was distributor of plaintiff for over a period of<br \/>\ntime, this appears nothing but a dishonest adoption of<br \/>\nthe trade mark &#8220;Asian 555&#8221; by the said defendant. The<br \/>\nreliance placed by learned counsel for the plaintiff on<br \/>\n 1985 PTC 155 (para 44) is well placed. It is settled law<br \/>\nthat the interest of the public at large, have to be<br \/>\nprotected and that nobody is to be held entitled to sell<br \/>\nhis goods as that of someone else.\n<\/p>\n<p> 10. The defendant having been a distributor working<br \/>\non behalf of the plaintiff, cannot conceivably have any<br \/>\nindependent right to use the said mark.\n<\/p>\n<p> 11. Earlier the defendant had made out a defense by<br \/>\nrelying upon the circumstance of M\/s Needle Industries<br \/>\nbeing the holder of the registered mark &#8220;555&#8221;, but that<br \/>\ndefense does not survive after the Division Bench<br \/>\njudgment in FAO(OS) 155\/2000.\n<\/p>\n<p> 12. Moreover in a case of dispute between the parties<br \/>\nbefore this Court where the plaintiff is pressing for an<br \/>\naction of passing off, such as in the present case, the<br \/>\nfundamental aspect is as to who is the prior user out of<br \/>\nthe two parties before the Court. Learned counsel for<br \/>\nthe plaintiff has drawn my attention to the judgment of<br \/>\nthe learned Single Judge of this Court reported as<br \/>\n Coolways India v. Princo Air Conditioning and<br \/>\nRefrigeration  1993 (1) ALR 401  where Hon&#8217;ble D.K. Jain, J.<br \/>\nhas come to the conclusion that registration of trade<br \/>\nmark in the name of a third party, is of no consequence<br \/>\nand the dispute between the parties who are before the<br \/>\nCourt, is to be adjudicated upon the position inter-se<br \/>\nthemselves. That decision has taken into consideration<br \/>\ntwo other decisions  Capital Plastic Industries v.<br \/>\nKapital Plastic Industries  (1989-PTC-98)  and  Capital<br \/>\nPlastic Industries v. Happy Plastic Industries  1988 PTC\n<\/p>\n<p>182. <\/p>\n<p> 13. I find reliance of the plaintiff on the Division<br \/>\nBench judgment of this Court in  M\/s. Kumar Electric<br \/>\nWorks v. Anuj Electronics 1990 PTC 26, and  Sharp L.P.G.<br \/>\nPvt. Ltd. v.  Seiko Engineers  1988 (1) ALR 72  to be well<br \/>\nplaced.\n<\/p>\n<p> 14. The defendant has then tried to rest his case on<br \/>\nthe point that though the appeal has been disposed of in<br \/>\nfavor of the plaintiff herein, but the suit by M\/s<br \/>\nNeedle Industries is still there and therefore the second<br \/>\ninjunction application should not be entertained. In<br \/>\nthis connection, reference need only be made to 1984 FSR<br \/>\n304 and  <a href=\"\/doc\/134913\/\">Bengal Waterproof Ltd. v. Bombay Waterproof<br \/>\nMnfg. Co.<\/a>  1997 PTC (17) 98  , wherein an injunction was<br \/>\ngranted on the second injunction application.\n<\/p>\n<p> 15. Towards the end of his submissions, the learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the defendant also contended that defendant&#8217;s<br \/>\ncarton is different from the plaintiff&#8217;s, since defendant<br \/>\nis using prefix &#8220;Asian&#8221; to mark &#8220;555&#8221; and therefore the<br \/>\nmark of defendant is not deceptively similar to that of<br \/>\nthe plaintiff. The said submission runs in the teeth of<br \/>\nthe settled position under law, and as held in the catena<br \/>\nof cases. The plaintiff&#8217;s reliance upon  <a href=\"\/doc\/280042\/\">K.R. Chinna<br \/>\nKrishna Chettiar v.  Sri Ambal &amp; Co., and Anr.<\/a>    is well placed.\n<\/p>\n<p> 16. Likewise the reliance by the defendant upon  Ved<br \/>\nPrakash v.  Samir Kumar and Ors.  1994 III AD (Delhi)<br \/>\n1273  is mis-conceived. Rather the decision also holds<br \/>\nthat key factor in the case of trade mark matters, is the<br \/>\nuser aspect.\n<\/p>\n<p> 17. In the present case while dealing with the<br \/>\nplaintiff&#8217;s appeal against M\/s Needle Industries, the<br \/>\nDivision Bench has come to a finding that M\/s Needle<br \/>\nIndustries Limited has never use the trade mark &#8220;555&#8221;<br \/>\nduring the last forty years. At-least for the purpose of<br \/>\nprima facie consideration of the matter, at the present<br \/>\nstage of second injunction application, that finding<br \/>\nregarding M\/s Needle Industries not using the mark &#8220;555&#8221;,<br \/>\nis crucial.\n<\/p>\n<p> 18. I find that plaintiff has made out the<br \/>\nrequirements for grant of ad-interim injunction in as<br \/>\nmuch as there is a strong prima facie case in favor of<br \/>\nthe plaintiff, and also both balance of convenience and<br \/>\nirreparable hardship aspect is in favor of the plaintiff<br \/>\nand against the defendant.\n<\/p>\n<p> 19. In view of the above, I direct that till the<br \/>\ndisposal of the present suit, the defendants\/respondents,<br \/>\ntheir servants, agents, dealers,<br \/>\nrepresentatives and all other persons acting on their<br \/>\nbehalf, are restrained from manufacturing and\/or<br \/>\nmarketing, or offering for sale or otherwise dealing in<br \/>\nbuttons and safety pins hooks, eye-lets, fasteners etc.<br \/>\nunder the Plaintiffs trade mark  &#8220;555&#8221;  or any other<br \/>\ndeceptively similar mark such as the infringing mark<br \/>\n&#8220;ASIAN 555&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p> 20. The observations made in this order, are limited<br \/>\nto only prima facie consideration of the matter for the<br \/>\npurposes of the prayer for interim injunction.\n<\/p>\n<p> 21. IA 3873\/2002 stands disposed of.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court Shri Virumal Parveen Kumar vs Gokal Chand Hari Chand on 27 September, 2002 Author: S Mukherjee Bench: S Mukerjee JUDGMENT S. Mukherjee, J. 1. This is a suit for perpetual injunction for restraining the use of trade mark &#8220;555&#8221;, passing of and rendition of accounts etc. In brief, the case of the [&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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-211263","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Shri Virumal Parveen Kumar vs Gokal Chand Hari Chand on 27 September, 2002 - 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\/shri-virumal-parveen-kumar-vs-gokal-chand-hari-chand-on-27-september-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri Virumal Parveen Kumar vs Gokal Chand Hari Chand on 27 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-virumal-parveen-kumar-vs-gokal-chand-hari-chand-on-27-september-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-04T21:06:35+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-virumal-parveen-kumar-vs-gokal-chand-hari-chand-on-27-september-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-virumal-parveen-kumar-vs-gokal-chand-hari-chand-on-27-september-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri Virumal Parveen Kumar vs Gokal Chand Hari Chand on 27 September, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-04T21:06:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-virumal-parveen-kumar-vs-gokal-chand-hari-chand-on-27-september-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1797,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-virumal-parveen-kumar-vs-gokal-chand-hari-chand-on-27-september-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-virumal-parveen-kumar-vs-gokal-chand-hari-chand-on-27-september-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-virumal-parveen-kumar-vs-gokal-chand-hari-chand-on-27-september-2002\",\"name\":\"Shri Virumal Parveen Kumar vs Gokal Chand Hari Chand on 27 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-04T21:06:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-virumal-parveen-kumar-vs-gokal-chand-hari-chand-on-27-september-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-virumal-parveen-kumar-vs-gokal-chand-hari-chand-on-27-september-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-virumal-parveen-kumar-vs-gokal-chand-hari-chand-on-27-september-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri Virumal Parveen Kumar vs Gokal Chand Hari Chand on 27 September, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"Shri Virumal Parveen Kumar vs Gokal Chand Hari Chand on 27 September, 2002 - 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\/shri-virumal-parveen-kumar-vs-gokal-chand-hari-chand-on-27-september-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri Virumal Parveen Kumar vs Gokal Chand Hari Chand on 27 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-virumal-parveen-kumar-vs-gokal-chand-hari-chand-on-27-september-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-04T21:06:35+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-virumal-parveen-kumar-vs-gokal-chand-hari-chand-on-27-september-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-virumal-parveen-kumar-vs-gokal-chand-hari-chand-on-27-september-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri Virumal Parveen Kumar vs Gokal Chand Hari Chand on 27 September, 2002","datePublished":"2002-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-04T21:06:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-virumal-parveen-kumar-vs-gokal-chand-hari-chand-on-27-september-2002"},"wordCount":1797,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-virumal-parveen-kumar-vs-gokal-chand-hari-chand-on-27-september-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-virumal-parveen-kumar-vs-gokal-chand-hari-chand-on-27-september-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-virumal-parveen-kumar-vs-gokal-chand-hari-chand-on-27-september-2002","name":"Shri Virumal Parveen Kumar vs Gokal Chand Hari Chand on 27 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-04T21:06:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-virumal-parveen-kumar-vs-gokal-chand-hari-chand-on-27-september-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-virumal-parveen-kumar-vs-gokal-chand-hari-chand-on-27-september-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-virumal-parveen-kumar-vs-gokal-chand-hari-chand-on-27-september-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri Virumal Parveen Kumar vs Gokal Chand Hari Chand on 27 September, 2002"}]},{"@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\/211263","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=211263"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/211263\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=211263"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=211263"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=211263"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}