{"id":227792,"date":"2010-11-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chand-sehgal-vs-vinod-kumar-paul-ors-on-15-november-2010"},"modified":"2016-08-07T16:51:06","modified_gmt":"2016-08-07T11:21:06","slug":"chand-sehgal-vs-vinod-kumar-paul-ors-on-15-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chand-sehgal-vs-vinod-kumar-paul-ors-on-15-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"Chand Sehgal vs Vinod Kumar Paul &amp; Ors on 15 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Delhi High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Chand Sehgal vs Vinod Kumar Paul &amp; Ors on 15 November, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Mool Chand Garg<\/div>\n<pre>*         IN THE    HIGH     COURT     OF    DELHI    AT   NEW DELHI\n\n+                              FAO.No.377\/2010\n\n%                                                    Decided On: 15.11.2010\n\nCHAND SEHGAL                                                    .... Petitioner\n                       Through: Mr. I.C. Tiwari, Adv.\n\n                                   Versus\n\nVINOD KUMAR PAUL &amp; ORS.                                     .... Respondents<\/pre>\n<p>                Through: None.\n<\/p>\n<p>CORAM:\n<\/p>\n<p>HON&#8217;BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG<\/p>\n<p>1.     Whether reporters of Local papers may be<br \/>\n       allowed to see the judgment?\n<\/p>\n<p>2.     To be referred to the reporter or not?\n<\/p>\n<p>3.     Whether the judgment should be reported in<br \/>\n       the Digest?\n<\/p>\n<p>:      MOOL CHAND GARG,J.(Oral)<\/p>\n<p>1.     The appellant claims to have purchased two plots bearing No.73-<br \/>\n74 measuring 250 sq. yards each located at Khasra No.51\/43, at Village<br \/>\nBaprola, Delhi Estate Colony, Janak Vihar within jurisdiction of P.S.<br \/>\nNihar Vihar (Now, P.S. Ranhola), New Delhi. The sale was effected by<br \/>\nway of an agreement to sale and receipt besides General Power of<br \/>\nAttorney which was registered. The plot was taken into possession by<br \/>\nencircling the same by barbed wire.         According to the appellant this<br \/>\npurchase was made at the instance of respondent No.1 and 2 on<br \/>\n24.07.1989.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.     It is also the case of the appellant that in the year 1992 i.e. after 3<br \/>\nyears despite requesting respondents No.1 and 2 about return of the<br \/>\ntitle deeds they did not return the same.         It was in 2009 that the<br \/>\nappellant claims to have known that the two plots were sold by<br \/>\nrespondents No.1 and 2.        It is thereafter, the appellant lodged FIR<br \/>\nNo.1687\/2009 under Sections 420\/406\/323\/504\/342 IPC at P.S.<br \/>\nIndirapuram, Ghaziabad against respondents No.1 and 2. It is stated<br \/>\nthat, as informed by respondents No.1 and 2, they had sold the plots in<br \/>\nquestion to respondent No.3. It is, thereafter, the appellant instituted a<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">FAO No. 377\/2010                                                  Page 1 of 4<\/span><br \/>\n suit in the month of September, 2009 and also lodged another FIR<br \/>\nNo.154\/2010 at P.S. Ranhola, Delhi against respondents No.1 and 2.<br \/>\nThe respondent No.3 in his written statement has taken a stand that<br \/>\nthe two plots were sold through him in his capacity as a property<br \/>\ndealer.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.     In the suit filed by the appellant, he has prayed for declaration in<br \/>\nher favour and against respondents No.1 to 3 thereby declaring that the<br \/>\ntitle deeds executed by respondents No.1 and 2 or either by them in<br \/>\nfavour of respondent No.3 or someone else with respect to the said plots<br \/>\nNo.73-74 are null and void.      He also prayed for relief of permanent<br \/>\ninjunction and possession.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.     Along with the suit, the appellant also filed an application under<br \/>\nOrder 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC. The said application was disposed of by<br \/>\nthe learned Additional District Judge vide order dated 15.07.2010. By<br \/>\nthe said order, the learned ADJ has dismissed the application.               The<br \/>\nrelevant facts which have been noticed by the learned ADJ are that the<br \/>\nplots in question were sold by respondent No.3 on behalf of respondent<br \/>\nNo.1 after receiving consideration and on the basis of a attorney<br \/>\nexecuted by the appellant in favour of respondent No.1.             It was,<br \/>\ntherefore, pleaded that respondent No.3 was merely acting as a property<br \/>\ndealer and allowed the sale of the property. The trial Court after taking<br \/>\nnote of the execution of its registered General Power of Attorney by the<br \/>\nappellant in favour of respondent No.1 which permitted respondent<br \/>\nNo.1 to dispose of all the properties of the appellant, observed that in<br \/>\nthe absence of anything on record which may show that the said power<br \/>\nto sell the property was revoked by the appellant before filing of the suit<br \/>\nin 2009, the question of further restraining respondents No.1 to 3 from<br \/>\nalienating\/disposing of the property any further is without any cause of<br \/>\naction for the reason that the property stands already sold by virtue of<br \/>\nthe power given by the appellant to respondent No.1. While referring to<br \/>\nthe basic principles which are required to be gone into while granting<br \/>\nad interim injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2, the ADJ made the<br \/>\nfollowing observations:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>       &#8220;14. It is also a well settled principle of law that where both<br \/>\n       sides are exposed to irreparable injury, ending trial, the<br \/>\n       courts have to strike a just balance as held in Mahadeo<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">FAO No. 377\/2010                                               Page 2 of 4<\/span><br \/>\n        Savlaram Shelke Vs. Pune Municipaul Corporation (1995) 3<br \/>\n       SCC 33, it is urged that the court considering an application<br \/>\n       for an interlocutory injunction has four factors to consider:<br \/>\n       first, whether the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm if<br \/>\n       the injunction is denied; secondly, whether this harm<br \/>\n       outweighs any irreparable harm that the defendant would<br \/>\n       suffer from an injunction; thirdly, the parties relative<br \/>\n       prospects of success on the merits; fourthly, any public<br \/>\n       interest involved in the decision. The central objective of<br \/>\n       interlocutory injunctions should therefore be seen as<br \/>\n       reducing the risk that rights will be irreparably harmed<br \/>\n       during the inevitable delay of litigation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>       15. A prima facie should be made out. The mere institution<br \/>\n       of a suit does not entitle the plaintiff to any relief. Plaintiff<br \/>\n       must satisfy the court that there is fair and substantial<br \/>\n       question to be tried. In the instant case, a registered GPA dt.<br \/>\n       13.5.83 was duly executed by plaintiff in favor of defendant<br \/>\n       no.1. It is also pertinent to mention here that on the basis of<br \/>\n       said registered GPA, the defendant no.1 had already sold<br \/>\n       those plots bearing no. 73 &amp; 74 through defendant no.3 in<br \/>\n       the year 2005. It is also pertinent to mention that said<br \/>\n       registered GPA dt. 13.5.83 has never been cancelled by the<br \/>\n       plaintiff till today.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>       16. Admittedly as per the plaint, defendants are not in the<br \/>\n       possession of the suit property as the defendants have<br \/>\n       already sold the suit property on the instructions of plaintiff<br \/>\n       on the basis of registered GPA dt. 13.5.83 as submitted by<br \/>\n       defendant no. 1 to 3.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>       17. I am of the view that prima facie is not to be confused<br \/>\n       with prima facie title. In the instant case, substantial<br \/>\n       question raised by the parties which at first sight needs<br \/>\n       investigation and can be established only after leading the<br \/>\n       evidence when the case comes to the trial. The balance of<br \/>\n       convenience also does not lie in favor of the plaintiff as the<br \/>\n       defendants are not in possession of the suit property as the<br \/>\n       same has already been sold in the year 2005.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>       18. Considering facts and circumstances of the case and<br \/>\n       relying upon the judgment Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke Vs.<br \/>\n       Pune Municipaul Corporation (1995) 3 SCC 33 (Supra), I am<br \/>\n       of the view that the plaintiff at this stage has failed to make<br \/>\n       out a prima facie case in her favour as prayed. The plaintiff<br \/>\n       has not been able to satisfy any of the ingredients of Order<br \/>\n       39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC in the present case and is not entitled<br \/>\n       to the interim relief. Hence, the interim application under<br \/>\n       order 39 Rule 1 &amp; 2 CPC is hereby dismissed.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>5.     I find no infirmity.   Consequently, when the appellant has not<br \/>\nbeen able to establish the prima facie case and the property in question<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">FAO No. 377\/2010                                                 Page 3 of 4<\/span><br \/>\n stands already sold to a third party and the suit in question has also<br \/>\nbeen filed by the appellant after a long time i.e. in 2009, it cannot be<br \/>\nsaid that there was any infirmity in the order passed by the learned<br \/>\nADJ in having refused injunction as prayed for.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.     Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed at this stage itself.<br \/>\nC.M.18733\/2010<br \/>\n       Dismissed as having become infructuous.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                   MOOL CHAND GARG,J<br \/>\nNOVEMBER 15, 2010<br \/>\n&#8216;anb&#8217;<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">FAO No. 377\/2010                                                Page 4 of 4<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court Chand Sehgal vs Vinod Kumar Paul &amp; Ors on 15 November, 2010 Author: Mool Chand Garg * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO.No.377\/2010 % Decided On: 15.11.2010 CHAND SEHGAL &#8230;. Petitioner Through: Mr. I.C. Tiwari, Adv. Versus VINOD KUMAR PAUL &amp; ORS. &#8230;. Respondents Through: None. CORAM: [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-227792","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Chand Sehgal vs Vinod Kumar Paul &amp; Ors on 15 November, 2010 - 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\/chand-sehgal-vs-vinod-kumar-paul-ors-on-15-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chand Sehgal vs Vinod Kumar Paul &amp; Ors on 15 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chand-sehgal-vs-vinod-kumar-paul-ors-on-15-november-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-11-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-07T11:21:06+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chand-sehgal-vs-vinod-kumar-paul-ors-on-15-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chand-sehgal-vs-vinod-kumar-paul-ors-on-15-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chand Sehgal vs Vinod Kumar Paul &amp; Ors on 15 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-07T11:21:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chand-sehgal-vs-vinod-kumar-paul-ors-on-15-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1179,\"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\\\/chand-sehgal-vs-vinod-kumar-paul-ors-on-15-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chand-sehgal-vs-vinod-kumar-paul-ors-on-15-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chand-sehgal-vs-vinod-kumar-paul-ors-on-15-november-2010\",\"name\":\"Chand Sehgal vs Vinod Kumar Paul &amp; Ors on 15 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-07T11:21:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chand-sehgal-vs-vinod-kumar-paul-ors-on-15-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chand-sehgal-vs-vinod-kumar-paul-ors-on-15-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chand-sehgal-vs-vinod-kumar-paul-ors-on-15-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chand Sehgal vs Vinod Kumar Paul &amp; Ors on 15 November, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Chand Sehgal vs Vinod Kumar Paul &amp; Ors on 15 November, 2010 - 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\/chand-sehgal-vs-vinod-kumar-paul-ors-on-15-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chand Sehgal vs Vinod Kumar Paul &amp; Ors on 15 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chand-sehgal-vs-vinod-kumar-paul-ors-on-15-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-07T11:21:06+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chand-sehgal-vs-vinod-kumar-paul-ors-on-15-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chand-sehgal-vs-vinod-kumar-paul-ors-on-15-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chand Sehgal vs Vinod Kumar Paul &amp; Ors on 15 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-07T11:21:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chand-sehgal-vs-vinod-kumar-paul-ors-on-15-november-2010"},"wordCount":1179,"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\/chand-sehgal-vs-vinod-kumar-paul-ors-on-15-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chand-sehgal-vs-vinod-kumar-paul-ors-on-15-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chand-sehgal-vs-vinod-kumar-paul-ors-on-15-november-2010","name":"Chand Sehgal vs Vinod Kumar Paul &amp; Ors on 15 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-07T11:21:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chand-sehgal-vs-vinod-kumar-paul-ors-on-15-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chand-sehgal-vs-vinod-kumar-paul-ors-on-15-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chand-sehgal-vs-vinod-kumar-paul-ors-on-15-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chand Sehgal vs Vinod Kumar Paul &amp; Ors on 15 November, 2010"}]},{"@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\/227792","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=227792"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/227792\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=227792"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=227792"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=227792"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}