{"id":241328,"date":"2010-07-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/first-appeal-no-171-of-1997-vs-unknown-on-14-july-2010"},"modified":"2017-09-17T15:46:40","modified_gmt":"2017-09-17T10:16:40","slug":"first-appeal-no-171-of-1997-vs-unknown-on-14-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/first-appeal-no-171-of-1997-vs-unknown-on-14-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"First Appeal No. 171 Of 1997 vs Unknown on 14 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
First Appeal No. 171 Of 1997 vs Unknown on 14 July, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: A.P. Bhangale<\/div>\n
                                    1\n\n             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,\n\n                   NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR\n\n\n\n\n                                                                   \n                                           \n    First Appeal No. 171 of 1997\n\n    Appellant :    Bank of Baroda, through its Sitabuldi\n\n\n\n\n                                          \n                   Branch, Nagpur\n\n                   versus\n\n    Respondents:   1) M\/s J.K. Chemicals, a partnership firm,<\/pre>\n
                   through its Partner Hyder Alia Jafar Ali,<\/p>\n
                   Near Vithal Garage, Mankapur, Nagpur,<\/p>\n
                   presently residing at 7, Mount Road Extn.,<\/p>\n
                   Sadar, Nagpur<\/p>\n
                   2) Hyder Ali s\/o Jafar Alia Gulam Hussain,<\/p>\n
                   aged about 42 years, occ: business, resident<\/p>\n
                   of 7, Mount Road Extension, Sadar, Nagpur<\/p>\n
                   3) Hussain Ali Jafar Ali Gulam Hussain, aged<\/p>\n
                   about 40 years, occ: business, resident of<\/p>\n
                   7, Mount Road Extension, Nagpur<\/p>\n
                   4) Shankar Nichhaldad Khemchandani, aged<\/p>\n
                   Major, occ: business, resident of 9, Sindhu<\/p>\n
                   Sagar, Clark Town, Kadbi Chowk, Nagpur<\/p>\n
                   5) Omprakash Amarchand Bhandari, aged<\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:09:00 :::<\/span>
\n                                          2<\/span><\/p>\n
                      Major, occ: service, resident of Rusi Jamaji<\/p>\n
                      House, Kadbi Chowk, Nagpur<\/p>\n
    Mr C.S. Samudra, Advocate for appellant<\/p>\n
    Respondents served.\n<\/p>\n
                                         Coram :    A.P. Bhangale, J\n\n                                         Dated :    14th     July 2010\n\n\n\n\n                                        \n    Judgment.              \n<\/pre>\n
    1.          Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated<\/p>\n
    26th   August   1996   passed   by   6th   Joint   Civil       Judge,        Senior<\/p>\n
    Division, Nagpur dismissing the suit of appellant-Bank as<\/p>\n
    against respondents no. 4 and 5, appellant-Bank has filed the<\/p>\n
    present appeal. Appeal is filed also against the refusal of<\/p>\n
    the trial Court to award agreed rate of interest on the<\/p>\n
    outstanding amount.        Parties shall hereinafter be referred<\/p>\n
    to as per their original status in the suit.\n<\/p>\n
    2.          Plaintiff-Bank filed suit against the defendants<\/p>\n
    for recovery of Rs. 7,85,655.50.           It was averred that various<\/p>\n
    loans as described in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the plaint were<\/p>\n
    granted and disbursed to defendants no. 1 to 3 and defendants<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:09:00 :::<\/span>
\n                                      3<\/span><\/p>\n
    no. 4 and 5 stood guarantee for borrowers (defendants 1 to<\/p>\n
    3).   Since the defendants failed to pay the loan amount, a<\/p>\n
    call notice was issued to them to pay off the outstandings.\n<\/p>\n
    Since inspite of notice defendants did not settle the dues,<\/p>\n
    plaintiff-Bank filed the suit.\n<\/p>\n
    3.        Defendants no. 1 to 3 by their Written Statement,<\/p>\n
    denied the claim of plaintiff-Bank. They alleged that it was<\/p>\n
    the plaintiff-Bank which was responsible for closure of their<\/p>\n
    unit. Defendants no. 4 and 5 denied their liability.                   They<\/p>\n
    denied having stood guarantor for defendants no. 1 to 3.\n<\/p>\n
    4.        Learned trial Court on appreciation of oral and<\/p>\n
    documentary evidence decreed the suit of plaintiff-Bank as<\/p>\n
    against defendants no. 1 to 3 only.    It has been held that<\/p>\n
    the plaintiff Bank failed to prove that defendants no. 4 and<\/p>\n
    5 stood guarantee for borrowers and consequently, suit has<\/p>\n
    been dismissed against those defendants.     Learned trial Court<\/p>\n
    has ordered that the principal amount of Rs. 3,90,000\/- shall<\/p>\n
    carry future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the<\/p>\n
    date of suit till its realisation.\n<\/p>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:09:00 :::<\/span>
\n                                                   4<\/span><\/p>\n
    5.          Heard          learned         counsel    for     the      plaintiff-Bank.\n<\/p>\n
    Learned trial Court observed that when defendants no. 4 and 5<\/p>\n
    had denied their signatures on the loan papers, it was the<\/p>\n
    duty of the Bank to call for report of the hand-writing<\/p>\n
    expert in order to prove the signatures of defendants no. 4<\/p>\n
    and 5.      Request made on behalf of the Bank to tally the<\/p>\n
    signatures of defendants no. 4 and 5 on the Vakalatnama filed<\/p>\n
    on their behalf, was declined by the trial Court on the<\/p>\n
    premise that the Court was not hand-writing expert.\n<\/p>\n
    6.          Plaintiff-Bank                 examined    Kashinath          Patankar          who<\/p>\n
    proved deeds of guarantee (exhibit 72, 90 and 98) executed by<\/p>\n
    defendants no. 4 and 5 on various dates.                             He deposed that<\/p>\n
    contents of deeds of guarantee were read over and explained<\/p>\n
    to defendants no. 4 and 5 by him and they admitted the<\/p>\n
    contents to be true.                  In his cross-examination this witness<\/p>\n
    is consistent with his evidence in examination-in-chief.                                      He<\/p>\n
    has   denied      all       adverse        allegations       and     maintained           that<\/p>\n
    defendants       no.       4    and    5    stood     guarantor        for      borrowers.\n<\/p>\n
    Defendant    no.       4       examined himself on oath and denied                          the<\/p>\n
    averment    of     the         plaintiff-Bank         that   he     was      one     of     the<\/p>\n
    guarantors to loan transactions. He denied his signatures on<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:09:00 :::<\/span>
\n                                        5<\/span><\/p>\n
    the guarantee forms.        Defendant no.5 also examined himself<\/p>\n
    and he has also denied that he stood guarantor for borrowers\/<\/p>\n
    defendants no. 1 to 3. Both these witnesses have maintained<\/p>\n
    their denial in the cross-examination.\n<\/p>\n
    7.           Explanation to Section 47 of the Evidence Act reads<\/p>\n
    that a person is said to be acquainted with the handwriting<\/p>\n
    of another person when he has seen that person write or when<\/p>\n
    he has received documents purporting to be written by that<\/p>\n
    person in answer to documents written by himself or under his<\/p>\n
    authority and addressed to that person or when in ordinary<\/p>\n
    course of business, documents purporting to be written by<\/p>\n
    that person have been habitually submitted to him.                        In      D.\n<\/p>\n
    Pandi   v.   Dhanalakshmi   Bank   Limited    reported         in     AIR      2001<\/p>\n
    Madras 243, it has been held that where the evidence of the<\/p>\n
    Bank Manager as to the presence of defendant-guarantor at the<\/p>\n
    time of sanctioning of loan is probable and reliable and<\/p>\n
    where defendant has not examined anyone to corroborate his<\/p>\n
    claim   except    ipse dixit of his oral evidence, the                      order<\/p>\n
    holding defendant liable for suit claim was proper.                        In the<\/p>\n
    present case, the Bank has examined the officer concerned who<\/p>\n
    has     deposed     that     the       defendants\/guarantors                after<\/p>\n
    understanding the documents of guarantee had signed the same<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:09:00 :::<\/span>
\n                                          6<\/span><\/p>\n
    in his presence.         The evidence on behalf of the Bank is<\/p>\n
    probable and reliable.\n<\/p>\n
    8.         Learned counsel for the plaintiff-Bank has relied<\/p>\n
    on Girija Prasad v. Sardar Labh Singh reported in AIR 1977<\/p>\n
    Patna 241 wherein it is observed with reference to Section 47<\/p>\n
    of the Evidence Act that the creditor who himself had seen<\/p>\n
    the debtor writing the disputed                signatures on the credit<\/p>\n
    memos was held a person who was acquainted with the hand-\n<\/p>\n
    writing and it may be proved         without subjecting it to expert<\/p>\n
    opinion.       The trial Court has heavily come on the Bank’s<\/p>\n
    failure to examine hand-writing expert.                 It is true that in<\/p>\n
    order to find out the genuineness of the signature, it is but<\/p>\n
    proper   for    the   Court   to   get   the    opinion       of     the     expert.\n<\/p>\n
    However, I am of the view that Section 73 of the Evidence Act<\/p>\n
    enables the Court to compare the disputed signature with the<\/p>\n
    other admitted or proved signatures.             No doubt, the Court can<\/p>\n
    also direct the concerned person in Court to write any words<\/p>\n
    or figures for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare<\/p>\n
    the words or figures so written with any words or figures<\/p>\n
    alleged to have been written by such person.                    In the present<\/p>\n
    case the trial Court should not have hesitated to compare the<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:09:01 :::<\/span>
\n                                              7<\/span><\/p>\n
    signatures of defendants-guarantors on Vakalatnama, Written<\/p>\n
    Statement etc. with the documents of guarantee.\n<\/p>\n
    9.          Be that as it may, plaintiff is a nationalised<\/p>\n
    Bank. There are no malafides alleged by defendant no. 4 or<\/p>\n
    defendant no. 5 against any of the Bank officers.                        A definite<\/p>\n
    procedure has to be followed by a nationalised bank while<\/p>\n
    granting and disbursing loan amount to its borrower and in a<\/p>\n
    given case why its officers should allow creation of false<\/p>\n
    signatures of defendants no. 4 and 5 as guarantors, is not at<\/p>\n
    all explained muchless satisfactorily.                    Loan cases, before<\/p>\n
    they are sanctioned, see many hands and they are not dealt<\/p>\n
    with   in   a   proprietory     manner.           It    is     not     a    case       of<\/p>\n
    defendants no. 4 and 5 that undue favouritism was done to<\/p>\n
    borrowers and their signatures were put on the documents<\/p>\n
    concerned in a concocted manner.                  Viewed from any angle,<\/p>\n
    therefore, trial Court’s finding exonerating defendants no. 4<\/p>\n
    and 5 as guarantors cannot be sustained and will have to be<\/p>\n
    set aside.       Consequently,       it will have to be held that<\/p>\n
    defendants      no.   4   and   5   as       guarantors      are     jointly         and<\/p>\n
    severally to pay decretal amount along with defendants no.1<\/p>\n
    and 2 to the plaintiff-Bank.\n<\/p>\n
    10.         Learned trial Court has awarded future interest at<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:09:01 :::<\/span>
\n                                           8<\/span><\/p>\n
    the rate of 6% per annum and that too on the principal<\/p>\n
    amount. There is no reason assigned by it as to why it has<\/p>\n
    deviated from the agreed terms and conditions arrived at by<\/p>\n
    and between the parties under the loan agreement.                              In the<\/p>\n
    opinion    of   this   Court,   the       trial   Court       has      erroneously<\/p>\n
    adjudged the “principal sum”.         In      Central Bank of India v.\n<\/p>\n
    Ravindra and ors reported in AIR 2001 SC 3095, the Apex Court<\/p>\n
    has held that while decreeing a suit if the decree be for<\/p>\n
    payment of money, the Court would adjudge the principal sum<\/p>\n
    on the date of the suit.        In other words, the principal sum<\/p>\n
    adjudged would be the sum actually loaned plus the amount of<\/p>\n
    interest on periodical rests which according to the contract<\/p>\n
    between the parties or the established banking practice has<\/p>\n
    stood capitalised. Now, turning to the question as to what<\/p>\n
    extent the interest should be awarded on the principal sum<\/p>\n
    adjudged on the date of suit, the Apex Court in Central<\/p>\n
    Bank’s    case (supra) has held that Section 34 of the Code of<\/p>\n
    Civil Procedure is general in its application to all money<\/p>\n
    suits and award of interest pendente lite and post-decree is<\/p>\n
    discretionary with the Court as it is essentially governed by<\/p>\n
    Section 34 dehors the contract between the parties. In a<\/p>\n
    given case if the Court finds that in the principal sum<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:09:01 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    9<\/span><\/p>\n
    adjudged on the date of the suit the component of interest is<\/p>\n
    disproportionate         with     the     component          of     the     principal          sum<\/p>\n
    actually advanced, the Court may exercise its discretion in<\/p>\n
    awarding interest pendent lite and post-decree interest at a<\/p>\n
    lower    rate    or    may       even    decline          awarding        such      interest.\n<\/p>\n
    However,       the     discretion          shall           be      exercised            fairly,<\/p>\n
    judiciously      and     for     reasons           and    not   in     an     arbitrary          or<\/p>\n
    fanciful manner.            Loans were advanced long back in the year<\/p>\n
    1987 and looking to the plea of the borrowers that their<\/p>\n
    Project       failed   coupled          with       the     principal         sum      actually<\/p>\n
    advanced, in my opinion, award of interest at 12% per annum<\/p>\n
    from    the    date    of    filing      of        suit    till      realization           would<\/p>\n
    subserve the ends of justice.\n<\/p>\n
    11.           In the result, impugned judgment and order dated<\/p>\n
    26.8.1996       passed      by    the     6th       Joint       Civil       Judge,        Senior<\/p>\n
    Division, Nagpur in Special Civil Suit No. 266 of 1990 is<\/p>\n
    modified thus :\n<\/p>\n
                  All the respondents\/defendants shall jointly and<\/p>\n
    severally pay a sum of Rs. 7,85,655.50 to the appellant\/<\/p>\n
    plaintiff Bank together with interest thereon at the rate of<\/p>\n
    12% per annum from the date of suit till its realisation.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:09:01 :::<\/span>
\n                                  10<\/span><\/p>\n
    Operative part of the judgment of the trial Court in clauses<\/p>\n
    (iii) to (viii) is maintained with modification that the same<\/p>\n
    would be effective against respondents\/defendants no. 4 and 5<\/p>\n
    also.\n<\/p>\n
             Appeal is allowed partly in the above terms                  with<\/p>\n
    proportionate costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                      A. P. BHANGALE, J<\/p>\n
    joshi<\/p>\n
                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:09:01 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court First Appeal No. 171 Of 1997 vs Unknown on 14 July, 2010 Bench: A.P. Bhangale 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR First Appeal No. 171 of 1997 Appellant : Bank of Baroda, through its Sitabuldi Branch, Nagpur versus Respondents: 1) M\/s J.K. Chemicals, a partnership […]<\/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-241328","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nFirst Appeal No. 171 Of 1997 vs Unknown on 14 July, 2010 - 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\/first-appeal-no-171-of-1997-vs-unknown-on-14-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"First Appeal No. 171 Of 1997 vs Unknown on 14 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/first-appeal-no-171-of-1997-vs-unknown-on-14-july-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-17T10:16:40+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\\\/first-appeal-no-171-of-1997-vs-unknown-on-14-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/first-appeal-no-171-of-1997-vs-unknown-on-14-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"First Appeal No. 171 Of 1997 vs Unknown on 14 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-17T10:16:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/first-appeal-no-171-of-1997-vs-unknown-on-14-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1678,\"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\\\/first-appeal-no-171-of-1997-vs-unknown-on-14-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/first-appeal-no-171-of-1997-vs-unknown-on-14-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/first-appeal-no-171-of-1997-vs-unknown-on-14-july-2010\",\"name\":\"First Appeal No. 171 Of 1997 vs Unknown on 14 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-17T10:16:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/first-appeal-no-171-of-1997-vs-unknown-on-14-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/first-appeal-no-171-of-1997-vs-unknown-on-14-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/first-appeal-no-171-of-1997-vs-unknown-on-14-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"First Appeal No. 171 Of 1997 vs Unknown on 14 July, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"First Appeal No. 171 Of 1997 vs Unknown on 14 July, 2010 - 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\/first-appeal-no-171-of-1997-vs-unknown-on-14-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"First Appeal No. 171 Of 1997 vs Unknown on 14 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/first-appeal-no-171-of-1997-vs-unknown-on-14-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-17T10:16:40+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\/first-appeal-no-171-of-1997-vs-unknown-on-14-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/first-appeal-no-171-of-1997-vs-unknown-on-14-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"First Appeal No. 171 Of 1997 vs Unknown on 14 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-17T10:16:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/first-appeal-no-171-of-1997-vs-unknown-on-14-july-2010"},"wordCount":1678,"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\/first-appeal-no-171-of-1997-vs-unknown-on-14-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/first-appeal-no-171-of-1997-vs-unknown-on-14-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/first-appeal-no-171-of-1997-vs-unknown-on-14-july-2010","name":"First Appeal No. 171 Of 1997 vs Unknown on 14 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-17T10:16:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/first-appeal-no-171-of-1997-vs-unknown-on-14-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/first-appeal-no-171-of-1997-vs-unknown-on-14-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/first-appeal-no-171-of-1997-vs-unknown-on-14-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"First Appeal No. 171 Of 1997 vs Unknown on 14 July, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/241328","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=241328"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/241328\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=241328"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=241328"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=241328"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}