{"id":247407,"date":"2009-09-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karishma-consultant-vs-om-prakash-agarwal-on-22-september-2009-2"},"modified":"2018-09-11T18:09:47","modified_gmt":"2018-09-11T12:39:47","slug":"karishma-consultant-vs-om-prakash-agarwal-on-22-september-2009-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karishma-consultant-vs-om-prakash-agarwal-on-22-september-2009-2","title":{"rendered":"Karishma Consultant vs Om Prakash Agarwal on 22 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Karishma Consultant vs Om Prakash Agarwal on 22 September, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: V.R. Kingaonkar<\/div>\n
                              1\n\n\n         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n              CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n           CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2336 OF 2001\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n                           WITH\n           CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2339 OF 2001\n\n     1. Karishma Consultant,\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n     2. Ms.Varsha Devang Desai,\n        both having their place of\n        residence and business at\n        C-305, Karachi Citizen\n        Co-op, Housing Society Ltd.\n\n\n\n\n                            \n        New Juhu Link Road, behind\n        JVPD Bus Depot,\n                 \n        Mumbai 400 057                    .... Applicants.\n                                      (Org.Accused Nos.1&2)\n           V\/s.\n                \n     1. Om Prakash Agarwal,\n        residing at 21 Sunita,\n        Cuffe Parade,\n        Mumbai 400 005                (Orig.Complainant)\n     2. State of Maharashtra              .... Respondents\n      \n\n\n                             WITH\n   \n\n\n\n             CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2339 OF 2001\n     1. Karishma Consultant,\n     2. Ms.Varsha Devang Desai,\n        both having their place of\n\n\n\n\n\n        residence and business at\n        C-305, Karachi Citizen\n        Co-op, Housing Society Ltd.\n        New Juhu Link Road, behind\n        JVPD Bus Depot,\n\n\n\n\n\n        Mumbai 400 057                   .... Applicants.\n                                     (Org.Accused Nos.1&2)\n            V\/s.\n     1. S.V.Sampat,\n        residing at 2A Shrikrupa,\n        5th Carter Road, Ground\n        Floor, Borivali (East),\n        Mumbai 400 067               (Orig.Complainant)\n     2. State of Maharashtra             .... Respondents\n\n\n\n\n                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:06:11 :::\n                               2\n\n\n                            .....\n\n\n\n\n                                                                \n    Mr.N.K.Thakore i\/by Mr.Prakash Naik for the\n    applicants.\n    Shri S.V.Marwadi, Advocate for respondent no.1.\n\n\n\n\n                                        \n    Mrs.Usha V. Kejriwal, APP for State.\n                            .....\n                             WITH\n            CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2337 OF 2001\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n      1. Karishma Consultant,\n      2. Ms.Varsha Devang Desai,\n         both having their place of\n         residence and business at\n\n\n\n\n                            \n         C-305, Karachi Citizen\n         Co-op, Housing Society Ltd.\n                  \n         New Juhu Link Road, behind\n         JVPD Bus Depot,\n         Mumbai 400 057                    .... Applicants.\n                 \n                                       (Org.Accused Nos.1&2)\n            V\/s.\n      1. Smt.Kalpana Agarwal,\n         Wife of Om Prakash Agarwal,\n         residing at 21 Sunita,\n      \n\n\n         Cuffe Parade,\n         Mumbai 400 005              (Orig.Complainant)\n   \n\n\n\n      2. State of Maharashtra            .... Respondents\n\n                             ....\n    Mr.N.K.Thakore i\/by Mr.Prakash Naik for the\n\n\n\n\n\n    applicants.\n    Mrs.A.A.Mane, APP for State.\n                             ....\n\n                            WITH\n\n\n\n\n\n            CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2338 OF 2001\n\n      1. Karishma Consultant,\n      2. Ms.Varsha Devang Desai,\n         both having their place of\n         residence and business at\n         C-305, Karachi Citizen\n         Co-op, Housing Society Ltd.\n         New Juhu Link Road, behind\n         JVPD Bus Depot,\n\n\n\n\n                                        ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:06:11 :::\n                                3\n\n        Mumbai 400 057                     .... Applicants.\n                                       (Org.Accused Nos.1&2)\n\n\n\n\n                                                                \n            V\/s.\n      1. Rashmi Agarwal,\n         C\/o. Om Prakash Agarwal\n\n\n\n\n                                        \n         through Shiv Prakash Pandey,\n         certified attorney,\n         residing at 21 Sunita,\n         Cuffe Parade,\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n         Mumbai 400 005               (Orig.Complainant)\n      2. State of Maharashtra             .... Respondents\n\n                             ....\n    Mr.N.K.Thakore i\/by Mr.Prakash Naik for the\n\n\n\n\n                             \n    applicants.\n    Mr.A.S.Shitole, APP for State.\n                   ig        ....\n\n                            WITH\n                 \n            CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2340 OF 2001\n\n      1. Karishma Consultant,\n      2. Ms.Varsha Devang Desai,\n         both having their place of\n      \n\n\n         residence and business at\n         C-305, Karachi Citizen\n   \n\n\n\n         Co-op, Housing Society Ltd.\n         New Juhu Link Road, behind\n         JVPD Bus Depot,\n         Mumbai 400 057                    .... Applicants.\n\n\n\n\n\n                                       (Org.Accused Nos.1&2)\n            V\/s.\n      1. Ravindra Agarwal,\n         C\/o. Om Prakash Agarwal\n         through Prakash Pandey,\n\n\n\n\n\n         certified attorney,\n         residing at 21 Sunita,\n         Cuffe Parade,\n         Mumbai 400 005                (Orig.Complainant)\n      2. State of Maharashtra              .... Respondents\n\n                             ....\n    Mr.N.K.Thakore i\/by Mr.Prakash Naik for the\n    applicants.\n    Mrs.A.A.Mane, APP for State.\n\n\n\n\n                                        ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:06:11 :::\n                                      4\n\n                                   ....\n\n\n\n\n                                                                     \n                                 CORAM :    V.R.KIN GAONKAR, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                                 DATE  :    22ND SEPTEMBER, 2009.\n\n\n    ORAL JUDGMENT :\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n<\/pre>\n
      1   The group of above noted applications filed<\/p>\n
          by original accused persons for quashing of<\/p>\n
          criminal complaint case u\/s.482 of Criminal<\/p>\n
          Procedure Code<\/a> is being decided together in<\/p>\n
          as much as identical questions of law and<\/p>\n
          facts are involved therein :\n<\/p>\n
      2   The applicants are the proprietary business<\/p>\n
          concern      and    proprietor,        respectively                 who<\/p>\n
          had      certain          transactions              with            the<\/p>\n
          respondent no.1 (Complainant). Devang Desai<\/p>\n
          was husband of the applicant no.2 and was<\/p>\n
          duly authorized to issue cheques for and on<\/p>\n
          behalf      of   the     applicants.            There         is      no<\/p>\n
          dispute about the fact that he issued five<\/p>\n
          cheques     in     question      towards        discharge             of<\/p>\n
          financial        liability       which     the       applicants<\/p>\n
          were supposed to discharge.                   There is also<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:06:11 :::<\/span>
\n                                         5<\/span><\/p>\n
         no    dispute       about          the   fact       that        the       said<\/p>\n
         five cheques were dishonoured                               by the UCO<\/p>\n
         Bank         when        they        were          presented                for<\/p>\n
         encashment.              The       UCO   Bank           returned the<\/p>\n
         cheques             to         the          respondent                    no.1<\/p>\n
         (Complainant)             with        intimation              that          the<\/p>\n
         cheques        could       not        be      honoured             due        to<\/p>\n
         insufficiency of the funds in the account<\/p>\n
         of     the     applicants.                 There         is      also         no<\/p>\n
         dispute        about the fact that the cheques<\/p>\n
         were     issued          on        Bank        account            of        the<\/p>\n
         applicants.\n<\/p>\n
     3   The     respondent             no.1        had      issued           demand<\/p>\n
         notice in the context of the five criminal<\/p>\n
         cases.         That       notice         was      replied           by      the<\/p>\n
         applicants.              The       tenor     of     the       reply was<\/p>\n
         that    the     signatory             of     the       cheques            i.e.<\/p>\n
         Devang Desai had died on 1st May 1996 before<\/p>\n
         the presentation of the cheques in the Bank<\/p>\n
         and as such, the cheques were no more valid<\/p>\n
         instruments.              It       was   also       stated          in the<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:06:11 :::<\/span>
\n                                  6<\/span><\/p>\n
         reply notice that the intimation was duly<\/p>\n
         given    to   the     Bank         about       the       death         of<\/p>\n
         Devang    Desai,      yet     the     Bank        had       wrongly<\/p>\n
         endorsed      that    the     cheques         could         not        be<\/p>\n
         honoured due to insufficiency of the funds<\/p>\n
         in the account.\n<\/p>\n
     4   The     applicants          seek     quashing              of        the<\/p>\n
         criminal   ig complaint       cases        mainly           on       the<\/p>\n
         ground that the cheques were no more valid<\/p>\n
         one and, therefore, the dishonor of such<\/p>\n
         cheques       could     not        have       incurred               any<\/p>\n
         criminal      liability       against          them.               They<\/p>\n
         filed applications before the Metropolitan<\/p>\n
         Magistrate,      for        discharge,             which           were<\/p>\n
         rejected.             The      learned            Metropolitan<\/p>\n
         Magistrate held that the contention raised<\/p>\n
         by the applicants could not be considered<\/p>\n
         at the pre-emptory stage.\n<\/p>\n
     5   Heard the learned counsel.\n<\/p>\n
     6   Mr.Prakash      Naik,       learned      counsel           for       the<\/p>\n
         applicant submits that the respondent no.1<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:06:11 :::<\/span>
\n                                    7<\/span><\/p>\n
     was     duly       intimated            about          the       death          of<\/p>\n
     Devang Desai, the authorized signatory of<\/p>\n
     the    cheques         and    therefore,               the       complaint<\/p>\n
     cases    should         not       have       been        initiated              at<\/p>\n
     all.     He would submit that the intimation<\/p>\n
     was     given          to    the        Bank          but        incorrect<\/p>\n
     endorsement            was     made          by       the        Bank         and<\/p>\n
     therefore ig       mere      dishonor             of       the       cheques<\/p>\n
     cannot       be    a    ground          to     proceed            with        the<\/p>\n
     criminal          cases.           He    contended               that         the<\/p>\n
     cheques became invalid in the eye of law<\/p>\n
     before       the        date        of         the         presentation<\/p>\n
     thereof.           He invited my attention to the<\/p>\n
     explanation given below Section 138<\/a> of the<\/p>\n
     Negotiable Instrument Act as well as 141 of<\/p>\n
     the Negotiable Instrument Act<\/a>.                               He seeks to<\/p>\n
     rely    on     certain        observations                  in     JT      2001<\/p>\n
     (10) SC 345 in Vinod Tanna & Anr. v. Zaheer<\/p>\n
     Siddiqui           &        Ors.        As<\/a>          against               this,<\/p>\n
     Mr.S.V.Marwadi,                learned                 counsel                for<\/p>\n
     respondent no.1, submits that the complaint<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:06:11 :::<\/span>
\n                                   8<\/span><\/p>\n
         cases need not be quashed when the disputed<\/p>\n
         question of facts are involved.                         He would<\/p>\n
         point       out   that   there      is      no       record           to<\/p>\n
         indicate that the Bank was informed by the<\/p>\n
         applicants about the death of said Devang<\/p>\n
         Desai before presentation of the cheques in<\/p>\n
         question.         He contended that the cheques<\/p>\n
         were issued by the authorized person for<\/p>\n
         and     on    behalf     of    the        applicants                and<\/p>\n
         therefore, the applicants are the drawers<\/p>\n
         of    the    cheques.         He   seeks         to      rely         on<\/p>\n
         certain       observations         in        2000          ALL.MR.\n<\/p>\n
         (Cri)1476 in Car Mart Pvt. Ltd V\/s. Apollow<\/p>\n
         Finvest India Ltd. & Ors.\n<\/p>\n
     7   Clinching question is whether the cheques<\/p>\n
         in question lost validity due to the death<\/p>\n
         of the authorized signatory and therefore,<\/p>\n
         the applicants, who are the drawers of the<\/p>\n
         cheques in the eye of law, can prima facie<\/p>\n
         escape the criminal liability.\n<\/p>\n
     8   Admittedly,        the   cheques         were          drawn          on<\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:06:11 :::<\/span>
\n                                  9<\/span><\/p>\n
     account of the applicants and there is no<\/p>\n
     dispute about the fact that the applicants<\/p>\n
     were liable to pay the amount shown under<\/p>\n
     the    cheques       in     question.             The       deceased<\/p>\n
     (Devang        Desai)           was      only           authorized<\/p>\n
     signatory of the cheques in question.                                  The<\/p>\n
     plain     reading          of     Section         138<\/a>        of        the<\/p>\n
     Negotiable Instrument Act would show that<\/p>\n
     the    criminal       liability         would         arise          when<\/p>\n
     cheuqe is dishonoured though presented to<\/p>\n
     the Bank within the period of six months<\/p>\n
     from the date it was drawn or within the<\/p>\n
     period        of     its        validity,          whatever              is<\/p>\n
     earlier.             According         to        Mr.Naik,              the<\/p>\n
     expression          Period       of   its     validity               does<\/p>\n
     imply that it was the period which could be<\/p>\n
     upto    the        date    of    death      of      said        Devang<\/p>\n
     Desai.        The cheques in question could not<\/p>\n
     regarded as invalid instruments as on date<\/p>\n
     of    death    of     the   signatory          qua       the      payee<\/p>\n
     bank unless the death was duly intimated to<\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:06:11 :::<\/span>
\n                                  10<\/span><\/p>\n
         the bank.       Take for example, that                       A      has<\/p>\n
         issued    a     cheque       and        died        period            to<\/p>\n
         presentation        thereof       in     the       Bank.              No<\/p>\n
         intimation about the death is given to the<\/p>\n
         Bank   and    the    amount       is    available           in the<\/p>\n
         account, the Bank is then legally bound to<\/p>\n
         honour    the       cheuqe    as       and      when         it       is<\/p>\n
         presented.ig           The        cheque          cannot              be<\/p>\n
         dishonoured     unless       it    is    communicated                 to<\/p>\n
         the Bank that the signatory of the cheque<\/p>\n
         was no more alive.           Obviously, unless there<\/p>\n
         is tangible evidence to infer that the Bank<\/p>\n
         was    duly   intimated       about        death         of       said<\/p>\n
         Devang Desai, prior to presentation of the<\/p>\n
         cheques in question, it cannot be said that<\/p>\n
         the instruments became invalid.\n<\/p>\n
     9   In Vinod Tanna & Anr. v. Zaheer Siddiqui &<\/p>\n
         Ors<\/a> in JT 2001 (10) SC 345 (Supra), the<\/p>\n
         Apex Court held that when the dishonor of<\/p>\n
         the    cheque   was     on    the       ground         that         the<\/p>\n
         drawer s signature was incomplete, it would<\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:06:11 :::<\/span>
\n                                   11<\/span><\/p>\n
          not   give    rise     to    the    criminal            liability<\/p>\n
          u\/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n
          For, the dishonor of the cheque would fall<\/p>\n
          outside    the   ambit       of    Section         138<\/a>      of the<\/p>\n
          Negotiable Instrument Act. In such a case,<\/p>\n
          the   cheque     cannot      be    said       to      have        been<\/p>\n
          returned      unpaid    by    the      Bank        because            of<\/p>\n
          insufficiency of the funds standing to the<\/p>\n
          credit of the account holder or it exceeds<\/p>\n
          the   amount     alleged      to    be     paid.            In      the<\/p>\n
          present case, the Bank refused to honour<\/p>\n
          the cheques in question, because there was<\/p>\n
          no appropriate amount at the credit of the<\/p>\n
          applicants to satisfy the demanded amount<\/p>\n
          shown under the cheques in question.                                Had<\/p>\n
          the cheques been dishonoured on account of<\/p>\n
          death    of    the    authorized         signatory,               then<\/p>\n
          probably       the     impact       would           have          been<\/p>\n
          something different.\n<\/p>\n
     10   Though     the       applicant       no.2          is       not         a<\/p>\n
          signatory of the cheques in question, yet<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:06:11 :::<\/span>
\n                                12<\/span><\/p>\n
     she and the applicant no.2 are the account<\/p>\n
     holders and the chqeus were issued on their<\/p>\n
     accounts.            In    somewhat          similar              fact<\/p>\n
     situation, this Court in              Car Mart Pvt. Ltd<\/p>\n
     V\/s. Apollow Finvest India Ltd. & Ors.2000<\/p>\n
     in ALL.MR.(Cri)1476              held that the drawer<\/p>\n
     of the cheque cannot escape the liability<\/p>\n
     on    the   ground
\n                  ig       that      the   signatory             of the<\/p>\n
     cheque died prior to the date mentioned in<\/p>\n
     the cheuqe.       It is pertinent to note that<\/p>\n
     herein the question whether the signatory<\/p>\n
     of the cheques, died prior to the dates of<\/p>\n
     the    presentation        of     the     cheques,             is       a<\/p>\n
     disputed question of fact.                      The question<\/p>\n
     whether the applicants gave due intimation<\/p>\n
     about the death of the authorized signatory<\/p>\n
     of the cheques to the Bank is also disputed<\/p>\n
     question     of   fact.         There     is       nothing            on<\/p>\n
     record to say that such prior intimation<\/p>\n
     was given to the Bank soon after death of<\/p>\n
     the said signatory of the cheques, namely,<\/p>\n
                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:06:11 :::<\/span>
\n                                  13<\/span><\/p>\n
          Devang Desai and request was made to treat<\/p>\n
          the   cheques    in     question           as       a     invalid<\/p>\n
          instruments.     Considering these aspects of<\/p>\n
          the matter, it is difficult to countenance<\/p>\n
          the   contentions      raised      by      Mr.Naik.                The<\/p>\n
          applicants being drawers of the cheques in<\/p>\n
          question, are prima facie liable to face<\/p>\n
          the criminal prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
                   ig                             The applications<\/p>\n
          are, therefore, without much merit.\n<\/p>\n
     11   In    the    result,        the     applications                   are<\/p>\n
          dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
     12   The Trial Court shall expedite the trials<\/p>\n
          of the criminal complaints.\n<\/p>\n
                                        (V.R.KIN GAONKAR, J.)<\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:06:11 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Karishma Consultant vs Om Prakash Agarwal on 22 September, 2009 Bench: V.R. Kingaonkar 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2336 OF 2001 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2339 OF 2001 1. Karishma Consultant, 2. Ms.Varsha Devang Desai, both having their place of residence and […]<\/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-247407","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKarishma Consultant vs Om Prakash Agarwal on 22 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karishma-consultant-vs-om-prakash-agarwal-on-22-september-2009-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Karishma Consultant vs Om Prakash Agarwal on 22 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karishma-consultant-vs-om-prakash-agarwal-on-22-september-2009-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-11T12:39:47+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\\\/karishma-consultant-vs-om-prakash-agarwal-on-22-september-2009-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karishma-consultant-vs-om-prakash-agarwal-on-22-september-2009-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Karishma Consultant vs Om Prakash Agarwal on 22 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-11T12:39:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karishma-consultant-vs-om-prakash-agarwal-on-22-september-2009-2\"},\"wordCount\":1399,\"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\\\/karishma-consultant-vs-om-prakash-agarwal-on-22-september-2009-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karishma-consultant-vs-om-prakash-agarwal-on-22-september-2009-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karishma-consultant-vs-om-prakash-agarwal-on-22-september-2009-2\",\"name\":\"Karishma Consultant vs Om Prakash Agarwal on 22 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-11T12:39:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karishma-consultant-vs-om-prakash-agarwal-on-22-september-2009-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karishma-consultant-vs-om-prakash-agarwal-on-22-september-2009-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karishma-consultant-vs-om-prakash-agarwal-on-22-september-2009-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Karishma Consultant vs Om Prakash Agarwal on 22 September, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Karishma Consultant vs Om Prakash Agarwal on 22 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karishma-consultant-vs-om-prakash-agarwal-on-22-september-2009-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Karishma Consultant vs Om Prakash Agarwal on 22 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karishma-consultant-vs-om-prakash-agarwal-on-22-september-2009-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-11T12:39:47+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\/karishma-consultant-vs-om-prakash-agarwal-on-22-september-2009-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karishma-consultant-vs-om-prakash-agarwal-on-22-september-2009-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Karishma Consultant vs Om Prakash Agarwal on 22 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-11T12:39:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karishma-consultant-vs-om-prakash-agarwal-on-22-september-2009-2"},"wordCount":1399,"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\/karishma-consultant-vs-om-prakash-agarwal-on-22-september-2009-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karishma-consultant-vs-om-prakash-agarwal-on-22-september-2009-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karishma-consultant-vs-om-prakash-agarwal-on-22-september-2009-2","name":"Karishma Consultant vs Om Prakash Agarwal on 22 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-11T12:39:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karishma-consultant-vs-om-prakash-agarwal-on-22-september-2009-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karishma-consultant-vs-om-prakash-agarwal-on-22-september-2009-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karishma-consultant-vs-om-prakash-agarwal-on-22-september-2009-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Karishma Consultant vs Om Prakash Agarwal on 22 September, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/247407","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=247407"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/247407\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=247407"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=247407"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=247407"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}