{"id":225401,"date":"1978-02-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1978-02-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suleman-noormohamed-etc-etc-vs-umarbhai-janubhai-on-23-february-1978"},"modified":"2019-01-04T20:12:19","modified_gmt":"2019-01-04T14:42:19","slug":"suleman-noormohamed-etc-etc-vs-umarbhai-janubhai-on-23-february-1978","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suleman-noormohamed-etc-etc-vs-umarbhai-janubhai-on-23-february-1978","title":{"rendered":"Suleman Noormohamed Etc. Etc vs Umarbhai Janubhai on 23 February, 1978"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Suleman Noormohamed Etc. Etc vs Umarbhai Janubhai on 23 February, 1978<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1978 AIR  952, \t\t  1978 SCR  (3) 387<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: N Untwalia<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Untwalia, N.L.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nSULEMAN NOORMOHAMED ETC.  ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUMARBHAI JANUBHAI\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT23\/02\/1978\n\nBENCH:\nUNTWALIA, N.L.\nBENCH:\nUNTWALIA, N.L.\nSARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH\n\nCITATION:\n 1978 AIR  952\t\t  1978 SCR  (3) 387\n 1978 SCC  (2) 179\n\n\nACT:\nCivil\tProcedure  Code-Order  23  Rule\t 3-While   recording\ncompromise whether court should mention that the  compromise\nis  lawful-Can\tit  be presumed-Bombay\tRent  Act  1947-Sec.\n12(3)b-Decree\tbased  on  compromise  whether\ta   nullity-\nStatutory  ground for eviction whether can be made out\tfrom\nthe  material  before  the court-Compromise  deed  by  which\ntenant\tagrees\tto pay arrears of rent as  demanded  in\t the\nplaint, if sufficient.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  appellant landlord filed a suit against the  respondent\ntenant\tclaiming  a decree for eviction on grounds  of\tnon-\npayment\t of  rent  and for bonafide  personal  necessity  in\naccordance  with the Bombay Rents, Hotel and  Lodging  House\nRates  Control\tAct, 1947.  The respondent filed  a  written\nstatement.  An exparte decree was passed which was set aside\non the application of the respondent.  Ultimately, the\tsuit\nwas  disposed  of  on the compromise  between  the  parties.\nAccording  to the terms of the compromise the tenant was  to\nhand  over possession of the suit premises to  the  landlord\nwithin\ta period of 3 years.  The tenant did not  vacate  on\nthe expiry of the period and contested the execution on\t the\nground that the decree was a nullity.  The Trial Court\theld\nthat  the  decree  was a nullity.  That\t was  upset  by\t the\nAppellate  Court.   The\t High Court  accepted  the  Revision\nApplication filed by the tenant and held that the compromise\ndecree,\t is  a nullity and. therefore, cannot  be  executed.\nThe  High Court held that the order passed by the Court\t did\nnot  disclose any satisfaction recorded by the\tCourt  about\nthe  existence of one or more grounds of eviction under\t the\nAct, and in the compromise pursis also there is no admission\non the part of the tenant express or implied.\nAllowing the appeal,\nHELD : 1. It has been laid down by the Court in the case  of\nNagindas  Ramdas  that\texistence of any  of  the  statutory\ngrounds is a sine quo non to the exercise of jurisdiction by\nthe  Rent Court in order to enable it to make a\t decree\t for\neviction.   It\twas also laid down that if at  the  time  of\npassing\t of  the decree there was some material\t before\t the\nCourt  on the basis of which the Court could be prima  facie\nsatisfied  about  the existence of a  statutory\t ground\t for\neviction  it  would  be\t presumed  that\t the  court  was  so\nsatisfied  and\tthe decree for\teviction  though  apparently\npassed\ton the basis of a compromise would be  valid.\tThis\nCourt  also held that such material might take the shape  of\neither\tof  evidence  recorded or  produced  or\t express  or\nimplied\t admission made in the compromise agreement  itself.\nIn Roshanlal's case this Court field that the Court can pass\na  decree  on the basis of a compromise and that in  such  a\nsituation  the\tonly  thing  to\t be  seen  is  whether\t the\ncompromise is in violation of the requirements of law.\t[389\nC-G]\n<a href=\"\/doc\/96229\/\">Nagindas  Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam<\/a> @ Brijram  and  Ors.,\n[1974]\t2 S.C.R. 544 and <a href=\"\/doc\/189872\/\">Roshan Lal v. Madan Lal,<\/a>  [1976]  2\nS.C.R. 878, relied on.\n2.   There is abundant intrinsic material in the  compromise\nitself to indicate that the decree passed upon its basis was\nnot  in violation of the Act but was in accordance With\t it.\nIf  there  is  no  dispute about the  standard\trent  or  no\nbonafide dispute or the dispute raised is a mere pretence of\nit a decree can follow under section 12(3)(b) of the Act  in\na suit in which rent is not due for 6 months of more but  is\ndue  even  for\tlesser\tperiod.\t The  tenant  will  get\t the\nprotection  against eviction in such a case only if he\tpays\nor tenders in court on the first date of hearing of the suit\nor  such  other date as the Court may fix.  In\tthe  instant\ncase, the High Court was not right that on the face\n3 88\nof  the compromise pursis or the order passed thereon  there\nwas no material to show that the tenant had either expressly\nor impliedly suffered a decree for eviction as being  liable\nto  be evicted in accordance with section 12(3) (b).   While\nrecording the compromise under order 23 rule 3 of the  Civil\nProcedure Code, it is not necessary for the Court to say  in\nexpress\t terms in the order that it was satisfied  that\t the\ncompromise  was a lawful one.  It will be presumed  to\thave\ndone  so unless the contrary is shown.\tBut that  apart,  on\nexamination  of the plaint which certainly should be  looked\ninto and which must have been in the records of the Court at\nthe  time of passing of the compromise decree, it  would  be\nfound  that  landlords had claimed arrears of rent  for\t two\nmonths\tat the rate of Rs. 17\/- per month and mesne  profits\nalso  for  one month upto the date of the suit at  the\tsame\nrate.\tThey had also claimed electricity charges @ Rs.\t 2\/-\nper  month.  In the compromise petition the same  amount  of\nrent, mesne profit and electric charges are admitted by\t the\ntenants to be payable to the landlords.\t There is nothing to\nindicate  that any genuine dispute was raised by the  tenant\nin  regard to the standard rent or the electric charges\t nor\nis there anything to show that he had ever filed a  Petition\nunder  section 11 of the Act or any other provision  of\t law\nfor fixation of standard rent.\tNor was he able to show that\nthe  Court at his request had ever fixed any other date\t for\npayment of the said amount.  In view of his admission in the\ncompromise  deed to pay the rent as demanded it is  manifest\nthat  there  was  no dispute in the case in  regard  to\t the\nstandard  rent.\t The facts clearly show that the tenant\t had\nincurred  liability to be evicted under the said  provisions\nof law and the compromise decree was passed on the  tenant's\nimpliedly admitting such liability. [390 F-G, 391 C-D,\tE-H,\n392 A-B]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 226 of 1976.<br \/>\n(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dt. the<br \/>\n17th  October,\t1975  of the Gujarat  High  Court  in  Civil<br \/>\nRevision Appln.\t No. 679 of 1972).\n<\/p>\n<p>P.   H.\t Parekh,  Manju\t Sharma\t &amp;  C.\tB.  Singh  for\t the<br \/>\nAppellants.\n<\/p>\n<p>V.   N. Ganpule for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nUNTWALIA,  J.-This  is a decree-holders&#8217; appeal\t by  Special<br \/>\nleave.\t The  sole respondent is the judgment  debtor.\t The<br \/>\nappellants filed a suit against the respondent in the  Small<br \/>\nCauses\tCourt  at Ahmedabad in 1964 claiming  a\t decree\t for<br \/>\neviction  against him on the ground of non-payment  of\trent<br \/>\nand bonafide personal necessity.  The grounds made out\twere<br \/>\nin  accordance\twith the relevant provisions of\t The  Bombay<br \/>\nRents,\tHotel  and Lodging House Rates\tControl\t Act,  1947-<br \/>\nhereinafter  to be referred to as the Act.   The  respondent<br \/>\nfiled  a written statement with a view to contest the  suit.<br \/>\nEventually  on account of the default of the  defendant\t the<br \/>\nsuit  was  taken  up for hearing ex-parte  and\tan  ex-parte<br \/>\ndecree was passed on the 16th of March, 1966.  The defendant<br \/>\napplied\t under\tOrder IX Rule 13 of the Code of\t Civil\tPro-<br \/>\ncedure-hereinafter  to\tbe  referred to\t as  the  Code,\t for<br \/>\nsetting aside the decree.  It was set aside.  But ultimately<br \/>\nthe  suit  was\tdisposed  of  on  the  1st  March,  1967  on<br \/>\ncompromise  between the parties.  According to the terms  of<br \/>\nthe compromise decree, the judgment-debtor was to hand\tover<br \/>\npossession of the suit premises to the decree holders within<br \/>\na period of three years i.e. by 1st of March, 1970.  But  he<br \/>\ndid  not  do  so.  Thereupon  the  decree-holders  filed  an<br \/>\nexecution case to get<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">389<\/span><br \/>\npossession  of the property.  The respondent  contested\t the<br \/>\nexecution on the ground that the decree was a nullity.\t The<br \/>\nfirst  Court accepted his plea but on appeal by the  decree-<br \/>\nholders\t it was held by the Appellate Court that the  decree<br \/>\nwas not a nullity and was executable.  The respondent  filed<br \/>\na  revision application in the Gujarat High Court which\t has<br \/>\nbeen allowed.  The High Court has accepted the\trespondent&#8217;s<br \/>\nplea  that  the\t compromise decree is a\t nullity  and  hence<br \/>\ncannot be executed.\n<\/p>\n<p>It  is\tnot  necessary to review again\tand  again  all\t the<br \/>\nearlier\t judgments of this Court on the point.\tIt  will  be<br \/>\nsufficient  to refer only to two namely, <a href=\"\/doc\/96229\/\">Nagindas Ramdas  v.<br \/>\nDalpatram Ichharam<\/a> @ Brijram and Ors(1)-a judgment which  is<br \/>\nnoticed by the High Court also in its order under appeal and<br \/>\nthe case of <a href=\"\/doc\/189872\/\">Roshan Lal v. Madan Lal<\/a>(2).\n<\/p>\n<p>It  was pointed out in Nagindas&#8217;s case (supra) by one of  us<br \/>\n(SarKaria  J)  that the existence of one of  the.  statutory<br \/>\ngrounds\t mentioned in sections 12 and 13 of the Act,  as  in<br \/>\nthe  case of other similar States Statutes, is a;  sine\t qua<br \/>\nnon  to\t the exercise of jurisdiction by the Rent  Court  in<br \/>\norder  to enable it to make a decree for eviction.   Parties<br \/>\nby  their  consent cannot confer jurisdiction  on  the\tRent<br \/>\nCourt  to  do something which according to  the\t legislative<br \/>\nmandate\t it  could  not do.  The  Court\t while\trecording  a<br \/>\ncompromise  under  Order XXIII, Rule 3 of the  Code  has  to<br \/>\nsatisfy\t itself\t that the agreement between the\t parties  is<br \/>\nlawful; in other words is not contrary to the provisions  of<br \/>\nthe Act But    it  has been clearly laid down in  Nagindas&#8217;s<br \/>\ncase at page 552<br \/>\n\t      &#8220;&#8230;&#8230;..\t that if at the time of the  passing<br \/>\n\t      of the decree, there was some material  before<br \/>\n\t      the  Court, on the-basis of which,  the  Court<br \/>\n\t      could  be\t prima facie satisfied,,  about\t the<br \/>\n\t      existence of a statutory ground for  eviction,<br \/>\n\t      it  will\tbe presumed that the  Court  was  so<br \/>\n\t      satisfied and the decree for eviction,  though<br \/>\n\t      apparently   passed   on\tthe   basis   of   a<br \/>\n\t      compromise, would be valid.  Such material may<br \/>\n\t      take the shape either of evidence recorded  or<br \/>\n\t      produced\tin  the case, or, it may  partly  or<br \/>\n\t      wholly  be  in  the shape\t of  an\t express  or<br \/>\n\t      implied  admission  made\tin  the\t  compromise<br \/>\n\t      agreement, itself,. . . .&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>In  Roshan  Lal&#8217;s case, one of us  (Untwalia  J.)  following<br \/>\nNagindaes  case\t reiterated  the same  view.   At  page\t 882<br \/>\ndelivering the judgment of this Court, it has been said<br \/>\n\t      &#8220;The Court can pass a decree, on the basis  of<br \/>\n\t      the compromise.  In such a situation the\tonly<br \/>\n\t      thing to be seen is whether the compromise  is<br \/>\n\t      in  violation of the requirement of  the\tlaw.<br \/>\n\t      In other words, parties cannot be permitted to<br \/>\n\t      have  a tenants eviction merely  by  agreement<br \/>\n\t      without  anything more.  The  compromise\tmust<br \/>\n\t      indicate\teither\ton  its.  face\tor  in\t the<br \/>\n\t      background of other materials in the case that<br \/>\n\t      the tenant expressly or impliedly is  agreeing<br \/>\n\t      to  suffer a decree for eviction\tbecause\t the<br \/>\n\t      landlord, in the circumstances, is entitled to<br \/>\n\t      have such a decree under the law.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>(1)  [1974] 2 S.C.R. 544.\n<\/p>\n<p>(2)  [1976] 1 S.C.R. 878,<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">390<\/span><br \/>\nWith  reference\t to the requirement of the law\tunder  Order<br \/>\nXXIII  Rule 3 of the Code, it has been observed\t further  on<br \/>\nthe same page :-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      If   the\tagreement  or  compromise  for\t the<br \/>\n\t      eviction of the tenant is found, on the  facts<br \/>\n\t      of a particular case, to be in violation of  a<br \/>\n\t      particular  Rent Restriction or  Control\tAct,<br \/>\n\t      the   Court   would  refuse  to\trecord\t the<br \/>\n\t      compromise   as  it  will\t not  be  a   lawful<br \/>\n\t      agreement.  If on the other hand, the Court is<br \/>\n\t      satisfied on consideration of the terms of the<br \/>\n\t      compromise  and, if necessary, by\t considering<br \/>\n\t      them in the context of the pleadings and other<br \/>\n\t      materials\t in the case, that the agreement  is<br \/>\n\t      lawful,  as  in  any  other  suit,  so  in  an<br \/>\n\t      eviction\tsuit, the Court is bound  to  record<br \/>\n\t      the compromise and pass a decree in accordance<br \/>\n\t      therewith.  Passings a decree for eviction  on<br \/>\n\t      adjudication  of\tthe requisite  facts  or  on<br \/>\n\t      their admission in a compromise either express<br \/>\n\t      or implied, is not different.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      The  High\t Court has held the decree to  be  a<br \/>\n\t      nullity on the following grounds :-<br \/>\n\t      (1)   Admittedly,\t the  order  passed  by\t the<br \/>\n\t      learned\tJudge\tdoes   not   disclose\t any<br \/>\n\t      satisfaction   recorded  by  him\t about\t the<br \/>\n\t      existence\t of one or more grounds of  eviction<br \/>\n\t      under  the  Act.\t Naturally,  therefore,\t the<br \/>\n\t      decree  does  not disclose  that\tthe  learned<br \/>\n\t      Judge,  who  passed the eviction\tdecree,\t was<br \/>\n\t      satisfied\t about the existence of any  of\t the<br \/>\n\t      grounds for eviction.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (2)   In the compromise pursis also, there  is<br \/>\n\t      no  admission  on the part of  the  defendant,<br \/>\n\t      express  or  implied,  under  section  12\t  or<br \/>\n\t      section 13 of the Act.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>In arriving at the said conclusions the High Court has\tleft<br \/>\nout  of consideration the affidavit filed on behalf  of\t the<br \/>\nappellants  at the time, the suit was taken up\tfor  hearing<br \/>\nex-parte  and the ex-parte decree following  thereupon.\t  We<br \/>\nalso do not propose to refer to those materials to arrive at<br \/>\nour conclusions, which are different from those of the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt.\tBut even apart from those materials, there is  abun-<br \/>\ndant intrinsic material in the compromise itself to indicate<br \/>\nthat  the decree passed upon its basis was not in  violation<br \/>\nof the Act but was, in accordance with it.\n<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"\/doc\/1802788\/\">In  Vora Abbasbhai Alimahmomed v. Haji Gulamnabi Haji  Safi-<\/a><br \/>\nbhai(1)\t Shah J, as he then was, delivering the judgment  of<br \/>\nthis  Court pointed out that when the conditions  of  clause\n<\/p>\n<p>(a)  of\t sub-section  (3)  of section  12  of  the  Act\t are<br \/>\nfulfilled  the Court is bound to pass a decree in  ejectment<br \/>\nagainst\t the tenant.  But in relation to clause (b)  it\t has<br \/>\nbeen said at page 166 :-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;The  clause  deals  with\t cases\tnot  falling<br \/>\n\t      within  cl.  (3) (a) i.e. cases (i)  in  which<br \/>\n\t      rent is not payable by the month (ii) in which<br \/>\n\t      there is a dispute regarding the standard rent<br \/>\n\t      and<br \/>\n(1)  [1964] 5 S.C.R. 157.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">391<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      permitted\t increases, (iii) in which  rent  is<br \/>\n\t      not  due\tfor six months or  more.   In  these<br \/>\n\t      cases  the,  tenant may  claim  protection  by<br \/>\n\t      paying or tendering in Court on the first\t day<br \/>\n\t      of the hearing of the suit or such other\tdate<br \/>\n\t      as  the Court may fix, the standard  rent\t and<br \/>\n\t      permitted\t increases and continuing to pay  or<br \/>\n\t      tender  in  Court\t regularly  such  rent\t and<br \/>\n\t      permitted\t increases till the suit is  finally<br \/>\n\t      decided  and also by paying costs of the\tsuit<br \/>\n\t      as directed by the Court.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>It  clause (b) is attracted as being any other case  of\t the<br \/>\ntype  (ii) i.e. &#8220;in which there is a dispute  regarding\t the<br \/>\nstandard rent and permitted increases&#8221;, then in such a case,<br \/>\n&#8220;the tenant would not be in a position to pay or tender\t the<br \/>\nstandard  rent, on the first date of hearing, and fixing  of<br \/>\nanother\t date  by the Court for payment or tender  would  be<br \/>\nineffectual,  until the standard rent is fixed.&#8221;  Hence\t the<br \/>\nCourt,\ton  the application of the tenant, has\tto  fix\t the<br \/>\nstandard rent first.  But if there is no dispute or no\tbona<br \/>\nfide  dispute, or the dispute raised is a mere\tpretence  of<br \/>\nit,  a decree can follow under clause (b) of subsection\t (3)<br \/>\nof section 12 of the Act in a suit in which rent is not\t due<br \/>\nfor six months or more but is due even for a lesser  period.<br \/>\nThe tenant will get the protection against eviction in\tsuch<br \/>\na case only if he pays or tenders in Court on the first date<br \/>\nof  the hearing of the suit or such other date as the  Court<br \/>\nmay fix the rent due (leaving aside the question of costs).<br \/>\nIn the instant case the High Court was not right that on the<br \/>\nface  of the compromise pursis or the order passed  thereon,<br \/>\nthere  was  no material to show that the tenant\t had  either<br \/>\nexpressly  or  impliedly suffered a decree for\teviction  as<br \/>\nbeing liable to be evicted in accordance with section 12 (3)\n<\/p>\n<p>(b) of the Act.\t While recording the compromise under  Order<br \/>\nXXIII Rule 3 of the Code, it is not necessary for the  Court<br \/>\nto  say in express terms in the order that it was  satisfied<br \/>\nthat  the compromise was a lawful one.\tIt will be  presumed<br \/>\nto  have, done so, unless the contrary is shown.   But\tthat<br \/>\napart, on examination of the plaint which certainly could be<br \/>\nlooked\tinto and which must have been in the records of\t the<br \/>\nCourt  at the time of the passing of the compromise  decree,<br \/>\nit would be found that the landlords had claimed arrears  of<br \/>\nrent  for two months @ Rs. 17\/- per month and  mesne  profit<br \/>\nalso  for  one month upto the date of the suit at  the\tsame<br \/>\nrate.\tThey  had also claimed light charges @ Rs.  2\/-\t per<br \/>\nmonth.\t In, the compromise petition, paragraph 2, the\tsame<br \/>\namount\tof  rent,  mesne profit\t and  electric\tcharges\t are<br \/>\nadmitted by the tenants to be payable to the landlords There<br \/>\nis  nothing to indicate that any genuine dispute was  raised<br \/>\nby the tenant in regard to be standard rent or the  electric<br \/>\ncharges Nor is there anything to show that he had ever filed<br \/>\na  petition  under  section  11 of  the\t Act  or  any  other<br \/>\nprovision  of law for fixation of standard rent.   In  other<br \/>\nwords, there is nothing to show that the tenant could  claim<br \/>\nprotection  from eviction in accordance with clause  (b)  of<br \/>\nsub-section (3) of section 12 of the Act on the ground\tthat<br \/>\nhe  was not in a position to pay or tender the rent  due  on<br \/>\nthe  first date of the hearing of the suit, which must\thave<br \/>\nbeen  fixed before the passing of the ex-parte decree.\t Nor<br \/>\nwas  he able to show that the Court at his request bad\tever<br \/>\nfixed any other date for<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">392<\/span><br \/>\npayment of the said amount In paragraph 3 of the  compromise<br \/>\npetition also it is admitted that the standard rent would be<br \/>\nRs  17\/-  per  month plus Rs 2\/- electric  charges  and\t the<br \/>\ndefendant would pay the mesne profits at the aforesaid rates<br \/>\nfrom  1-3-1967. It is, therefore manifest that there was  no<br \/>\nsuch  dispute in this case in regard to standard rent  which<br \/>\ncould give any protection to the tenant against his eviction<br \/>\nunder  section 12 (3) (b) of the Act The facts clearly\tshow<br \/>\nthat he had incurred the liability to be evicted&#8217; under\t the<br \/>\nsaid provisions, of law and the compromise decree was passed<br \/>\non  the\t tenant&#8217;s impliedly admitting such  liability  If  a<br \/>\ndecree for possession Would have been passed in inviting the<br \/>\ntenant\twould not have got three years&#8217; time to\t vacate\t the<br \/>\npremises.   He,\t therefore,  agreed to suffer  a  decree  by<br \/>\nconsent\t and  gained three years&#8217; time under  it.   But\t the<br \/>\nunavoidable  uncertainties  of litigation and the  delay  in<br \/>\ndisposal  of cases at all stages have enabled him to gain  a<br \/>\nperiod of about 1 1 years. more by now.\t In our judgment the<br \/>\ndecree\tunder execution is not a nullity and has got  to  be<br \/>\nexecuted by the Execution Court without any further loss  of<br \/>\ntime, as quickly as possible.\n<\/p>\n<p>In the result, we allow this appeal with costs and set aside<br \/>\nthe judgment and order of the High Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>P.H.P.\t  Appeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">393<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Suleman Noormohamed Etc. Etc vs Umarbhai Janubhai on 23 February, 1978 Equivalent citations: 1978 AIR 952, 1978 SCR (3) 387 Author: N Untwalia Bench: Untwalia, N.L. PETITIONER: SULEMAN NOORMOHAMED ETC. ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: UMARBHAI JANUBHAI DATE OF JUDGMENT23\/02\/1978 BENCH: UNTWALIA, N.L. BENCH: UNTWALIA, N.L. SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH CITATION: 1978 AIR 952 [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-225401","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Suleman Noormohamed Etc. Etc vs Umarbhai Janubhai on 23 February, 1978 - 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\/suleman-noormohamed-etc-etc-vs-umarbhai-janubhai-on-23-february-1978\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Suleman Noormohamed Etc. Etc vs Umarbhai Janubhai on 23 February, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suleman-noormohamed-etc-etc-vs-umarbhai-janubhai-on-23-february-1978\" \/>\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=\"1978-02-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-04T14:42:19+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suleman-noormohamed-etc-etc-vs-umarbhai-janubhai-on-23-february-1978#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suleman-noormohamed-etc-etc-vs-umarbhai-janubhai-on-23-february-1978\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Suleman Noormohamed Etc. Etc vs Umarbhai Janubhai on 23 February, 1978\",\"datePublished\":\"1978-02-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-04T14:42:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suleman-noormohamed-etc-etc-vs-umarbhai-janubhai-on-23-february-1978\"},\"wordCount\":2170,\"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\\\/suleman-noormohamed-etc-etc-vs-umarbhai-janubhai-on-23-february-1978#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suleman-noormohamed-etc-etc-vs-umarbhai-janubhai-on-23-february-1978\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suleman-noormohamed-etc-etc-vs-umarbhai-janubhai-on-23-february-1978\",\"name\":\"Suleman Noormohamed Etc. Etc vs Umarbhai Janubhai on 23 February, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1978-02-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-04T14:42:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suleman-noormohamed-etc-etc-vs-umarbhai-janubhai-on-23-february-1978#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suleman-noormohamed-etc-etc-vs-umarbhai-janubhai-on-23-february-1978\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suleman-noormohamed-etc-etc-vs-umarbhai-janubhai-on-23-february-1978#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Suleman Noormohamed Etc. Etc vs Umarbhai Janubhai on 23 February, 1978\"}]},{\"@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":"Suleman Noormohamed Etc. Etc vs Umarbhai Janubhai on 23 February, 1978 - 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\/suleman-noormohamed-etc-etc-vs-umarbhai-janubhai-on-23-february-1978","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Suleman Noormohamed Etc. Etc vs Umarbhai Janubhai on 23 February, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suleman-noormohamed-etc-etc-vs-umarbhai-janubhai-on-23-february-1978","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1978-02-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-04T14:42:19+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suleman-noormohamed-etc-etc-vs-umarbhai-janubhai-on-23-february-1978#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suleman-noormohamed-etc-etc-vs-umarbhai-janubhai-on-23-february-1978"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Suleman Noormohamed Etc. Etc vs Umarbhai Janubhai on 23 February, 1978","datePublished":"1978-02-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-04T14:42:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suleman-noormohamed-etc-etc-vs-umarbhai-janubhai-on-23-february-1978"},"wordCount":2170,"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\/suleman-noormohamed-etc-etc-vs-umarbhai-janubhai-on-23-february-1978#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suleman-noormohamed-etc-etc-vs-umarbhai-janubhai-on-23-february-1978","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suleman-noormohamed-etc-etc-vs-umarbhai-janubhai-on-23-february-1978","name":"Suleman Noormohamed Etc. Etc vs Umarbhai Janubhai on 23 February, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1978-02-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-04T14:42:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suleman-noormohamed-etc-etc-vs-umarbhai-janubhai-on-23-february-1978#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suleman-noormohamed-etc-etc-vs-umarbhai-janubhai-on-23-february-1978"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suleman-noormohamed-etc-etc-vs-umarbhai-janubhai-on-23-february-1978#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Suleman Noormohamed Etc. Etc vs Umarbhai Janubhai on 23 February, 1978"}]},{"@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\/225401","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=225401"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/225401\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=225401"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=225401"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=225401"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}