{"id":230096,"date":"2009-10-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-10-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mongi-lal-vs-the-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-8-october-2009"},"modified":"2017-01-16T08:30:07","modified_gmt":"2017-01-16T03:00:07","slug":"mongi-lal-vs-the-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-8-october-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mongi-lal-vs-the-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-8-october-2009","title":{"rendered":"Mongi Lal vs The State Of Punjab And Another on 8 October, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Mongi Lal vs The State Of Punjab And Another on 8 October, 2009<\/div>\n
C.R. No.657 of 2006                              -1-\n\n     IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB\n             AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH\n\n                              C.R. No.657 of 2006\n                              Date of Decision: 08.10.2009\n\nMongi Lal                                          .....Petitioner\n                               Versus\n\nThe State of Punjab and another                        ...Respondents<\/pre>\n
Present: Mr. Sukhdeep Singh Brar, Advocate
\n         for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
         Ms. Monica Chhibbar Sharma, DAG, Punjab.\n<\/p>\n
CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN<\/p>\n
1.     Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
\n       the judgment ?\n<\/p>\n
2.    To be referred to the Reporters or not ?\n<\/p>\n
3.    Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?\n<\/p>\n
                          -.-\n<\/p>\n
K. KANNAN J.(ORAL)<\/p>\n
1.       The orders, which are assailed in revision are a direction<\/p>\n
given by the Collector, Gurdaspur to the mortgagor to pay<\/p>\n
additional duty of Rs.1,13,385\/- as duty payable on a simple<\/p>\n
mortgage deed in purported exercise of powers under Section 47-A<\/p>\n
of the Indian Stamp Act of 1899 and the subsequent order of<\/p>\n
Commissioner, Jalandhar confirming the Collector’s order. The<\/p>\n
document had been admittedly registered as a simple mortgage for<\/p>\n
securing a loan of Rs.57,50,000\/- with Indian Overseas Bank. The<\/p>\n
clause 1, after setting out the preamble of the simple mortgage<\/p>\n
deed reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
         “In consideration of the mortgagee bank, having agreed<\/p>\n
         to grant term loan of Rs.46,50,000\/- (rupees forty six<\/p>\n
         lacs   and   fifty   thousand   only)    and      cash   credit
\n C.R. No.657 of 2006                             -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
            hypothecation limit of Rs.11,00,000\/- (rupees eleven lacs<\/p>\n
            only   to   the    borrower\/party   of    2nd   part,   the<\/p>\n
            mortgagor\/party of Ist part hereby mortgages the land<\/p>\n
            described in the schedule of property given below, with<\/p>\n
            an intention that the same shall remain subject to the<\/p>\n
            charge of the mortgagee bank, as security for the said<\/p>\n
            loan of Rs.46,50,000\/- and cash credit hypothecation<\/p>\n
            limit of Rs.11,00,000\/- along with interest @15.50 per<\/p>\n
            cent per annum on monthly basis, together with costs,<\/p>\n
            insurance premium and other charges as per the<\/p>\n
            agreement between the mortgagee bank and borrower, as<\/p>\n
            reflected in the account of the borrower in the books of<\/p>\n
            mortgagee bank.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
2.       In clause 4 of the same document, the mortgagor has<\/p>\n
made a covenant with the mortgagee that the land mortgaged with<\/p>\n
the bank to secure a loan of Rs.57,50,000\/- was made with<\/p>\n
intention that the land shall remain mortgaged and subject to<\/p>\n
charge of mortgagee bank till the complete repayment of the entire<\/p>\n
outstanding amount, standing due and outstanding payable by the<\/p>\n
borrower.      Para 6 of the simple mortgage deed allows the<\/p>\n
mortgagor to retain possession of the property and cultivate the<\/p>\n
land. The stamp duty that had been originally collected on the<\/p>\n
document appears to have been Rs.11,500\/- but later as the<\/p>\n
impugned order of the Collector shows, the Sub-Registrar,<\/p>\n
Gurdaspur had made a reference to the Collector about the stamp
\n C.R. No.657 of 2006                             -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
duty and the registration fee, which was deposited. The order of<\/p>\n
the Collector recites that the Sub-Registrar had reported that an<\/p>\n
audit party has shown a balance of amount to be collected, as<\/p>\n
required to be done under Article 40 (b) of the Indian Stamp Act<\/p>\n
of 1899. A clarification had been sought by the Sub Registrar that<\/p>\n
resulted in the proceedings to be issued by the Collector,<\/p>\n
Gurdaspur for recovery of deficit stamp duty.         The mortgagor<\/p>\n
sought to defend the adequacy of stamp duty by reference to<\/p>\n
Article 40 (c) and contended that only half a per cent of duty was<\/p>\n
leviable which had been done and there was no deficit in payment<\/p>\n
of duty. The Collector rejected the contention and directed the<\/p>\n
collection of duty as per Article 40 (b). This order of the Collector<\/p>\n
was challenged before the Commissioner, Jallandhar Division,<\/p>\n
Jallandhar who affirmed the order of the Collector and dismissed<\/p>\n
the appeal.    The decisions passed by the Collector and the<\/p>\n
Commissioner have now been challenged in civil revision.<\/p>\n
3.       Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner<\/p>\n
took me through the relevant provisions under Article 40 that is<\/p>\n
the charging Section for levy of duty for simple mortgagors.<\/p>\n
Article 40 reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
         “Mortgage     Deed,    not   being    [AN    AGREEMENT<\/p>\n
         RELATING TO DEPOSIT OF TITLE-DEEDS, PAWN OR<\/p>\n
         PLEDGE       (No.6)]    BOTTOMRY         BOND      (No.16),<\/p>\n
         MORTGAGE OF A CROP (No.41), RESPONDENTIA<\/p>\n
         BOND (No.56), OR SECURITY BOND (No.57)-<\/p>\n
\n C.R. No.657 of 2006                                  -4-<\/span>\n\n\n          (a) when possession of the         The same duty as a Conveyance\n          property or any part of the        (No.23) for a consideration\n          property comprised in such         equal to the amount secured by\n          deed is given by the mortgagor     such deed.\n          or agreed to be given;\n<\/pre>\n
          (b) when [***] possession is The same duty as a Bond
\n          not given or agreed to be given (No.15) for the amount secured
\n          as aforesaid;                   by such deed.\n<\/p>\n
          Explanation- A mortgagor who
\n          gives to the mortgagee a
\n          power-of-attorney to collect
\n          rents or a lease of the property
\n          mortgaged or part thereof, is
\n          deemed to give possession
\n          within the meaning of this
\n          Article.\n<\/p>\n
          (c)     when a collateral or
\n          auxiliary or additional or
\n          substituted security, or by way
\n          of further assurance for the
\n          above      mentioned     purpose
\n          where the principal or primary
\n          security is duly stamped-\n<\/p>\n
          for every sum secured not exceeding Rs.1,000;       Rs.10\/-.
\n          and for every Rs.1,000 or part
\n          thereof secured in excess of Rs.1,000.              Rs.10\/-\n<\/p>\n
                     Exemptions
\n          (1) Instruments, executed by persons taking advances under the
\n          Lands Improvement Loans Act, 1883 (10 of 1883), or the
\n          Agriculturists’ Loan Act, 1884 (12 of 1884) or by their sureties as
\n          security for the repayment of such advances.
\n          (2) Letter of hypothecation accompanying a bill of exchange.<\/p>\n
4.       According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the<\/p>\n
property was admittedly not handed over and it was offered as<\/p>\n
only collateral or auxiliary or additional or substituted security and<\/p>\n
therefore, only Article 40 (c) must be operative. According to him,<\/p>\n
the undertaking in the mortgage by the mortgagor itself must be<\/p>\n
taken as the primary security and the property which was offered<\/p>\n
as a mortgage was a collateral security and therefore, Article 40 (c)<\/p>\n
would operate. In my view, such an interpretation is not warranted
\n C.R. No.657 of 2006                              -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
for, Article 40 (c) will be attracted only in cases where there is<\/p>\n
already a primary security and such primary security is duly<\/p>\n
stamped. If an additional or auxiliary security or a substituted<\/p>\n
security is made through an instrument, it is then that Article 40 (c)<\/p>\n
will be attracted. The reference to primary security cannot be a<\/p>\n
personal undertaking for, the Section itself contemplates a primary<\/p>\n
security which is “duly stamped”. It is nobody’s case that there<\/p>\n
was any other bond on the security of the same property and stamp<\/p>\n
duty had been collected. If the property had been handed over<\/p>\n
possession to the mortgagee, then Article 40 (a) would be<\/p>\n
attracted. If the property is held back by the mortgagor, it will be<\/p>\n
Article 40 (b) and in a case where a property is retained by the<\/p>\n
mortgagor and a primary security had already been granted to the<\/p>\n
mortgagee and the property is again offered as an additional<\/p>\n
security or a collateral security or auxiliary, it is then that Article<\/p>\n
40 (c) will operate.    Instruments of sub- mortgages or puisne<\/p>\n
mortgages will be instances, which will be attracted to Article 40<\/p>\n
(c) and the property which is offered as a security by the<\/p>\n
mortgagor to the mortgagee for the first time shall attract only<\/p>\n
Article 40 (b).     The assessment by the Collector, under the<\/p>\n
circumstances, was appropriate and the duty collected by the<\/p>\n
registering officer was erroneous and required to be corrected.<\/p>\n
6.        Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner refers to a<\/p>\n
decision of this Court in Abhinav Kumar Vs. State of Haryana<\/p>\n
and others 2001 (1) RCR (Civil) 91 to the effect that the
\n C.R. No.657 of 2006                             -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
Registering Officer cannot make a reference after 8 days of<\/p>\n
registering the instrument. The said decision also refers to an<\/p>\n
earlier ruling in Civil Revision No.4412 of 1998, Vijya Ram Vs.<\/p>\n
State of Haryana and others stating that the consistent view of<\/p>\n
this Court is that there is no provision under the Stamp Act<\/p>\n
wherein deficit stamp duty could be recovered by the registering<\/p>\n
authority either from the vendor or from the vendee subsequent to<\/p>\n
and after the registration of the      sale deed.     The consistent<\/p>\n
authority as cited in the judgment is no doubt a correct statement<\/p>\n
of law. However, it is the applicability of the correct position was,<\/p>\n
in my humble view wrongly applied in Abhinav Kumar ‘s case<\/p>\n
(supra).   The Registering Officer cannot demand an additional<\/p>\n
duty after the registration is made but the Collector’s power to<\/p>\n
demand deficit and security is available under Section 47A (3) of<\/p>\n
the Stamp Act. The “Registering Officer” mentioned in Section<\/p>\n
47A(1) and the “Collector” mentioned in Section 47A(3) of the<\/p>\n
Stamp Act are distinct authorities with different powers.        The<\/p>\n
decision in Abhinav Kumar’s case (supra) conflicts with bare<\/p>\n
reading of statutory provision and does not, in my humble view,<\/p>\n
state the law correctly.    The Collector’s power to demand and<\/p>\n
secure the deficit is available for a period of five years, which can<\/p>\n
be either on his own motion or on a reference. Section 47A(1) and<\/p>\n
Section 47A(3) of the Stamp Act are reads as follows:<\/p>\n
           “Section 47-A. Instruments under-valued, how to be
\n           dealt with. – (1) If the Registering Officer, appointed
\n           under the Registration Act, 1908, while registering any
\n C.R. No.657 of 2006                            -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
         instrument, has reason to believe that the market-value of
\n         the property, which is the subject-matter of such
\n         instrument, has not been truly set forth in the instrument,
\n         he may after registering such instrument, refer the same
\n         to the Collector for determination of market-value of
\n         such property and the proper duty payable thereon.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         (2) ……………..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         (3) The Collector may, suo motu, within five years from
\n         the date of registration of any instrument, not already
\n         referred to him under sub-section (1), call for and
\n         examine the instrument for the purpose of satisfying
\n         himself as to the correctness of the market-value of the
\n         property, which is the subject matter of any such
\n         instrument, and the duty payable thereon and if, after
\n         such examination he has reason to believe that the market
\n         value of such property has not been truly set forth in the
\n         instrument he may determine the market-value of such
\n         property and the duty as aforesaid in accordance with the
\n         procedure provided for in sub-section (2).             The
\n         difference, if any, in the amount of duty, shall be payable
\n         by the person liable to pay the duty:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to
\n         any instrument, registered prior to the date of the
\n         commencement of the Indian Stamp (Madhya Pradesh
\n         Amendment) Act, 1975.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
7.       The registration of the mortgage was made on<\/p>\n
28.08.2002 and the proceedings of the Collector taken within the<\/p>\n
stipulated period provided under Section 47A (3) is perfectly<\/p>\n
valid.\n<\/p>\n
8.       The orders of the Collector and the Commissioner are<\/p>\n
maintained and the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs.<\/p>\n
                                               (K. KANNAN)
\n                                                 JUDGE
\nOctober 08, 2009
\nPankaj*\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Mongi Lal vs The State Of Punjab And Another on 8 October, 2009 C.R. No.657 of 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.657 of 2006 Date of Decision: 08.10.2009 Mongi Lal …..Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab and another …Respondents Present: Mr. […]<\/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":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-230096","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMongi Lal vs The State Of Punjab And Another on 8 October, 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\/mongi-lal-vs-the-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-8-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mongi Lal vs The State Of Punjab And Another on 8 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mongi-lal-vs-the-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-8-october-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=\"2009-10-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-16T03:00:07+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mongi-lal-vs-the-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-8-october-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mongi-lal-vs-the-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-8-october-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mongi Lal vs The State Of Punjab And Another on 8 October, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-16T03:00:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mongi-lal-vs-the-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-8-october-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1723,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mongi-lal-vs-the-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-8-october-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mongi-lal-vs-the-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-8-october-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mongi-lal-vs-the-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-8-october-2009\",\"name\":\"Mongi Lal vs The State Of Punjab And Another on 8 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-16T03:00:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mongi-lal-vs-the-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-8-october-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mongi-lal-vs-the-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-8-october-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mongi-lal-vs-the-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-8-october-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mongi Lal vs The State Of Punjab And Another on 8 October, 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:\\\/\\\/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":"Mongi Lal vs The State Of Punjab And Another on 8 October, 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\/mongi-lal-vs-the-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-8-october-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mongi Lal vs The State Of Punjab And Another on 8 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mongi-lal-vs-the-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-8-october-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-10-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-16T03:00:07+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mongi-lal-vs-the-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-8-october-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mongi-lal-vs-the-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-8-october-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mongi Lal vs The State Of Punjab And Another on 8 October, 2009","datePublished":"2009-10-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-16T03:00:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mongi-lal-vs-the-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-8-october-2009"},"wordCount":1723,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mongi-lal-vs-the-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-8-october-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mongi-lal-vs-the-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-8-october-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mongi-lal-vs-the-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-8-october-2009","name":"Mongi Lal vs The State Of Punjab And Another on 8 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-10-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-16T03:00:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mongi-lal-vs-the-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-8-october-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mongi-lal-vs-the-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-8-october-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mongi-lal-vs-the-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-8-october-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mongi Lal vs The State Of Punjab And Another on 8 October, 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:\/\/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\/230096","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=230096"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/230096\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=230096"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=230096"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=230096"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}