{"id":227575,"date":"2009-11-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geeta-devi-anr-vs-ms-sanjeev-steel-industries-on-10-november-2009"},"modified":"2018-12-10T08:33:59","modified_gmt":"2018-12-10T03:03:59","slug":"smt-geeta-devi-anr-vs-ms-sanjeev-steel-industries-on-10-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geeta-devi-anr-vs-ms-sanjeev-steel-industries-on-10-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"Smt.Geeta Devi & Anr. vs M\/S Sanjeev Steel Industries & … on 10 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Smt.Geeta Devi & Anr. vs M\/S Sanjeev Steel Industries & … on 10 November, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: Hima Kohli<\/div>\n
*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n                         + RFA No. 184\/1990\n\n                                           Date of decision : 10.11.2009\n\nIN THE MATTER OF :\n\nSMT.GEETA DEVI & ANR.                           ..... Appellants\n                    Through: Mr. M.L.Bhargava, Advocate\n\n                   versus\n\n\nM\/S SANJEEV STEEL INDUSTRIES & ANR.                     ..... Respondents\n                    Through: Nemo\n\n\n\nCORAM\n\n* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI\n\n     1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may\n        be allowed to see the Judgment? No.\n\n     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No.\n\n     3. Whether the judgment should be\n        reported in the Digest? No.\n\n\nHIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL)\n<\/pre>\n
1.            The present appeal arises out of a judgment dated 25.9.1989<\/p>\n
passed by the learned Additional District Judge in a suit for recovery of a<\/p>\n
sum of Rs.30,000\/- filed by the appellants against the respondents.<\/p>\n
2.            The present appeal was admitted vide order dated 6.3.1991.<\/p>\n
However, no paper book has been filed by the appellants till date. The trial<\/p>\n
court record was also not requisitioned. Vide order dated 17.11.2008, it was<\/p>\n
noticed by the Division Bench that the respondents were not served and nor<\/p>\n
had the trial court record been requisitioned.       The trial court record was<\/p>\n
RFA No. 184\/1990                                                  Page 1 of 6<\/span>
\n directed to be requisitioned through a special messenger. It was reported<\/p>\n
that the same was already destroyed on 21.7.2003, in the process of<\/p>\n
weeding out of old records. In the order dated 5.2.2009, the submission of<\/p>\n
the counsel for the appellants was recorded that he would make efforts to<\/p>\n
prepare the appeal paper book on the basis of whatever documents he had.<\/p>\n
No paper book has been filed by the appellants till date. Steps were taken<\/p>\n
to serve the respondents by ordinary process as well as dasti, but in view of<\/p>\n
the affidavit of service filed by the appellants stating, inter alia, that the<\/p>\n
respondent No.2, who is the proprietor of respondent No.1 refused to accept<\/p>\n
notice, the respondents were deemed to be served. In the absence of the<\/p>\n
trial court record and on account of non-filing of the paper book, this Court<\/p>\n
has no option but refer to and rely upon the contents of the impugned<\/p>\n
judgment alone.\n<\/p>\n
3.          As noted in the impugned judgment, the facts averred by the<\/p>\n
appellants are that the appellant No.2 gave a loan of Rs.20,000\/- on<\/p>\n
07.07.1983 by issuing two cheques of Rs.10,000\/- each in the name of<\/p>\n
respondent No. 1 and the respondents agreed to repay the same with<\/p>\n
interest @ 18% p.a. As per the appellants, the respondents paid them<\/p>\n
interest upto August 1983 and failed to pay the same thereafter, despite<\/p>\n
repeated demands and requests. As a result, the appellants preferred a suit<\/p>\n
on 3.7.1986, claiming a sum of Rs.20,000\/- from the respondents as the<\/p>\n
principal amount and a sum of Rs.10,000\/- as interest @ 18% p.a.<\/p>\n
w.e.f.7.7.1983 onwards.\n<\/p>\n
4.          The aforesaid suit was contested by the respondents, who<\/p>\n
entered appearance and filed their written statement.        In their written<\/p>\n
RFA No. 184\/1990                                                Page 2 of 6<\/span>
\n statement, certain preliminary objections were raised with regard to the<\/p>\n
jurisdiction of the court stating that the suit was based on two different and<\/p>\n
distinct alleged transactions and that the suit was liable to be dismissed<\/p>\n
under the provisions of the Money Lending Act and also that the suit was<\/p>\n
barred by limitation. On merits, the respondents stated that in the month of<\/p>\n
December 1982, the appellant No.2 approached the respondent No.2 with a<\/p>\n
request to supply steel tubing of various dimensions and sizes through M\/s<\/p>\n
Geeta Steel Furniture, Vikas Puri, Delhi.   The appellant No.2 advanced a<\/p>\n
cheque of Rs.10,000\/- in the first week of January 1983, but the respondent<\/p>\n
No.2 requested the appellant No.2 to make full payment of the goods he<\/p>\n
wanted to have. The appellant No.2 kept delaying the matter for some time<\/p>\n
and requested for delivery of the goods on credit.      The respondent No.2<\/p>\n
refused to part with the steel tubes without the full payment. However, on<\/p>\n
the assurance of one Mr.Dinesh Kumar, an employee of the respondents and<\/p>\n
a near relation of the appellant No.2, the goods were finally supplied to the<\/p>\n
appellants, vide Bill No. 603 dated 7.7.1983 for Rs.30,013\/- (Ex.DW-3\/1).<\/p>\n
Against the aforesaid bill, the appellant No.2 handed over two cheques of<\/p>\n
Rs.10,000\/- each to the respondent No.2.      One cheque for an amount of<\/p>\n
Rs.10,000\/- was already given by the appellants to the defendants as<\/p>\n
advance against the order placed by them. However, on presentation, one of<\/p>\n
these cheque of Rs.10,000\/- was dishonoured. The respondent No.2 claimed<\/p>\n
that it was with great difficulty that he could recover the amount against the<\/p>\n
dishonoured cheque.\n<\/p>\n
RFA No. 184\/1990                                                Page 3 of 6<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 5.         On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues<\/p>\n
were framed in the suit:-\n<\/p>\n
           “1.Whether the pltff. gave a loan of Rs.20,000\/- to the
\n           deft?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           2.Whether the pltff.is entitled to charge interest @ 18%
\n           p.a.?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           3.Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try this case
\n           as the suit is based on two different and distinct
\n           transactions?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           4.Whether the suit is barred by time?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           5.Whether the suit is not maintainable because the
\n           petitioners are money lenders and not registered under
\n           the Money Lending Act?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           6.Whether the pltff. is entitled to recover the amount in
\n           suit?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           7.Relief.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
6.         In support of their case, the appellants produced appellant No.2<\/p>\n
who examined as PW-1.       On behalf of the respondents, four witnesses<\/p>\n
appeared. The respondent No.2, proprietor of respondent No.1 appeared as<\/p>\n
DW-3. The respondents also summoned and examined Sh.Rakesh Kumar,<\/p>\n
Clerk, Central Bank of India, Loha Mandi, Naraina, Delhi, as DW-1 and<\/p>\n
Sh.S.K.Gulati, Clerk, Central Bank of India, Ram Tirath Nagar, Jhandewalan,<\/p>\n
Delhi, as DW-2 and Sh.Jagat Narain Sharma as DW-4. The trial court arrived<\/p>\n
at a finding that the appellants had failed to lead any evidence to establish<\/p>\n
that the cheques were given as a loan to the respondents whereas the<\/p>\n
respondents had placed on record documents to establish that the goods<\/p>\n
were sold to the appellants for a sum of Rs.30,013\/- and the same were duly<\/p>\n
reflected in the sales tax returns.   Thus issues No.1 & 2 were decided<\/p>\n
RFA No. 184\/1990                                               Page 4 of 6<\/span>
\n against the appellants by holding that the appellants had failed to prove that<\/p>\n
a sum of Rs.20,000\/- was advanced to the respondents as a loan.<\/p>\n
7.          Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the appellants have<\/p>\n
preferred the present appeal.    Counsel for the appellants submits that the<\/p>\n
trial court erred in overlooking the submission made on behalf of the<\/p>\n
appellants that the appellant No.1 is a housewife whereas the appellant No.2<\/p>\n
is a teacher and hence no business transaction could have taken place<\/p>\n
between the parties, as claimed by the respondents. His second submission<\/p>\n
is that the signatures appearing on Bill No. 603, marked as Ex.DW-3\/1 filed<\/p>\n
by the respondents was denied by the appellants and hence reliance could<\/p>\n
not have been placed by the trial court on the said document, while<\/p>\n
returning the findings in respect of issue No.1.\n<\/p>\n
8.          The aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the appellants can<\/p>\n
only be examined upon scrutinizing the trial court record. As noted above,<\/p>\n
except for the impugned judgment dated 25.9.1989, there is no record<\/p>\n
available for perusal.   The appellants have failed to file the appeal paper<\/p>\n
book for the past 18 years. Despite non-filing of the appeal paper book, the<\/p>\n
Court had directed summoning of the trial court record on 17.11.2008, as it<\/p>\n
was not requisitioned earlier. But it was too late in the day as the trial court<\/p>\n
record had been weeded out on 21.7.2003. Despite liberty granted to them<\/p>\n
on 17.11.2008, no effort has been made by the appellants to prepare the<\/p>\n
appeal paper book on the basis of whatever documents they had. In the<\/p>\n
complete absence of any pleadings, documents and evidence, this Court is<\/p>\n
unable to examine the impugned judgment in the light of the submissions<\/p>\n
made by the appellants. The appellants have none other, but themselves<\/p>\n
RFA No. 184\/1990                                                 Page 5 of 6<\/span>
\n alone to blame for their present predicament.   In these circumstances, this<\/p>\n
Court has no option but to dismiss the appeal. The appeal is dismissed with<\/p>\n
no orders as to costs.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                                           (HIMA KOHLI)\nNOVEMBER 10, 2009                                            JUDGE\nmk\n\n\n\n\nRFA No. 184\/1990                                              Page 6 of 6<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Smt.Geeta Devi & Anr. vs M\/S Sanjeev Steel Industries & … on 10 November, 2009 Author: Hima Kohli * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA No. 184\/1990 Date of decision : 10.11.2009 IN THE MATTER OF : SMT.GEETA DEVI & ANR. ….. Appellants Through: Mr. M.L.Bhargava, Advocate […]<\/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-227575","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt.Geeta Devi & Anr. vs M\/S Sanjeev Steel Industries & ... on 10 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geeta-devi-anr-vs-ms-sanjeev-steel-industries-on-10-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt.Geeta Devi & Anr. vs M\/S Sanjeev Steel Industries & ... on 10 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geeta-devi-anr-vs-ms-sanjeev-steel-industries-on-10-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-10T03:03:59+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geeta-devi-anr-vs-ms-sanjeev-steel-industries-on-10-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geeta-devi-anr-vs-ms-sanjeev-steel-industries-on-10-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt.Geeta Devi & Anr. vs M\/S Sanjeev Steel Industries & … on 10 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-10T03:03:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geeta-devi-anr-vs-ms-sanjeev-steel-industries-on-10-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1274,\"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\/smt-geeta-devi-anr-vs-ms-sanjeev-steel-industries-on-10-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geeta-devi-anr-vs-ms-sanjeev-steel-industries-on-10-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geeta-devi-anr-vs-ms-sanjeev-steel-industries-on-10-november-2009\",\"name\":\"Smt.Geeta Devi & Anr. vs M\/S Sanjeev Steel Industries & ... on 10 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-10T03:03:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geeta-devi-anr-vs-ms-sanjeev-steel-industries-on-10-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geeta-devi-anr-vs-ms-sanjeev-steel-industries-on-10-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geeta-devi-anr-vs-ms-sanjeev-steel-industries-on-10-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt.Geeta Devi & Anr. vs M\/S Sanjeev Steel Industries & … on 10 November, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/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":"Smt.Geeta Devi & Anr. vs M\/S Sanjeev Steel Industries & ... on 10 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geeta-devi-anr-vs-ms-sanjeev-steel-industries-on-10-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt.Geeta Devi & Anr. vs M\/S Sanjeev Steel Industries & ... on 10 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geeta-devi-anr-vs-ms-sanjeev-steel-industries-on-10-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-10T03:03:59+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geeta-devi-anr-vs-ms-sanjeev-steel-industries-on-10-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geeta-devi-anr-vs-ms-sanjeev-steel-industries-on-10-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt.Geeta Devi & Anr. vs M\/S Sanjeev Steel Industries & … on 10 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-10T03:03:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geeta-devi-anr-vs-ms-sanjeev-steel-industries-on-10-november-2009"},"wordCount":1274,"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\/smt-geeta-devi-anr-vs-ms-sanjeev-steel-industries-on-10-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geeta-devi-anr-vs-ms-sanjeev-steel-industries-on-10-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geeta-devi-anr-vs-ms-sanjeev-steel-industries-on-10-november-2009","name":"Smt.Geeta Devi & Anr. vs M\/S Sanjeev Steel Industries & ... on 10 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-10T03:03:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geeta-devi-anr-vs-ms-sanjeev-steel-industries-on-10-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geeta-devi-anr-vs-ms-sanjeev-steel-industries-on-10-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-geeta-devi-anr-vs-ms-sanjeev-steel-industries-on-10-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt.Geeta Devi & Anr. vs M\/S Sanjeev Steel Industries & … on 10 November, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/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\/227575","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=227575"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/227575\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=227575"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=227575"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=227575"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}