{"id":234505,"date":"2008-12-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-12-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-ratanlal-agrawal-vs-mrs-naseem-begum-abdul-gaffar-on-16-december-2008"},"modified":"2016-01-13T18:43:07","modified_gmt":"2016-01-13T13:13:07","slug":"subhash-ratanlal-agrawal-vs-mrs-naseem-begum-abdul-gaffar-on-16-december-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-ratanlal-agrawal-vs-mrs-naseem-begum-abdul-gaffar-on-16-december-2008","title":{"rendered":"Subhash Ratanlal Agrawal vs Mrs. Naseem Begum Abdul Gaffar … on 16 December, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Subhash Ratanlal Agrawal vs Mrs. Naseem Begum Abdul Gaffar … on 16 December, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: B. P. Dharmadhikari<\/div>\n
                                        1\n           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                         NAGPUR BENCH\n\n\n\n\n                                                                    \n              WRIT PETITION NO. 4489 OF 2008\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n                            AND\n              WRIT PETITION NO. 4491 OF 2008\n\n\n\n\n                                           \n     WRIT PETITION NO. 4489 OF 2008\n\n\n     Subhash Ratanlal Agrawal,\n\n\n\n\n                                 \n     age 44 years, occupation -\n     Business, r\/o State Bank Colony,\n                    \n     Ganesh Nagar, Gondia.                     ... PETITIONER\n\n                         Versus\n                   \n     Mrs. Naseem Begum Abdul Gaffar Khan,\n     age 42 years, occupation - Transport,\n     r\/o Near Bhavbhuti Rang Mandir,\n      \n\n\n     Lohiya Ward, Gondia.                  ... RESPONDENT\n   \n\n\n\n     Shri A.N. Vastani, Advocate for the petitioner.\n     Shri V.R. Mundra, Advocate for the respondent.\n\n\n\n\n\n                          .....\n\n     WRIT PETITION NO. 4491 OF 2008\n\n\n\n\n\n     1.   Renu w\/o Subhash Agrawal,\n          age 38 years, occupation -\n          Household, r\/o State Bank Colony,\n          Ganesh Nagar, Gondia.\n\n     2.   Subhash Ratanlal Agrawal,\n\n\n\n\n                                            ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:09:07 :::\n                                       2\n          age 44 years, occupation -\n          Business, r\/o State Bank Colony,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                     \n          Ganesh Nagar, Gondia.                 ... PETITIONERS\n\n\n\n\n                                             \n                         Versus\n\n     Abdul Gaffar Hasan Khan,\n     age 48 years, occupation - Transport,\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n     r\/o Near Bhavbhuti Rang Mandir,\n     Lohiya Ward, Gondia.                       ... RESPONDENT\n\n\n\n\n                                  \n     Shri A.N. Vastani, Advocate for the petitioners.\n     Shri V.R. Mundra, Advocate for the respondent.\n                     ig   .....\n\n                               CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                                       DECEMBER 16, 2008.\n<\/p>\n
     ORAL JUDGMENT :\n<\/p>\n
               Rule.   Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard<\/p>\n
     finally with the consent of Shri Vastani, learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
     petitioners and Shri Mundra, learned counsel for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
     2.        The petitioners – plaintiffs have filed a suit for recovery<\/p>\n
     of certain amount against the present respondents and in it they<\/p>\n
     have produced a document titled agreement dated 7.9.2004 in<\/p>\n
     support of their contention. The present respondents raised an<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:09:07 :::<\/span>
\n                                        3<\/span>
\n     objection and contended that it is a bond and, therefore, the<\/p>\n
     document should be impounded.          The contention of present<\/p>\n
     petitioners in reply was that it is only an acknowledgment and<\/p>\n
     the Court below has by impugned order dated 13.8.2008 held<\/p>\n
     that the document was not an acknowledgment but a bond. It<\/p>\n
     has, therefore, allowed the objection raised by the present<\/p>\n
     respondents and directed the petitioners\/ plaintiffs to pay<\/p>\n
     requisite stamp duty.\n<\/p>\n
     3.        Shri Vastani, learned counsel for the petitioners, by<\/p>\n
     relying upon the definition of Bond in Section 2(c) of Bombay<\/p>\n
     Stamp Act, 1958, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) contends<\/p>\n
     that the document dated 7.9.2004 is not basically attested by the<\/p>\n
     witness. He further states that the document itself shows that it<\/p>\n
     is in respect of old or pre-existing liability. He, therefore, states<\/p>\n
     that on both these counts, the document cannot be treated as a<\/p>\n
     bond and ought to have been read as acknowledgment. He relies<\/p>\n
     upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Patel Stone<\/p>\n
     Trading Company vs. Ramsing,<\/a> reported at AIR 1975 Bom. 79,<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:09:07 :::<\/span>
\n                                      4<\/span>
\n     particularly paragraph 4.\n<\/p>\n
     4.        Shir Mundra, learned counsel for the respondents,<\/p>\n
     relies upon the language of the document and explanation to<\/p>\n
     Section 2(c) of the Act to urge that the Court below has rightly<\/p>\n
     treated the document as a bond and not an acknowledgment. He<\/p>\n
     also relies upon the above referred judgment and subsequent<\/p>\n
     judgment in the case of Lexicon Finance vs. Park Securities,<\/a><\/p>\n
     reported at 2004 (1) Mh. L.J. 934, in which said judgment has<\/p>\n
     been followed. He contends that the document nowhere shows<\/p>\n
     that earlier there was any promise to pay.\n<\/p>\n
     5.        I have perused the document in dispute as also both<\/p>\n
     the judgments on which respective learned counsel have placed<\/p>\n
     reliance. The perusal of Patel Stone Trading Co. vs. Ramsing,<\/a><\/p>\n
     (supra) particularly paragraph 2 shows that similar contention<\/p>\n
     was raised before this Court by pointing out that the document<\/p>\n
     there was merely an agreement providing for payment of pre-\n<\/p>\n
     existing debt and, therefore, it was not a bond. It was contended<\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:09:07 :::<\/span>
\n                                      5<\/span>
\n     that the document accepted that the amount was payable. The<\/p>\n
     consideration in paragraphs 4 and 5 is relevant and those<\/p>\n
     paragraphs read as under :\n<\/p>\n
          “4.       The real test to decide as to whether a
\n          particular document is a bond or not, is to find out<\/p>\n
          after reading the document as a whole as to whether
\n          an obligation is created by the document itself or it is<\/p>\n
          merely an acknowledgment of a pre-existing liability.
\n          If there is merely an acknowledgment of pre-existing<\/p>\n
          liability which could have been enforced apart from<\/p>\n
          the document itself, then the matter stands on a
\n          different footing.   But if the document creates an
\n          obligation in itself with an express promise for<\/p>\n
          payment of an amount, in my opinion such a<\/p>\n
          document will have to be termed as a bond within the
\n          meaning of Section 2(c)(ii) of the Bombay Stamp Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          5.        In (AIR 1972 Madh Pra 54), the Madhya<\/p>\n
          Pradesh High Court has drawan a distinction between
\n          an acknowledgment and a bond. After observing that
\n          the word “acknowledgment has not been defined in<\/p>\n
          the Act, but it would be pertinent to refer to Article 1
\n          of the Act, which gives its description and thereafter
\n          reading the proviso, it was observed by the Madhya
\n          Pradesh High Court :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:09:07 :::<\/span>
\n                                      6<\/span><\/p>\n
                    “Thus, on reading the aforesaid description<\/p>\n
          in Article 1 with sub-section (5) of Section 2 of the
\n          Act, it would appear that where an acknowledgment<\/p>\n
          contains a promise to pay, it is not to be stamped as
\n          an acknowledgment, but will have to be stamped as a
\n          bond, where it is attested by a witness and is not<\/p>\n
          payable to order or bearer.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          In substance, therefore, if an express stipulation<\/p>\n
          regarding the payment of an amount is incorporated
\n          in the document itself, in my opinion, the document<\/p>\n
          will have to be construed as a bond because it creates<\/p>\n
          an obligation in itself. So far as the present document
\n          is concerned, the defendant has acknowledged the
\n          liability for an amount of Rs.24,596.30 and had<\/p>\n
          expressly promised to repay the same and such a<\/p>\n
          promise has been incorporated in the document itself.
\n          In the said document, there is an acknowledgment of
\n          an ascertained amount with a further promise to pay<\/p>\n
          the amount with interest and the document is attested
\n          by witnesses.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     6.       It is not necessary for me to refer to the judgment in<\/p>\n
     the case of Lexicon Finance vs. Park Securities<\/a> (supra) because<\/p>\n
     the same law has been applied there to document and relevant<\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:09:07 :::<\/span>
\n                                        7<\/span>
\n     clauses i.e. clauses (5) & (6) are reproduced in paragraph 3 of<\/p>\n
     said judgment. The document has been treated as a bond and<\/p>\n
     the document was ordered to be impounded.\n<\/p>\n
     7.          Section 2(c) of the Act is an inclusive definition of a<\/p>\n
     bond and its relevant portion i.e. clause (ii) is as under :\n<\/p>\n
          (ii)        any instrument attested by a witness and
\n          not payable to order or bearer, whereby, a person<\/p>\n
          obliges himself to pay money to another;”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 Thus, the said portion requires the instrument to be<\/p>\n
     attested. During arguments before me, xerox copy of agreement<\/p>\n
     was produced to show that it has not been so attested.                     Shri<\/p>\n
     Mundra, learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute<\/p>\n
     that it is not attested by witnesses.     However, he has invited<\/p>\n
     attention to explanation to Section 2(c) above state that the word<\/p>\n
     attested in said clause (ii) has been given a different meaning for<\/p>\n
     the purposes of said definition and Notary before whom the<\/p>\n
     document has been executed by the respondent is, therefore,<\/p>\n
     deemed to have attested the execution of said document. He<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:09:07 :::<\/span>
\n                                        8<\/span>
\n     contends that Notary has witnessed the respondent while putting<\/p>\n
     her signature on said document and that is sufficient attestation<\/p>\n
     for the purposes of Section 2(c)(ii) of the Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     7.          The explanation to Section 2(c)(ii) of the Act, clearly<\/p>\n
     shows that the word attested in relation to an instrument means<\/p>\n
     attested by one or more witnesses each of whom has seen the<\/p>\n
     executant sign or affix his mark to the instrument. The document<\/p>\n
     is executed before one Indrakumar Hotchandani i.e. a Notary at<\/p>\n
     Gondia and it is, therefore, more than clear that he has witnessed<\/p>\n
     the executant i.e. present respondent putting her signature on<\/p>\n
     said document.       The requirement of explanation to Section<\/p>\n
     2(c)(ii) of the Act is, therefore, satisfied in present case. The<\/p>\n
     contention that the document is not attested, therefore, cannot be<\/p>\n
     accepted.\n<\/p>\n
     8.          The   language   of   agreement      itself     falsifies      the<\/p>\n
     contention that there was any pre-existing liability accepted by<\/p>\n
     the respondent. The document only mentions that amount of<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:09:07 :::<\/span>
\n                                        9<\/span>
\n     Rs.90,000\/- was taken in cash. However, this line which is first<\/p>\n
     sentence of the document nowhere mentions that it is taken as a<\/p>\n
     loan.   The second sentence thereafter promises to pay that<\/p>\n
     amount back and that promise is in the present and for that a<\/p>\n
     cheque of Rs.90,000\/- of future date has been handed over.\n<\/p>\n
     Thus, it is not a reproduction of what was already agreed orally<\/p>\n
     between the parties earlier. The promise to repay is then made<\/p>\n
     (in present) only in said agreement. During arguments, it has<\/p>\n
     been specifically stated that apart from this document, there is no<\/p>\n
     other receipt or any other chit or similar paper with the petitioner<\/p>\n
     to show the payment of amount to the respondent.                        It is,<\/p>\n
     therefore, obvious that the document for the first time contains a<\/p>\n
     promise of repayment to present petitioner.             The document,<\/p>\n
     therefore, cannot be said to be a mere acknowledgment of pre-\n<\/p>\n
     existing liability. There is nothing in the document to show that<\/p>\n
     the respondent accepted any such pre-existing liability. If the<\/p>\n
     document is read in the light of facts disclosed, it is apparent that<\/p>\n
     the liability to repay is coming on record or accepted for the first<\/p>\n
     time in said document. The trial Court has, therefore, correctly<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:09:07 :::<\/span>
\n                                        10<\/span>
\n     treated the document as a bond.\n<\/p>\n
     9.          I do not find any perversity or jurisdictional error in the<\/p>\n
     judgment of the trial Court.         Writ Petitions are, therefore,<\/p>\n
     dismissed. Rule discharged. However, there shall be no order as<\/p>\n
     to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                              JUDGE<\/p>\n
                                      *******<\/p>\n
     *GS.\n<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:09:07 :::<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Subhash Ratanlal Agrawal vs Mrs. Naseem Begum Abdul Gaffar … on 16 December, 2008 Bench: B. P. Dharmadhikari 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH WRIT PETITION NO. 4489 OF 2008 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 4491 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 4489 OF 2008 Subhash Ratanlal Agrawal, age […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-234505","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSubhash Ratanlal Agrawal vs Mrs. Naseem Begum Abdul Gaffar ... on 16 December, 2008 - 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\/subhash-ratanlal-agrawal-vs-mrs-naseem-begum-abdul-gaffar-on-16-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Subhash Ratanlal Agrawal vs Mrs. Naseem Begum Abdul Gaffar ... on 16 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-ratanlal-agrawal-vs-mrs-naseem-begum-abdul-gaffar-on-16-december-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-12-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-13T13:13:07+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subhash-ratanlal-agrawal-vs-mrs-naseem-begum-abdul-gaffar-on-16-december-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subhash-ratanlal-agrawal-vs-mrs-naseem-begum-abdul-gaffar-on-16-december-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Subhash Ratanlal Agrawal vs Mrs. Naseem Begum Abdul Gaffar … on 16 December, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-13T13:13:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subhash-ratanlal-agrawal-vs-mrs-naseem-begum-abdul-gaffar-on-16-december-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1447,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subhash-ratanlal-agrawal-vs-mrs-naseem-begum-abdul-gaffar-on-16-december-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subhash-ratanlal-agrawal-vs-mrs-naseem-begum-abdul-gaffar-on-16-december-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subhash-ratanlal-agrawal-vs-mrs-naseem-begum-abdul-gaffar-on-16-december-2008\",\"name\":\"Subhash Ratanlal Agrawal vs Mrs. Naseem Begum Abdul Gaffar ... on 16 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-13T13:13:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subhash-ratanlal-agrawal-vs-mrs-naseem-begum-abdul-gaffar-on-16-december-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subhash-ratanlal-agrawal-vs-mrs-naseem-begum-abdul-gaffar-on-16-december-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subhash-ratanlal-agrawal-vs-mrs-naseem-begum-abdul-gaffar-on-16-december-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Subhash Ratanlal Agrawal vs Mrs. Naseem Begum Abdul Gaffar … on 16 December, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Subhash Ratanlal Agrawal vs Mrs. Naseem Begum Abdul Gaffar ... on 16 December, 2008 - 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\/subhash-ratanlal-agrawal-vs-mrs-naseem-begum-abdul-gaffar-on-16-december-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Subhash Ratanlal Agrawal vs Mrs. Naseem Begum Abdul Gaffar ... on 16 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-ratanlal-agrawal-vs-mrs-naseem-begum-abdul-gaffar-on-16-december-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-12-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-13T13:13:07+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-ratanlal-agrawal-vs-mrs-naseem-begum-abdul-gaffar-on-16-december-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-ratanlal-agrawal-vs-mrs-naseem-begum-abdul-gaffar-on-16-december-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Subhash Ratanlal Agrawal vs Mrs. Naseem Begum Abdul Gaffar … on 16 December, 2008","datePublished":"2008-12-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-13T13:13:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-ratanlal-agrawal-vs-mrs-naseem-begum-abdul-gaffar-on-16-december-2008"},"wordCount":1447,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-ratanlal-agrawal-vs-mrs-naseem-begum-abdul-gaffar-on-16-december-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-ratanlal-agrawal-vs-mrs-naseem-begum-abdul-gaffar-on-16-december-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-ratanlal-agrawal-vs-mrs-naseem-begum-abdul-gaffar-on-16-december-2008","name":"Subhash Ratanlal Agrawal vs Mrs. Naseem Begum Abdul Gaffar ... on 16 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-12-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-13T13:13:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-ratanlal-agrawal-vs-mrs-naseem-begum-abdul-gaffar-on-16-december-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-ratanlal-agrawal-vs-mrs-naseem-begum-abdul-gaffar-on-16-december-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-ratanlal-agrawal-vs-mrs-naseem-begum-abdul-gaffar-on-16-december-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Subhash Ratanlal Agrawal vs Mrs. Naseem Begum Abdul Gaffar … on 16 December, 2008"}]},{"@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\/234505","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=234505"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/234505\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=234505"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=234505"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=234505"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}