{"id":232106,"date":"2007-07-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-07-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sandeep-polymers-pvt-ltd-vs-bajaj-auto-ltd-and-ors-on-20-july-2007"},"modified":"2016-12-14T02:31:02","modified_gmt":"2016-12-13T21:01:02","slug":"sandeep-polymers-pvt-ltd-vs-bajaj-auto-ltd-and-ors-on-20-july-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sandeep-polymers-pvt-ltd-vs-bajaj-auto-ltd-and-ors-on-20-july-2007","title":{"rendered":"Sandeep Polymers Pvt. Ltd vs Bajaj Auto Ltd. And Ors on 20 July, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Sandeep Polymers Pvt. Ltd vs Bajaj Auto Ltd. And Ors on 20 July, 2007<\/div>\n
Author: . A Pasayat<\/div>\n
Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, Lokeshwar Singh Panta<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  7749 of 2004\n\nPETITIONER:\nSandeep Polymers Pvt. Ltd\n\nRESPONDENT:\nBajaj Auto Ltd. and Ors\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 20\/07\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nDr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.\tChallenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a
\nlearned Single Judge of the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur
\nBench, directing return of the plaint, as according to the High
\nCourt the Court at Nagpur had no jurisdiction to entertain a
\npart of the claims made in the suit. The plaintiff was granted
\nliberty to represent the plaint in the Court having jurisdiction
\nat Pune. The trial Court was directed to follow the procedure
\nunder Order 7 Rule 10-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
\n(in short the ‘CPC’)  for return of the plaint to the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tBackground facts in a nutshell are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\tThe appellant filed a special civil suit No.881\/91 for
\nrecovery of Rs.79,63,99,736\/- as damages for breach of
\ncontract. The stand of the plaintiff in the plaint was that it is
\nthe manufacturer of moulds and high precision plastic
\ncomponent for the industrial application specially for use by
\nautomobile industry. It has its manufacturing operations at
\nNagpur and the defendants have entered into an agreement
\nwith it for lifetime supply of its products. it has made huge
\ninvestments at Nagpur amounting to rupees thirty crores and
\nthat it has a most sophisticated factory at Nagpur. Plaintiff is
\nsupplying its products to the Defendant No.1 for almost two
\ndecades. The defendant no.1 vide registered letter dated
\n03.11.1999, which was received by the plaintiff at its Nagpur
\noffice on 11.11.1999, has terminated its agreement with the
\nplaintiff. Due to the said termination, the machineries which
\nwere installed by the plaintiff specifically for manufacturing
\nmoulds for the defendant No.1 would remain idle and that
\nthere will be no use of its unit installed at Nagpur. The
\nplaintiff, therefore, contended that it is entitled to
\ncompensation of damages inasmuch, as the defendant No.1’s
\naction of refusing to honour its promise and assurance was
\nillegal and arbitrary<\/p>\n
 The defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 filed an application under
\nSection 9A read with Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC submitting
\ntherein that the suit was clearly abuse of process of law and
\nwas not maintainable. The registered office of defendants 1
\nand 2 was at Pune and that the defendant Nos.3 and 4 are the
\nresidents of Pune, whereas the defendant No.5 has its
\nregistered office at Tokyo (Japan). The lease agreements
\nbetween defendant No.1 and the plaintiff had been executed at
\nPune, and supplies were made by the plaintiff to defendant
\nNo.1 at Pune\/Aurangabad, i.e. outside the territorial
\njurisdiction of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur and,
\ntherefore, it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit
\nand the suit deserves to be dismissed summarily. It was
\ndenied by the respondents-defendants that the plaintiff has
\nset up its factory at Nagpur at the instance of defendant No.1.
\nIt was further contended that the plaintiff has deliberately
\nsuppressed the fact that it has its registered office at Mumbai
\nand neither of the parties to the suit resided at Nagpur. The
\nrespondents  further averred in the said application that the
\nparties by consent have restricted the jurisdiction to Pune
\nCourt only. The said term pertaining to jurisdiction is
\ncontained in all the purchase orders placed by defendant No.1
\nwith the plaintiff. Plaintiff had deliberately filed a part of the
\npurchase order and suppressed that part of the purchase
\norder from the Court which contained the clause regarding
\njurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
The non-applicant\/plaintiff filed its reply to the said
\napplication reiterating the averments made in the plaint. It
\nreiterated that it had made huge investments at Nagpur on the
\nassurance made by the defendant No.1. The plaintiff, further,
\nsubmitted in its reply that the cause of action for suit has
\narisen substantially, if not wholly, within the territorial
\njurisdiction of the learned Court at Nagpur. Goods were
\nsupplied from Nagpur and the cost thereof is received at
\nNagpur and that the goods have also been delivered at Nagpur.
\nSubstantial part of the claims in the plaint was on account of
\ndamages etc. for breach of Memorandum of Understanding (in
\nshort ‘MoU’) and the breach of assurances given by the
\ndefendant No.1. The plaintiff, therefore, submitted that if the
\nsubstantial cause of action arises out of damages on other
\ncounts and if the small part of the claim arises out of
\npurchase order, the claim cannot be separated and, therefore,
\nit was in the interest of justice that the Court should entertain
\nthe present suit.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tThe learned trial Court, after considering the rival
\ncontentions raised on behalf of the parties, found that the suit
\nwas outcome of the damages caused to the Unit of the plaintiff
\nbecause of the breach of the contract. He further observed that
\nthe letter of termination was received by the plaintiff at
\nNagpur. It is further observed in the order that the term about
\njurisdiction pointed out on behalf of the defendants was
\nrelating to the breach of contract under order of purchase and
\nnot relating to the damage caused to the plaintiff by
\ntermination of the entire contract which was admittedly for the
\nlife time. The learned trial Court, therefore, held that the cause
\nof action to file present suit arises at Nagpur and, therefore,
\ndirected the suit to proceed according to law.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tQuestioning for quashing the order passed by Joint Civil
\nJudge, Senior Division, Nagpur Civil Revision was filed before
\nthe High Court by the respondents. It was submitted that the
\nsubstantial part of the claim arises out of four purchase orders
\nwhich came to be placed by defendant No.1 with the plaintiff.
\nAll the purchase orders ousted the jurisdiction of all Courts
\nexcept the Court at Pune. Except these purchase orders there
\nwas no other written contract.   Since the suit is mainly based
\non the cause of action arising out of said purchase orders
\nwhich ousted the jurisdiction of Courts except the Court
\nsituated at Pune, though there may be ancillary cause of
\naction the ouster clause in the purchase order governs the
\nproceedings between the parties.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tReference was made to various decisions of this Court in
\nHakam Singh v. M\/s Gammon (India) Ltd. (AIR<\/a> 1971 SC 740),
\nHanil Era Textiles Ltd. v. Puromatic Filters (P) Ltd.<\/a> (2004 (4)
\nSCC 671) and New Moga Transport Company v. United India
\nInsurance Co. Ltd. And Ors.<\/a>  (2004 (4) SCC 677). The plaintiff-
\nappellant before this Court referred to various Mou dated
\n6.11.1996 and submitted that the same related to the
\ntechnical terms between the parties. As per the said terms the
\nplaintiff was entitled to receive 7 moulds but it was given 4
\nmoulds. There was no ouster clause in the said MoU and,
\ntherefore, suit for breach of terms would not be covered by the
\nouster clause.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tReference has also been made to various
\ncommunications dated 9.10.1993, 25.5.1996, 30.11.1996 and
\n23.9.1997 to substantiate the stand that assurance was given
\nby defendant No.1 to the plaintiff that the plaintiff would be its
\nlife time supplier. Relying on the provisions of   Order 2 Rule 2
\nof CPC it was submitted that the suit is required to include the
\nwhole of the claim which the plaintiff was entitled to make in
\nrespect of the cause of action. Therefore, it was necessary for it
\nto join all causes of action and since only insignificant part of
\ncause of action was governed  by the purchase orders the suit
\nfiled at Nagpur will not be governed by the ouster clause.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tThe High Court referred to various purchase orders and
\nconditions and averments in the plaint.  With reference to the
\naverments held that the claims were referable to the purchase
\norders. The averments in para 29 indicated that they were
\nreferable to MoU dated 6.11.1996. According to the High Court
\nperusal of the purchase orders indicated that the said MoU
\nwas also a part of the purchase orders. With reference to
\nCondition No.20 of the purchase orders it was held that only
\nthe Pune Court had jurisdiction in all the matters arising out
\nof the purchase orders. Accordingly, the High Court held that
\nthe suit is based on several causes of action and it was open to
\nthe plaintiff to file a suit for causes of action not related to
\npurchase order at Nagpur and to file another suit arising out
\nof cause of action related to the purchase orders at Pune.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tAccordingly, the order was passed for return of the
\nplaint.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tIn support of the appeal, with reference to the order of
\nthe trial Court it was submitted that in para 60 it was
\ncategorically held that the court at Nagpur had jurisdiction to
\ntry the suit. The High Court accepted that by operation of
\nOrder 2 Rule 2 CPC it was permissible to raise several causes
\nof action and there was no ouster clause in that sense. The
\nmain relief is for damages and costs incurred. The purchase
\norder related only to part of the relief claimed.  Therefore, it
\nwas submitted that the trial Court’s view should not have been
\ninterfered with.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tIn response, learned counsel for the respondents
\nsubmitted that the High Court has noted that the purchase
\norders clearly excluded the jurisdiction and, therefore,   the
\nHigh Court’s view is irreversible.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tThe relevant portion of the purchase orders which are
\nidentical reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“NOTES:\n<\/p>\n
1. THE MOULDS WILL BE DESIGNED AND
\nMANUFACTURED AS PER THE FOLLOWING:\n<\/p>\n
(1) THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
\n(MOU) DATED 6 NOVEMBER 1996, EXECUTED
\nBETWEEN M\/S BAL M\/S MARUBENT
\nCORPORATION,
\nM\/S TAKAHASHI SEIKI CO., LTD.,  M\/S TOKYO
\nR&D CO. LTD. AND M\/S SUNDEEP POLYMERS
\nPVT. LTD. AND AMENDMENT THERETO AS MAY
\nBE AGREED TO BETWEEN THE PARTIES FROM
\nTIME TO TIME AS PER THE PROJECT NEEDS.\n<\/p>\n
(2) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT DATED
\n11\/2\/97 BETWEEN TAKAHASHI SEIKI CO. LTD.
\nAND SUNDEEP POLYMERS LTD.\n<\/p>\n
TERMS AND CONDITIONS\n<\/p>\n
1. \tPRICE
\nPRICES ARE FIRM AND FOR FREE DELIVERY
\nAT OUR WORKS\n<\/p>\n
6.\tPAYMENT
\n\t60% ADVANCE ALONGWITH THE ORDER.\n<\/p>\n
\t20% AFTER SUBMISSION OF T1 SAMPLE
\n20% AFTER FINAL APPROVAL OF SAMPLE
\nAND MOULD<\/p>\n
12.\tGUARANTEE
\nMOULD SHOULD BE GUARANTEED FOR
\nQUALITY, PRECISION, RELIABILITY AND ALSO
\nFOR WORKMANSHIP AND PERFORMANCE, USE
\nOF MATERIAL AND DESIGN WE SHOULD BE ABLE
\nTO GET MINIMUM 300,000 PIECES WITH NORMAL
\nMAINTENANCE.\n<\/p>\n
CONDITIONS\n<\/p>\n
15. The prices and terms and conditions in this
\norder will be taken as firm and cannot be changed
\ntill the order is fully executed.\n<\/p>\n
20. This contract shall be deemed to have been
\nentered into at Pune and only Pune Courts will have
\njurisdiction in all matters arising out of this Order.”\n<\/p>\n
\tSome of the pleadings in the plaint also need to be noted.
\n“29. In the year 1995 or near about, the lst
\ndefendant finalized the new model scooter in the
\nJapan, Code name alpha-4 in co-operation with the
\ndefendant No.5. Since this was to be a modern
\ndesign vehicle, having entire plastic body, it was
\nimportant to select a top quality supplier in India
\nfor the development of supplier of plastic parts for
\nalpha-4 vehicle and such similar models in the
\nfuture.\n<\/p>\n
(a) The 1 defendant placed an order for a supply of a
\npart of the moulds for the alpha-4 from the
\ndefendant No.5 and raised a purchase order
\nNo.529911 dated  6\/11\/1996 on the 5th defendant
\nfor an approximate amount of Rs.JPY 175 Million.
\nThe plaintiff craves leave to refer to and rely upon
\nthe aforesaid Purchase Order of the 1 defendant
\nwhen produced.\n<\/p>\n
(b) A Memo. of Understanding (M0U) has been
\nentered into by various parties involved in the
\ndevelopment of Alpha-4, viz. the plaintiff, defendant
\nNos.1 and 3, Takahashi Seiki and another Japanese
\nCompany Tokyo R&D Co. Ltd. This MoU spelt out
\nthe role and obligation of each party in the
\ndevelopment of the plastic parts of the Alpha-4. The
\nIst defendant also spelt out its commitment in
\nbuying the plastic parts from the moulds supplied
\nby the 5th defendant and for which the plaintiff was
\nto set up additional investments. Hereto enclosed
\nand annexed as document No.XXIV is a copy of the
\naforesaid Mou.”\n<\/p>\n
33.\tIn line with the aforesaid understanding
\nbetween the plaintiff and the Ist, 4th and 5th
\ndefendants and also relying upon the MoU and the
\nIst defendant’s letter dated 30.11.1996 the plaintiff
\nagreed to accept the 4 sets of Purchase Orders for
\nthe manufacture of 10 Alpha-4 moulds, raised by
\nthe 1st defendant, at an initial payment of Rs.296.7
\nlacs. These Purchase Orders are:\n<\/p>\n
a)\tNo.541024 dated 12\/2\/1997 for Rs.148.5 lacs.\n<\/p>\n
b)\tNo.541023 dated 12\/2\/1997 for Rs.111.5 lacs.\n<\/p>\n
c)\tNo.2121209 dated 22\/2\/1998 for Rs 35 lacs.\n<\/p>\n
d)\tNo.20122154 dated 16\/3\/1998 for Rs.1.7 lacs.\n<\/p>\n
 The aforesaid Purchase Orders were in the tine
\nwith the MoU and the Technical Assistance
\nAgreement, as already spelt out, and the same also
\nmentioned on the Orders.”\n<\/p>\n
12.\tIn Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and Ors. v. Assistant Charity
\nCommissioner and Ors.<\/a> (2004 (3) SCC 137) it was inter-alia
\nheld as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“16. Submission of learned counsel for respondent
\nNo.2-trust was that requirement of law being
\nreading the plaint in its totality, the appellants
\ncannot take the plea that they would give up or
\nrelinquish some of the reliefs sought for. That would
\nnot be permissible. The plea clearly overlooks the
\nbasic distinction between statements of the facts
\ndisclosing cause of action and the reliefs sought for.
\nThe reliefs claimed do not constitute the cause of
\naction. On the contrary, they constitute the
\nentitlement, if any, on the basis of pleaded facts. As
\nindicated above, Order VI Rule 2 requires that
\npleadings shall contain and contain only a
\nstatement in a concise form of the material facts on
\nwhich the party pleading relies for his claim. If the
\nplea of Mr. Savant, learned counsel for the
\nrespondent-trust is accepted the distinction
\nbetween the statement of material facts and the
\nreliance on them for the claim shall be obliterated.
\nWhat is required in law is not the piecemeal reading
\nof the plaint but in its entirety. Whether the reliefs
\nwould be granted on the pleaded facts and the
\nevidence adduced is totally different from the relief
\nclaimed. All the reliefs claimed may not be allowed
\nto a party on the pleadings and the evidence
\nadduced. Whether part of the relief cannot be
\ngranted by the Civil Court is a different matter from
\nsaying that because of a combined claim of reliefs
\nthe jurisdiction is ousted or no cause of action is
\ndisclosed. Considering the reliefs claimed vis-a-vis
\nthe pleadings would not mean
\ncompartmentalization or segregation, in that sense.
\nThe plea raised by the respondent-trust is therefore
\nclearly unacceptable.\n<\/p>\n
17.\tKeeping in view the aforesaid principles the
\nreliefs sought for in the suit as quoted supra have to
\nbe considered. The real object of Order VII Rule 11
\nof the Code is to keep out of courts irresponsible law
\nsuits. Therefore, the Order X of the Code is a tool in
\nthe hands of the Courts by resorting to which and
\nby searching examination of the party in case the
\nCourt is prima facie of the view that the suit is an
\nabuse of the process of the court in the sense that it
\nis a bogus and irresponsible litigation, the
\njurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code can
\nbe exercised.\n<\/p>\n
18.\tAs noted supra, Order VII Rule 11 does not
\njustify rejection of any particular portion of the
\nplaint. Order VI Rule 16 of the Code is relevant in
\nthis regard. It deals with ‘striking out pleadings’. It
\nhas three clauses permitting the Court at any stage
\nof the proceeding to strike out or amend any matter
\nin any pleading i.e. (a) which may be unnecessary,
\nscandalous, frivolous or vexatious, or, (b) which
\nmay tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair
\ntrial of the suit, or, (c) which is otherwise an abuse
\nof the process of the Court.\n<\/p>\n
19.\tOrder VI Rule 2(1) of the Code states the basic
\nand cardinal rule of pleadings and declares that the
\npleading has to state material facts and not the
\nevidence. It mandates that every pleading shall
\ncontain, and contain only, a statement in a concise
\nform of the material facts on which the party
\npleading relies for his claim or defence, as the case
\nmay be, but not the evidence by which they are to
\nbe proved.\n<\/p>\n
20.\tThere is distinction between ‘material facts’
\nand ‘particulars’. The words ‘material facts’ show
\nthat the facts necessary to formulate a complete
\ncause of action must be stated. Omission of a single
\nmaterial fact leads to an incomplete cause of action
\nand the statement or plaint becomes bad. The
\ndistinction which has been made between ‘material
\nfacts’ and ‘particulars’ was brought by Scott, L.J. in
\nBruce v. Odhams Press Ltd. (1936) 1 KB 697 in the
\nfollowing passage :\n<\/p>\n
The cardinal provision in Rule 4 is that
\nthe statement of claim must state the
\nmaterial facts. The word “material” means
\nnecessary for the purpose of formulating
\na complete cause of action; and if any one
\n“material” statement is omitted, the
\nstatement of claim is bad; it is
\n“demurrable” in the old phraseology, and
\nin the new is liable to be “struck out”\n<\/p>\n
under R.S.C. Order XXV, Rule 4 (see
\nPhilipps v. Philipps ((1878) 4 QBD 127));
\nor “a further and better statement of
\nclaim” may be ordered under Rule 7.\n<\/p>\n
The function of “particulars” under Rule 6
\nis quite different. They are not to be used
\nin order to fill material gaps in a
\ndemurrable statement of claim – gaps
\nwhich ought to have been filled by
\nappropriate statements of the various
\nmaterial facts which together constitute
\nthe plaintiff’s cause of action. The use of
\nparticulars is intended to meet a further
\nand quite separate requirement of
\npleading, imposed in fairness and justice
\nto the defendant. Their function is to fill
\nin the picture of the plaintiff’s cause of
\naction with information sufficiently
\ndetailed to put the defendant on his
\nguard as to the case he had to meet and
\nto enable him to prepare for trial.\n<\/p>\n
The dictum of Scott, L.J. in Bruce case (supra) has
\nbeen quoted with approval by this Court in Samant
\nN. Balkrishna v. George Fernandez<\/a> (1969 (3) SCC\n<\/p>\n
238), and the distinction between “material facts”
\nand “particulars” was brought out in the following
\nterms:\n<\/p>\n
The word ‘material’ shows that the facts
\nnecessary to formulate a complete cause
\nof action must be stated. Omission of a
\nsingle material fact leads to an
\nincomplete cause of action and the
\nstatement of claim becomes bad. The
\nfunction of particulars is to present as
\nfull a picture of the cause of action with
\nsuch further information in detail as to
\nmake the opposite party understand the
\ncase he will have to meet”.\n<\/p>\n
Rule 11 of Order VII lays down an independent
\nremedy made available to the defendant to challenge
\nthe maintainability of the suit itself, irrespective of
\nhis right to contest the same on merits. The law
\nostensibly does not contemplate at any stage when
\nthe objections can be raised, and also does not say
\nin express terms about the filing of a written
\nstatement. Instead, the word ‘shall’ is used clearly
\nimplying thereby that it casts a duty on the Court to
\nperform its obligations in rejecting the plaint when
\nthe same is hit by any of the infirmities provided in
\nthe four clauses of Rule 11, even without
\nintervention of the defendant. In any event, rejection
\nof the plaint under Rule 11 does not preclude the
\nplaintiffs from presenting a fresh plaint in terms of
\nRule 13.\n<\/p>\n
xx\t\txx\t\txx\t\txx\t\txx<\/p>\n
22.\tUnder Order II Rule 1 of the Code which
\ncontains provisions of mandatory nature, the
\nrequirement is that the plaintiffs are duty bound to
\nclaim the entire relief. The suit has to be so framed
\nas to afford ground for final decision upon the
\nsubjects in dispute and to prevent further litigation
\nconcerning them. Rule 2 further enjoins on the
\nplaintiff to include the whole of the claim which the
\nplaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of
\naction. If the plaintiff omits to sue or intentionally
\nrelinquishes any portion of his claim, it is not
\npermissible for him to sue in respect of the portion
\nso omitted or relinquished afterwards. If the
\nplaintiffs as contended by Mr. Mohta want to
\nrelinquish some reliefs prayer in that regard shall
\nbe done before the trial Court. A reading of the
\nplaint and the reliefs along with the contents of the
\nplaint goes to show that the main dispute relates to
\nthe question of continuance of tenancy and the
\nperiod of tenancy. They are in essence unrelated
\nwith the other reliefs regarding enquiry into the
\naffairs of the trust. Such enquiries can only be
\nundertaken under Section 50 of the Act. For
\ninstituting the suit of the nature specified in Section
\n50, prior consent of the Charity Commissioner is
\nnecessary under Section 51. To that extent Mr.
\nSavant is right that the reliefs relatable to Section
\n50 would require a prior consent in terms of Section\n<\/p>\n
51. If the plaintiffs give up those reliefs claimed in
\naccordance with law, the question would be whether
\na cause of action for the residual claims\/reliefs
\nwarrant continuance of the suit. The nature of the
\ndispute is to be resolved by the Civil Court. The
\nquestion of tenancy cannot be decided under
\nSection 50 of the Act. Section 51 is applicable only
\nto suits which are filed by a person having interest
\nin the trust. A tenant of the trust does not fall
\nwithin the category of a person having an interest in
\nthe trust.  Except relief in Para D of the plaint, the
\nother reliefs could be claimed before and can be
\nconsidered and adjudicated by the Civil Courts and
\nthe bar or impediment in Sections 50 and 51 of the
\nAct will have no relevance or application to the other
\nreliefs. That being so, Sections 50 and 51 of the Act
\nwould not have any application to that part of the
\nrelief which relates to question of tenancy, the term
\nof tenancy and the period of tenancy. The inevitable
\nconclusion therefore is that Courts below were not
\njustified in directing rejection of the plaint. However,
\nthe adjudication in the suit would be restricted to
\nthe question of tenancy, terms of tenancy and the
\nperiod of tenancy only. For the rest of the reliefs, the
\nplaintiffs shall be permitted within a month from
\ntoday to make such application as warranted in law
\nfor relinquishing and\/or giving up claim for other
\nreliefs.”\n<\/p>\n
13.\tIn Om Prakash Srivastava v. Union of India and Anr.<\/a>
\n(2006 (6) SCC 207) it was held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
9.\tBy “cause of action” it is meant every fact,
\nwhich, if traversed, it would be necessary for the
\nplaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a
\njudgment of the Court. In other words, a bundle of
\nfacts, which it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove
\nin order to succeed in the suit. (See Bloom Dekor
\nLtd. v. Subhash Himatlal Desai and Ors.<\/a> (1994 (6)
\nSCC 322).\n<\/p>\n
10.\tIn a generic and wide sense (as in Section 20
\nof the Civil Procedure Code, 1908) “cause of action”
\nmeans every fact, which it is necessary to establish
\nto support a right to obtain a judgment. (See
\nSadanandan Bhadran v. Madhavan Sunil Kumar<\/a>
\n(1998 (6) SCC 514).\n<\/p>\n
11.\tIt is settled law that “cause of action” consists
\nof bundle of facts, which give cause to enforce the
\nlegal inquiry for redress in a court of law. In other
\nwords, it is a bundle of facts, which taken with the
\nlaw applicable to them, gives the plaintiff a right to
\nclaim relief against the defendant. It must include
\nsome act done by the defendant since in the
\nabsence of such an act no cause of action would
\npossibly accrue or would arise. (See South East Asia
\nShipping Co. Ltd. v. Nav Bharat Enterprises Pvt.
\nLtd. and others<\/a>. (1996 (3) SCC 443).\n<\/p>\n
12.\tThe expression “cause of action” has acquired
\na judicially settled meaning. In the restricted sense
\n“cause of action” means the circumstances forming
\nthe infraction of the right or the immediate occasion
\nfor the reaction. In the wider sense, it means the
\nnecessary conditions for the maintenance of the
\nsuit, including not only the infraction of the right,
\nbut also the infraction coupled with the right itself.
\nCompendiously, as noted above the expression
\nmeans every fact, which it would be necessary for
\nthe plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to
\nsupport his right to the judgment of the Court.
\nEvery fact, which is necessary to be proved, as
\ndistinguished from every piece of evidence, which is
\nnecessary to prove each fact, comprises in “cause of
\naction”. (See Rajasthan High Court Advocates’
\nAssociation v. Union of India and Ors.<\/a> (2001 (2)
\nSCC 294).\n<\/p>\n
13.\tThe expression “cause of action” has
\nsometimes been employed to convey the restricted
\nidea of facts or circumstances which constitute
\neither the infringement or the basis of a right and
\nno more. In a wider and more comprehensive sense,
\nit has been used to denote the whole bundle of
\nmaterial facts, which a plaintiff must prove in order
\nto succeed. These are all those essential facts
\nwithout the proof of which the plaintiff must fail in
\nhis suit. (See Gurdit Singh v. Munsha Singh<\/a> (1977
\n(1) SCC 791).\n<\/p>\n
14.\tThe expression “cause of action” is generally
\nunderstood to mean a situation or state of facts that
\nentitles a party to maintain an action in a court or a
\ntribunal; a group of operative facts giving rise to one
\nor more bases of suing; a factual situation that
\nentitles one person to obtain a remedy in court from
\nanother person. (See Black’s Law Dictionary). In
\nStroud’s Judicial Dictionary a “cause of action” is
\nstated to be the entire set of facts that gives rise to
\nan enforceable claim; the phrase comprises every
\nfact, which if traversed, the plaintiff must prove in
\norder to obtain judgment. In “Words and Phrases”
\n(4th Edn.) the meaning attributed to the phrase
\n“cause of action” in common legal parlance is
\nexistence of those facts, which give a party a right to
\njudicial interference on his behalf. (See
\nNavinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra
\nand Ors.<\/a> (2000 (7) SCC 640).\n<\/p>\n
15.\tIn Halsbury Laws of England (Fourth Edition)
\nit has been stated as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“Cause of action has been defined as
\nmeaning simply a factual situation the
\nexistence of which entitles one person to
\nobtain from the Court a remedy against
\nanother person. The phrase has been
\nheld from earliest time to include every
\nfact which is material to be proved to
\nentitle the plaintiff to succeed, and every
\nfact which a defendant would have a right
\nto traverse. ‘Cause of action’ has also
\nbeen taken to mean that particular act on
\nthe part of the defendant which gives the
\nplaintiff his cause of complaint, or the
\nsubject matter of grievance founding the
\naction, not merely the technical cause of
\naction”.\n<\/p>\n
16.\tAs observed by the Privy Council in Payana v.
\nPana Lana (1914) 41 IA 142, the rule is directed to
\nsecuring the exhaustion of the relief in respect of a
\ncause of action and not to the inclusion in one and
\nthe same action or different causes of action, even
\nthough they arises from the same transaction. One
\ngreat criterion is, when the question arises as to
\nwhether the cause of action in the subsequent suit
\nis identical with that in the first suit whether the
\nsame evidence will maintain both actions. (See
\nMohammad Khalil Khan v. Mahbub Ali Mian (AIR
\n1949 PC 78).\n<\/p>\n
17.\tIt would be appropriate to quote para 61 of the
\nsaid judgment, which reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
“61. (1) The correct test in cases falling
\nunder Order II Rule 2, is whether the
\nclaim in the new suit is in fact founded
\nupon a cause of action distinct from that
\nwhich was the foundation of the former
\nsuit (Moonshee Buzloor Fuheer v.\n<\/p>\n
Shumroonnissa Begum, (1967)11 Moo I
\n551 : 2 Bar 259 (P.C.).\n<\/p>\n
(2) The ’cause of action’ means every fact
\nwhich will be necessary for the plaintiff to
\nprove it traversed in order to support his
\nright to the judgment (Real v. Brown ;\n<\/p>\n
(1889) 22 Q.B.O. 138: 58 L.J. Q.B. 476).\n<\/p>\n
(3) If the evidence to support the two
\nclaims is different, then the causes of
\naction are also  different. (Brunsoon v.
\nNurnphroy (18841 Q.B.O. 141. : 53
\nL.J.Q. B. 476).\n<\/p>\n
(4) The causes of action in the two suits
\nmay be considered to be the same  if in
\nsubstance they are identical ( Brunsoon
\nv, Numphroy, supra).\n<\/p>\n
(5) The cause of action has no relation
\nwhether to the defence that may be set
\nup by the defendant nor does it depend
\nupon the character of the relief prayed for
\nby the plaintiff. It refers .. to media
\nupon which the plaintiff asks the Court to
\narrive a conclusion in his favour. (Mst.
\nChand Kour v. Pratap Singh : (1887)15 IA\n<\/p>\n
156. This observation was made by Lord
\nWatson in a case under section 43 of the
\nAct of 1880 (corresponding to Order II,
\nRule 2) where plaintiff made various
\nclaim in the same suit”.\n<\/p>\n
14.\tLearned counsel for the appellant submitted that a
\nseparate suit shall be filed in relation to purchase orders at
\nPune and necessary amendments to the plaint filed at Nagpur
\nshall be made. It shall be open to the respondents-defendants
\nto raise such objections and to take such stand as are
\navailable. In view of  above, we dispose of the appeal with the
\nfollowing directions:\n<\/p>\n
(1)\tIt shall be open to the appellant to file a separate
\nsuit in relation to cause of action if any relating  for
\nthe purchase orders, at Pune as was submitted by
\nlearned counsel for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
(2)\tIf the appellant is so advised it may move for
\namendment of the suit at Nagpur.\n<\/p>\n
(3)\tIt shall be open to the respondents-defendants to
\nraise all objections and take such pleas as are
\navailable in law.\n<\/p>\n
15.\tAppeal is disposed of with no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Sandeep Polymers Pvt. Ltd vs Bajaj Auto Ltd. And Ors on 20 July, 2007 Author: . A Pasayat Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, Lokeshwar Singh Panta CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 7749 of 2004 PETITIONER: Sandeep Polymers Pvt. Ltd RESPONDENT: Bajaj Auto Ltd. and Ors DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20\/07\/2007 BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT […]<\/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-232106","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSandeep Polymers Pvt. Ltd vs Bajaj Auto Ltd. And Ors on 20 July, 2007 - 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\/sandeep-polymers-pvt-ltd-vs-bajaj-auto-ltd-and-ors-on-20-july-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sandeep Polymers Pvt. Ltd vs Bajaj Auto Ltd. And Ors on 20 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sandeep-polymers-pvt-ltd-vs-bajaj-auto-ltd-and-ors-on-20-july-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-07-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-13T21:01:02+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=\"25 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sandeep-polymers-pvt-ltd-vs-bajaj-auto-ltd-and-ors-on-20-july-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sandeep-polymers-pvt-ltd-vs-bajaj-auto-ltd-and-ors-on-20-july-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sandeep Polymers Pvt. Ltd vs Bajaj Auto Ltd. And Ors on 20 July, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-07-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-13T21:01:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sandeep-polymers-pvt-ltd-vs-bajaj-auto-ltd-and-ors-on-20-july-2007\"},\"wordCount\":4919,\"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\\\/sandeep-polymers-pvt-ltd-vs-bajaj-auto-ltd-and-ors-on-20-july-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sandeep-polymers-pvt-ltd-vs-bajaj-auto-ltd-and-ors-on-20-july-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sandeep-polymers-pvt-ltd-vs-bajaj-auto-ltd-and-ors-on-20-july-2007\",\"name\":\"Sandeep Polymers Pvt. Ltd vs Bajaj Auto Ltd. And Ors on 20 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-07-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-13T21:01:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sandeep-polymers-pvt-ltd-vs-bajaj-auto-ltd-and-ors-on-20-july-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sandeep-polymers-pvt-ltd-vs-bajaj-auto-ltd-and-ors-on-20-july-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sandeep-polymers-pvt-ltd-vs-bajaj-auto-ltd-and-ors-on-20-july-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sandeep Polymers Pvt. Ltd vs Bajaj Auto Ltd. And Ors on 20 July, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Sandeep Polymers Pvt. Ltd vs Bajaj Auto Ltd. And Ors on 20 July, 2007 - 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\/sandeep-polymers-pvt-ltd-vs-bajaj-auto-ltd-and-ors-on-20-july-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sandeep Polymers Pvt. Ltd vs Bajaj Auto Ltd. And Ors on 20 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sandeep-polymers-pvt-ltd-vs-bajaj-auto-ltd-and-ors-on-20-july-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-07-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-13T21:01:02+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":"25 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sandeep-polymers-pvt-ltd-vs-bajaj-auto-ltd-and-ors-on-20-july-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sandeep-polymers-pvt-ltd-vs-bajaj-auto-ltd-and-ors-on-20-july-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sandeep Polymers Pvt. Ltd vs Bajaj Auto Ltd. And Ors on 20 July, 2007","datePublished":"2007-07-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-13T21:01:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sandeep-polymers-pvt-ltd-vs-bajaj-auto-ltd-and-ors-on-20-july-2007"},"wordCount":4919,"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\/sandeep-polymers-pvt-ltd-vs-bajaj-auto-ltd-and-ors-on-20-july-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sandeep-polymers-pvt-ltd-vs-bajaj-auto-ltd-and-ors-on-20-july-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sandeep-polymers-pvt-ltd-vs-bajaj-auto-ltd-and-ors-on-20-july-2007","name":"Sandeep Polymers Pvt. Ltd vs Bajaj Auto Ltd. And Ors on 20 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-07-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-13T21:01:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sandeep-polymers-pvt-ltd-vs-bajaj-auto-ltd-and-ors-on-20-july-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sandeep-polymers-pvt-ltd-vs-bajaj-auto-ltd-and-ors-on-20-july-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sandeep-polymers-pvt-ltd-vs-bajaj-auto-ltd-and-ors-on-20-july-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sandeep Polymers Pvt. Ltd vs Bajaj Auto Ltd. And Ors on 20 July, 2007"}]},{"@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\/232106","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=232106"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/232106\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=232106"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=232106"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=232106"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}