{"id":225097,"date":"2003-12-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-12-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/videocon-properties-ltd-vs-dr-bhalchandra-laboratories-on-19-december-2003-2"},"modified":"2015-07-08T02:06:22","modified_gmt":"2015-07-07T20:36:22","slug":"videocon-properties-ltd-vs-dr-bhalchandra-laboratories-on-19-december-2003-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/videocon-properties-ltd-vs-dr-bhalchandra-laboratories-on-19-december-2003-2","title":{"rendered":"Videocon Properties Ltd vs Dr. Bhalchandra Laboratories & … on 19 December, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Videocon Properties Ltd vs Dr. Bhalchandra Laboratories & … on 19 December, 2003<\/div>\n
Bench: Doraiswamy Raju, Arijit Pasayat.<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  10135 of 2003\nSpecial Leave Petition (civil)  21705 of 2002\n\nPETITIONER:\nVideocon Properties Ltd.                                                              \n\nRESPONDENT:\nDr. Bhalchandra Laboratories & Ors. \n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 19\/12\/2003\n\nBENCH:\nDoraiswamy Raju & Arijit Pasayat.\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
D. RAJU, U.\n<\/p>\n
\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe appellants are the plaintiffs in suit No.2145 of 2000, on the original
\nside of the High Court of Bombay and the respondentsdefendants are
\nregistered firm of partnership and its partners, respectively.  The plaintiffs are
\nbuilders and developers and they have entered into an agreement with the
\ndefendants on 13.5.1994 to sell the landed property owned by the respondents
\nand a sum of Rs.38 lakhs was said to have been paid by the appellants as
\ndeposit or earnest money on the execution of the agreement, which the
\nrespondents received under the agreement.  Clause 2.3 of the agreement,
\ninsofar as it is relevant for the purpose, reads as hereunder:\n<\/p>\n
“If for any reason the vendors fail to fulfill their
\nobligation under Clause 2, the purchasers shall have
\nan option either to fulfill the said obligation themselves
\nat the cost and expenses of the vendors or to
\nterminate the agreement, in which event the vendors
\nshall return to the purchasers the earnest with interest
\nat 21% per annum”\n<\/p>\n
\tClauses 17 and 18 also read as under:\n<\/p>\n
“17. If the vendors fail to make out a marketable title
\nto this said land agreed to be sold, as herein agreed,
\nthe purchasers shall be entitled to cancel this
\nagreement.  In the event of cancellation of this
\nagreement under this clause, the said earnest money
\nor deposit shall be forthwith returned to the
\npurchasers by the vendors without any interest, cost
\nor compensation.\n<\/p>\n
18. If the sale be not completed due to any willful
\ndefault on the part of the vendors, the purchasers
\nshall be entitled (a) to require specific performance by
\nthe vendors of this agreement or (b) to payment by
\nthe vendors of the interest at the rate of 21% per
\nannum on the said earnest money or deposit and all
\ncosts, charges and expenses incurred and all loss
\nand damages sustained by the purchasers in addition
\nto the return by the vendors of the said earnest
\nmoney or deposit.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is the stand of the appellants that for nearly five years the respondents
\ndid not perform their part of the contract or fulfill their obligations under Clause 2
\nof the agreement, in spite of repeated requests and reminders and this
\nnecessitated their issuing a Notice dated 3.3.1999 calling upon the respondents
\nto fulfill their obligations within 15 days of receipt.  On 15.3.1999, the
\nrespondents appear to have, for the first time, expressed their inability to fulfill the
\nterms within time and informed the appellants in writing to invoke their right under
\nClause 2.3, in the following words:\n<\/p>\n
“Under these circumstances, we sincerely and
\nearnestly request you to please exercise your other
\noption of getting all the necessary permissions
\nyourselves to complete the said transaction at your
\nearliest.  We hope that you will consider this proposal
\nsympathetically and take the necessary action as
\nstated above, looking to our present situation
\nexplained above.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThereupon, the appellants seem to have opted to terminate the agreement
\nas envisaged under Clause 2.3 and by their Notice dated 27.9.1999, while so
\nterminating, called upon the respondents to return the sum of Rs.38 lakhs along
\nwith interest at the rat e of 21% from 13.5.1994 till payment.  In response thereto,
\nwhile disputing the claims of the appellants, the respondents along with their
\nletter dated 8.1.2000 sent a cheque for Rs.38 lakhs by way of “refund of deposit
\nor earnest money in full satisfaction of your claim under the agreement or
\notherwise.  Your claim for interest is both false and untenable and is denied by
\nus.”  The appellants seem to have been not satisfied since they, according to
\ntheir stand, should have been repaid a sum of Rs.74,34,203\/- instead of merely
\nreturning the deposit or earnest money and filed the suit No.2145 of 2000, as
\nnoticed above, seeking for several reliefs  one among which is as hereunder:\n<\/p>\n
Relief and Prayer: (c) in the plaint:\n<\/p>\n
“That it be declared by this Hon’ble Court that the
\namount and interest mentioned in prayer (a) above
\nand the cost of the suit are validly secured by a
\nstatutory charge on the said land more particularly
\ndescribed in Exhibit B to the plaint. ”\n<\/p>\n
\tAs per prayer (a), the plaintiffs claimed for a judgment and decree for
\nRs.80,15,903\/- with further interest at 21% p.a. from the date of suit till payment
\nor realization and the costs.  In prayer clause (d) of the plaint, the appellants
\nseem to have also prayed for a declaration that the amount and interest claimed
\nin prayer (b) towards damages and the costs of the suit are validly secured by a
\nstatutory charge on the said land described in Exhibit B to the plaint.  The
\nappellants have also chosen to appropriate the sum repaid in a different manner
\nas per their choice and at their discretion as explained in the plaint.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe appellants seem to have also filed an application for interim reliefs by
\nway of Notice of Motion No.1952 of 2000 praying among other things for <\/p>\n
“(d) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the
\nsuit, the defendants by themselves, their servants and
\nagents be restrained by an order and injunction of this
\nHon’ble Court, from selling, disposing of, alienating,
\nencumbering or creating any third party rights of any
\nnature whatsoever or from carrying out any
\nconstruction or any other work in any manner
\nwhatsoever, in respect of the suit properties more
\nparticularly described in Exhibit `B’ to the plaint.”\n<\/p>\n
\tAfter hearing both parties, the learned Single Judge passed the following
\norder:\n<\/p>\n
“2. Admitted position is that there was an agreement
\nto sell between the parties, and that an amount of
\nRs.38 lakh has been paid as an earnest money.  It is
\nalso admitted position that the agreement was
\nterminated by the plaintiff.  It is also admitted position
\nthat in the agreement there is a provision made for
\npayment of interest at the rate of 21% p.a. on the
\namount of earnest money, in case that amount is
\nrequired to be refunded in terms of the agreement.\n<\/p>\n
The defendants has refunded the amount of earnest
\nmoney, i.e., Rs.38 lakh, but has not paid the amount
\nof interest.  The controversy involved in the suit is
\nwhether the plaintiff is entitled to claim an amount of
\ninterest on the amount of earnest money that was
\nrefunded by the defendant.\n<\/p>\n
3. Perusal of the agreement shows that there is a
\nclear duty casts on the defendant to pay interest on
\nthe amount of earnest money, unless it is required to
\nbe refunded.  Therefore, it appears that the plaintiff
\nhas a prime facie case in its favour.\n<\/p>\n
4. So far as prayer for temporary injunction is
\nconcerned, perusal of the provisions of Section 55 of
\nthe Transfer of Property Act shows that buyer is
\nentitled to a charge on the property as against the
\nseller to the extent of the seller’s interest in the
\nproperty, for the amount of any purchase money paid
\nand for interest on such amount.\n<\/p>\n
\tTherefore, even if it is assumed that the
\nplaintiff was not justified in appropriating the amount
\npaid by the defendants towards the interest treating
\nthe earnest money still remaining unpaid, then also as
\nper the agreement the plaintiff is definitely entitled to
\ninterest on the amount.  In terms of the provisions of
\nSection 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, even for
\nthe unpaid amount of interest, there is charge on the
\nproperty.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn view of the matter, therefore, in any opinion,
\nthe plaintiff would be entitled to a temporary injunction
\nrestraining the defendants from disposing of the land
\nduring the pendency of the suit.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThereupon, the respondents have pursued the matter on appeal before a
\nDivision Bench, challenging the order of the learned Single Judge.  The learned
\nJudges of the Division Bench by their order under challenge in this appeal, after
\nadverting to certain factual details, on the scope of Section 55 (6) of the Transfer
\nof Property Act, expressed its views as hereunder, with particular reference to
\nthe case on hand, by allowing the appeal of respondents herein:\n<\/p>\n
“Now when one looks at the wording of Section 55
\n(6)(b), a clear distinction is made by the statute
\nbetween the purchase money on one hand and
\nearnest money on the other when it comes to creating
\na charge.  As far as purchase money is concerned, a
\ncharge is created for the purchase money as well as
\nthe interest amount thereon, whereas when it comes
\nto earnest money, in the latter part of Section 55
\n(6)(b), there is no such specific mention of interest on
\nthe earnest money.  We are concerned with the
\nquestion as to whether this section creates a statutory
\ncharge on the property to protect the claim of interest
\non the earnest money and a plain reading of the
\nsection shows that it does not make any such
\nprovision.\n<\/p>\n
This being the position, in our view, the learned Single
\nJudge was in error in holding that a charge was
\navailable to the respondents under Section 55 (6)(b)
\nfor claiming interest on the earnest money and,
\ntherefore, was in error in granting the injunction.  The
\nauthorities and propositions cited by Mr. Doctor do not
\nhelp us in interpreting section 55 (6)(b).  Once the
\nbasis of this claim of charge is disclosed, one cannot
\nclaim injunction to secure the alleged claim for
\ninterest on the earnest money.  We have, therefore, to
\ninterfere with the order passed by the learned Single
\nJudge and accordingly we set a side the same.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore, there will not be any injunction as prayed
\nby the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
The claim of the respondents is principally for money
\nand they will get the amount due to them if they
\nestablish their case in trial.  However, we are also
\nconscious of the fact that the amount of Rs.38 lakhs
\nwas lying with the appellants from 13.4.1994 till
\n8.1.2000.  We, therefore, tried to explore on overall
\nsettlement, but that was not possible.  It appears that
\ndue to financial constraints the appellants can
\ndevelop the property only when they enter into an
\nagreement with another developer.  Hence, we would
\nlike to put the appellants to terms and in our view, the
\nappropriate interim order would be to direct the
\nappellants to deposit an amount equivalent to interest
\nat the rate of 10% for the aforesaid period which they
\nwill deposit in this Court as and when they decide to
\ndevelop this property.  This order will work as an
\ninterim order till the disposal of the suit.”\n<\/p>\n
\tHence, this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\tThough, normally this Court would have been reluctant to entertain this
\nappeal at this stage, keeping in view the views expressed by the Division Bench
\nof the High Court on the scope and purport of statutory charge engrafted in
\nSection 55 (6), and the serious repercussion that may follow not only in this case
\nbut generally as a principle of law, it became necessary for this Court to deal with
\nthe legal issue, leaving otherwise, the parties to work out their ultimate rights
\nrespectively, finally in the pending suit, ensuring of course in the meantime
\nproper and sufficient safeguards, as would emanate from the statutory charge
\nenvisaged under Section 55 (6) of the Transfer of Property Act.  Though the
\nlearned counsel on either side attempted to make submissions generally on the
\ndisputes between the parties, we indicated to them that they must confine their
\nclaims and submissions to the actual issues that would arise on the interim
\norders passed as to the scope and ambit of the statutory charge generally and
\nfor the protection of rights of parties in this case leaving aside other claims and
\nissues, which are only to be adjudicated in the main suit, which is still pending on
\nthe original side of the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe learned senior counsel for the appellants contended that the statutory
\ncharge envisaged under Section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act would
\nenure not only to the amount of any purchase money paid and for interest on
\nsuch amount, but also for the earnest money deposit paid and for interest due
\nthereon besides for the costs awarded to the purchaser to compel specific
\nperformance of the contract or to obtain a decree for its rescission and the contra
\nview taken by the Division Bench differing from the view taken by the learned
\nSingle Judge is contrary to law and cannot be sustained.  It was also contended
\nthat the omission to specifically specify in the said provision of the Act interest on
\nearnest money may, at the most, be indicative of the discretion left with the Court
\nin the matter of the rate of interest permissible on the earnest money deposit and
\nnot to deny the same once and for all.  It was also urged on behalf of the
\nappellants that on the peculiar terms and conditions of the agreement between
\nparties, which in Clause 2.3 specifically provided for the rate of interest with
\nwhich the earnest money deposit has to be refunded in case the respondents-
\nvendors fail to fulfill their obligations, the entire sum of earnest money deposit
\ninclusive of the interest so provided for being repaid would form the subject
\nmatter of the statutory charge envisaged under Section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer
\nof Property Act.  It was also contended for the appellants that in a matter like the
\none on hand where the earnest money deposited is to be part of the sale
\nconsideration agreed to between the parties, the said sum of Rs.38 lacs will not
\ncease to be purchase money merely because it is referred to also as deposit or
\nearnest money as well and, therefore, it would fall even within the first limb of
\nSection 55(6)(b) and satisfy the stipulation expressed as `any purchase money
\nproperly paid by the buyer’ and for interest on such amount and consequently,
\nthe order of the learned Single Judge should be restored by setting aside the
\norder of the learned Judges of the Division Bench.  Per contra, the learned
\ncounsel appearing for the respondents, while adopting the reasoning of the
\nDivision Bench of the High Court, reiterated the stand taken on their behalf
\nbefore the High Court to justify the order passed by the Division Bench under
\nchallenge.\n<\/p>\n
\tThough initially no interim orders were passed after the respondents
\nentered their appearance and the matter was being adjourned from time to time
\nan apprehended alienation of the property and an attempt to further encumber
\nthe same to the prejudice of the appellants was highlighted and when the
\ncounsel, after instructions from the respondents, expressed his client’s inability to
\nfurnish any security to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Judge or give any
\nundertaking not to alienate or encumber, by an order dated 31.10.2003 the
\nrespondents were directed to maintain the status quo and an interim order that
\nthey shall not alienate the property, pending further orders, was also made.  The
\nlearned counsel for the respondents, in addition to responding to the contentions
\non behalf of the appellants, also submitted that if for any reason this Court is not
\ninclined to agree with the stand of the respondents, their right to sell the property
\nshould not be completely freezed and appropriate liberties may be granted to
\nalienate the same, with the leave of the learned Trial Judge and subject to
\nsufficient safeguards being made to protect the claims and interest of the
\nappellants in the suit.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel
\nappearing on either side.  It would be necessary to set out the relevant portions
\nof Section 55 to the extent necessary for appreciating the contentions of the
\nparties on either side.\n<\/p>\n
“55.  Rights and Liabilities of buyer and seller.
\nIn the absence of a contract to the contrary, the buyer
\nand seller of immovable property respectively are
\nsubject to the liabilities, and have the rights,
\nmentioned in the rules next following, or such of them
\nas are applicable to the property sold:\n<\/p>\n
(6) The buyer is entitled–\n<\/p>\n
(a)  where the ownership of the property has passed
\nto him, to the benefit of any improvement in, or
\nincrease in value of, the property, and to the rents and
\nprofits thereof;\n<\/p>\n
(b) unless he has improperly declined to accept
\ndelivery of the property, to a charge on the property,
\nas against the seller and all persons claiming under
\nhim,* * * to the extent of the seller’s interest in the
\nproperty, for the amount of any purchase-money
\nproperly paid by the buyer in anticipation of the
\ndelivery and for interest on such amount; and, when
\nthe properly declines to accept the delivery, also for
\nthe earnest (if any) and for the costs (if any) awarded
\nto him of a suit to compel specific performance of the
\ncontract or to obtain a decree for its rescission.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe buyer’s charge engrafted in clause (b) of paragraph 6 of Section 55 of
\nthe Transfer of Property Act would extend and enure to the purchase-money or
\nearnest money paid before the title passes and property has been delivered by
\nthe purchaser to the seller, on the seller’s interest in the property unless the
\npurchaser has improperly declined to accept delivery of property or when he
\nproperly declines to accept delivery  including for the interest on purchase
\nmoney and costs awarded to the purchaser of a suit to compel specific
\nperformance of the contract or to obtain a decree for its rescission.   The principle
\nunderlying the above provision is a trite principle of justice, equity and good
\nconscience.  The charge would last until the conveyance is executed by the
\nseller and possession is also given to the purchaser and ceases only thereafter.
\nThe charge will not be lost by merely accepting delivery of possession alone.
\nThis charge is a statutory charge in favour of a buyer and is different from
\ncontractual charge to which the buyer may become entitled to under the terms of
\nthe contract, and in substance a converse to the charge created in favour of the
\nseller under Section 55(4)(b).  Consequently, the buyer is entitled to enforce the
\nsaid charge against the property and for that purpose trace the property even in
\nthe hands of third parties and even when the property is converted into another
\nform by proceeding against the substituted security, since none claiming under
\nthe seller including a third party purchaser can take advantage of any plea based
\neven on want of notice of the charge.  The said statutory charge gets attracted
\nand attaches to the property for the benefit of the buyer the moment he pays any
\npart of the purchase money and is only lost in case of purchaser’s own default or
\nhis improper refusal to accept delivery.  So far as payment of interest is
\nconcerned, the section specifically envisages payment of interest upon the
\npurchase-money\/price prepaid, though not so specifically on the earnest money
\ndeposit, apparently for the reason that an amount paid as earnest money
\nsimplicitor, as mere security for due performance does not become repayable till
\nthe contract or agreement got terminated and it is shown that the purchaser has
\nnot failed to carry out his part of the contract, and the termination was brought
\nabout not due to his fault, the claim of the purchaser for refund of earnest money
\ndeposit will not arise for being asserted.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe further aspect that requires to be noticed is as to the nature and
\ncharacter of earnest money deposit and in that context the distinguishing
\nfeatures, which help to delineate the differences, if any.  The matter is not, at any
\nrate, res integra.   In (Kunwar) Chiranjit Singh vs. Har Swarup [AIR 1926 P.C.
\n1], it was held that the earnest money is part of the purchase price when the
\ntransaction goes forward and it is forfeited when the transaction falls through, by
\nreasons of the fault or failure of the purchaser.  This statement of law had the
\napproval of this Court in Maula Bux vs. Union of India<\/a> [AIR 1970 SC 1955].
\nFurther, it is not the description by words used in the agreement only that would
\nbe determinative of the character of the sum but really the intention of parties and
\nsurrounding circumstances as well, that have to be looked into and what may be
\ncalled an advance may really be a deposit or earnest money and what is termed
\nas `a deposit or earnest money’ may ultimately turn out to be really an advance
\nor part of purchase price.  Earnest money or deposit also, thus, serves two
\npurposes of being part payment of the purchase money and security for the
\nperformances of the contract by the party concerned, who paid it.\n<\/p>\n
\tComing to the facts of the case, it is seen from the agreement dated
\n13.5.1994 entered into between parties  particularly Clause 1, which specifies
\nmore than one enumerated categories of payment to be made by the purchaser
\nin the manner and at stages indicated therein, as consideration for the ultimate
\nsale to be made and completed.  The further fact that the sum of Rs. 38 lakhs
\nhad to be paid on the date of execution of the agreement itself, with the other
\nremaining categories of sums being stipulated for payment at different and
\nsubsequent stages as well as execution of the sale deed by the Vendors taken
\ntogether with the contents of the stipulation made in Clause 2.3, providing for the
\nreturn of it, if for any reason the Vendors fail to fulfill their obligations under
\nClause 2, strongly supports and strengthens the claim of the appellants that  the
\nintention of the parties in the case on hand is in effect to treat the sum of Rs.38
\nlakhs to be part of the prepaid purchase-money and not pure and simple earnest
\nmoney deposit of the restricted sense and tenor, wholly unrelated to the
\npurchase price as such in any manner.  The mention made in the agreement or
\ndescription of the same otherwise as “deposit or earnest money” and not merely
\nas earnest money, inevitably leads to the inescapable conclusion that the same
\nhas to and was really meant to serve both purposes as envisaged in the decision
\nnoticed supra.  In substance, it is, therefore, really a deposit or payment of
\nadvance as well and for that matter actually part payment of purchase price, only.
\nIn the teeth of the further fact situation that the sale could not be completed by
\nexecution of the sale deed in this case only due to lapses and inabilities on the
\npart of the respondents  irrespective of bonafides or otherwise involved in such
\ndelay and lapses, the amount of rupees 38 lakhs becomes refundable by the
\nVendors to the purchasers as of the prepaid purchase price deposited with the
\nVendors.  Consequently, the sum of rupees 38 lakhs to be refunded would attract
\nthe first limb or part of Section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act itself and
\ntherefore necessarily, as held by the learned Single Judge, the defendants prima
\nfacie became liable to refund the same with interest due thereon, in terms of
\nClause 2.3 of the agreement.  Therefore, the statutory charge envisaged therein
\nwould get attracted to and encompass the whole of the sum of rupees 38 lakhs
\nand the interest due thereon.  In the light of the above, in our view, the learned
\nSingle Judge on the original side was right in passing the order dated 23.10.2001
\nand the order of the Division Bench, taking a contrary view in the order under
\nchallenge, is contrary to law and the reasons assigned therefor cannot be
\ncountenanced.  Hence, the same is hereby set aside and the order of the learned
\nSingle Judge shall stand restored and to be in force pending disposal of the suit.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe question relating to manner of appropriation, attempted to be argued
\nbefore us, is really a matter, which has to be, properly speaking canvassed and
\ngot adjudicated in the suit only and we express no opinion on the same.\n<\/p>\n
\tSo far as the submission made that the injunction granted should not
\ncompletely foreclose the liberties of the respondents, if an appropriate offer
\ncomes to sell the property after seeking directions of the judge on the original
\nside, we leave liberties with the parties as and when necessary to approach the
\ncourt before which the suit is pending for any such permission and the court after
\nhearing the plaintiffs as well on any such request may consider the request in this
\nregard on the defendants\/respondents sufficiently securing and safeguarding the
\ninterests of the plaintiff by depositing in court to the credit of the suit so much of
\nthe sale consideration, as would be necessary to meet the claims of the plaintiffs
\nbefore granting any such permission so that  the amount so deposited may abide
\nby the ultimate decision in the suit, to satisfy the decree that may be passed.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe appeal is accordingly allowed as indicated above.  No costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Videocon Properties Ltd vs Dr. Bhalchandra Laboratories & … on 19 December, 2003 Bench: Doraiswamy Raju, Arijit Pasayat. CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 10135 of 2003 Special Leave Petition (civil) 21705 of 2002 PETITIONER: Videocon Properties Ltd. RESPONDENT: Dr. Bhalchandra Laboratories & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19\/12\/2003 BENCH: Doraiswamy Raju & Arijit […]<\/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-225097","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nVideocon Properties Ltd vs Dr. Bhalchandra Laboratories & ... on 19 December, 2003 - 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\/videocon-properties-ltd-vs-dr-bhalchandra-laboratories-on-19-december-2003-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Videocon Properties Ltd vs Dr. Bhalchandra Laboratories & ... on 19 December, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/videocon-properties-ltd-vs-dr-bhalchandra-laboratories-on-19-december-2003-2\" \/>\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=\"2003-12-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-07T20:36:22+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=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/videocon-properties-ltd-vs-dr-bhalchandra-laboratories-on-19-december-2003-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/videocon-properties-ltd-vs-dr-bhalchandra-laboratories-on-19-december-2003-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Videocon Properties Ltd vs Dr. Bhalchandra Laboratories & … on 19 December, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-12-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-07T20:36:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/videocon-properties-ltd-vs-dr-bhalchandra-laboratories-on-19-december-2003-2\"},\"wordCount\":4136,\"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\/videocon-properties-ltd-vs-dr-bhalchandra-laboratories-on-19-december-2003-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/videocon-properties-ltd-vs-dr-bhalchandra-laboratories-on-19-december-2003-2\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/videocon-properties-ltd-vs-dr-bhalchandra-laboratories-on-19-december-2003-2\",\"name\":\"Videocon Properties Ltd vs Dr. Bhalchandra Laboratories & ... on 19 December, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-12-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-07T20:36:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/videocon-properties-ltd-vs-dr-bhalchandra-laboratories-on-19-december-2003-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/videocon-properties-ltd-vs-dr-bhalchandra-laboratories-on-19-december-2003-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/videocon-properties-ltd-vs-dr-bhalchandra-laboratories-on-19-december-2003-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Videocon Properties Ltd vs Dr. Bhalchandra Laboratories & … on 19 December, 2003\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Videocon Properties Ltd vs Dr. Bhalchandra Laboratories & ... on 19 December, 2003 - 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\/videocon-properties-ltd-vs-dr-bhalchandra-laboratories-on-19-december-2003-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Videocon Properties Ltd vs Dr. Bhalchandra Laboratories & ... on 19 December, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/videocon-properties-ltd-vs-dr-bhalchandra-laboratories-on-19-december-2003-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-12-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-07T20:36:22+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":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/videocon-properties-ltd-vs-dr-bhalchandra-laboratories-on-19-december-2003-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/videocon-properties-ltd-vs-dr-bhalchandra-laboratories-on-19-december-2003-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Videocon Properties Ltd vs Dr. Bhalchandra Laboratories & … on 19 December, 2003","datePublished":"2003-12-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-07T20:36:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/videocon-properties-ltd-vs-dr-bhalchandra-laboratories-on-19-december-2003-2"},"wordCount":4136,"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\/videocon-properties-ltd-vs-dr-bhalchandra-laboratories-on-19-december-2003-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/videocon-properties-ltd-vs-dr-bhalchandra-laboratories-on-19-december-2003-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/videocon-properties-ltd-vs-dr-bhalchandra-laboratories-on-19-december-2003-2","name":"Videocon Properties Ltd vs Dr. Bhalchandra Laboratories & ... on 19 December, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-12-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-07T20:36:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/videocon-properties-ltd-vs-dr-bhalchandra-laboratories-on-19-december-2003-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/videocon-properties-ltd-vs-dr-bhalchandra-laboratories-on-19-december-2003-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/videocon-properties-ltd-vs-dr-bhalchandra-laboratories-on-19-december-2003-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Videocon Properties Ltd vs Dr. Bhalchandra Laboratories & … on 19 December, 2003"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/225097","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=225097"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/225097\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=225097"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=225097"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=225097"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}