{"id":251817,"date":"2007-08-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-08-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-ajit-sachdeva-ors-vs-anoopi-shahani-on-21-august-2007"},"modified":"2016-02-01T04:21:04","modified_gmt":"2016-01-31T22:51:04","slug":"santosh-ajit-sachdeva-ors-vs-anoopi-shahani-on-21-august-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-ajit-sachdeva-ors-vs-anoopi-shahani-on-21-august-2007","title":{"rendered":"Santosh Ajit Sachdeva &amp; Ors vs Anoopi Shahani on 21 August, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Santosh Ajit Sachdeva &amp; Ors vs Anoopi Shahani on 21 August, 2007<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: A Mathur<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: A.K.Mathur, Markandey Katju<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  1386 of 2005\n\nPETITIONER:\nSantosh Ajit Sachdeva &amp; Ors\n\nRESPONDENT:\nAnoopi Shahani\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 21\/08\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nA.K.MATHUR &amp; MARKANDEY KATJU\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">J U D G M E N T <\/p>\n<p>CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1386  OF 2005<\/p>\n<p>A.K. MATHUR, J.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">1.\t\tThis Appeal is directed against the order passed by the<br \/>\nHigh Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 7701 of 2004<br \/>\non 29th November, 2004 whereby  the learned Single Judge has<br \/>\nupheld the order of the  appellate court under the provisions of<br \/>\nSection 13(1)(e) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses<br \/>\nRates Control Act, 1947.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">2.\t\tBrief facts which are necessary  for the disposal of this<br \/>\nappeal  are as under:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">\tThe suit was filed by  the plaintiff  Smt. Anoop Shahani<br \/>\n(respondent herein) against the  defendant No. 1 Mrs. Santosh Ajit<br \/>\nSachdeva (appellant herein) wife of Mr. Ajit Sachdeva since  died<br \/>\nwho was the  original tenant of the suit premises   for eviction  on the<br \/>\nground of subletting of the premises.  The suit premises, i.e., 61,<br \/>\nAnjali, 6th floor, Behind Radio Club, Colaba Bombay 5  was  let out by<br \/>\nthe  plaintiff   on the monthly rent of Rs. 1300\/-.    It was contended<br \/>\nthat the defendant  No. 2 was a proprietory concern of the  defendant<br \/>\nNo. 1 known as M\/s Pearl Advertisings.   During the pendency of the<br \/>\nsuit the  plaint was amended and the defendants Nos 4&amp; 5  joined  as<br \/>\ndefendants.  The  joining of defendants Nos. 4 &amp; 5 were   unlawful in<br \/>\nrespect of the suit premises.    It is the case of  defendant No. 1  who<br \/>\nunlawfully sublet the  suit premises to defendants Nos. 3, 4 &amp; 5.   The<br \/>\ndefendant Nos. 3, 4 &amp; 5  claimed rights through defendant no. 1.<br \/>\nAccording to  plaintiff, defendant No. 1 has unlawfully sublet the  suit<br \/>\npremises  to defendant No. 3 in the month of September, 1998  and<br \/>\ntherefore,  the defendant No. 1  has  lost protection of the  Bombay<br \/>\nRent Act  and therefore, the defendant No. 1 is liable to be evicted<br \/>\nfrom the suit premises.    The plaintiff by  giving a notice dated<br \/>\n19.8.1989 through her advocate terminated the tenancy of the<br \/>\ndefendant no. 1 in respect of suit premises and called upon  the<br \/>\ndefendant No. 1 to  quit, vacate and  deliver  the  quiet and peaceful<br \/>\npossession of the suit premises.  But no reply was given.   Hence, the<br \/>\nsuit was filed against the defendants for eviction.   On the basis of<br \/>\npleadings of the parties,  the learned trial judge framed  three issues<br \/>\nin the suit  on  7.11.1997 :\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">1.\tDoes plaintiff prove that defendant nos. 1 &amp; 2 illegally sublet<br \/>\nthe suit premises or  unlawfully given on licence to the<br \/>\nDefendant No. 3?\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">2.\tIs plaintiff entitled to decree of possession of the suit<br \/>\npremises?\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">3.\tWhat order and decree?\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">3.\tBoth the parties examined themselves with necessary witness<br \/>\nand  produced the documents.    The trial court after considering the<br \/>\nmatter held  that the plaintiff was  not entitled to the decree for<br \/>\neviction.   It is relevant to mention that Mr. Sachdeva expired  and<br \/>\ndefendant No. 1 Smt. Santosh  Ajit Sachdeva wife of Mr. Sachdeva<br \/>\nbecame the tenant of plaintiff in respect of suit premises.  As already<br \/>\nmentioned above that M\/s  Pearl Advertisings is a proprietory concern<br \/>\nof  Shri Ajit Sachdeva.  The defendant No. 3 M\/s Impression<br \/>\nAdvertising Pvt. Ltd is  the unlawful  occupant  in respect of suit<br \/>\npremises.  The case of the defendant was that her husband  Ajit<br \/>\nSachdeva and  she herself registered the Private Limited Company<br \/>\nand were the Directors of the  said company.     During the life time of<br \/>\nlate Shri Sachdeva he also  carried out the business  in the name of<br \/>\nM\/s Impression Advertising and Marketing.    Mr. Sachdeva died on<br \/>\n26th September, 1984 and thereafter defendant No. 1 was accepted<br \/>\nas  tenant by the plaintiff and the rent was being paid by the<br \/>\ndefendant No. 2 to the extent of Rs. 300\/- and  by M\/s Impression<br \/>\nAdvertising and Marketing at  Rs. 1000\/- per month.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">4.\tIt was also contended that defendant No. 3 M\/s Impression<br \/>\nAdvertising Co. did not commence the business owing to the  illness<br \/>\nof the Director late Shri Sachdeva.   However in July, 1988 defendant<br \/>\nNo. 1 decided that the said company should conduct the business<br \/>\nwhich was being carried out in the name of M\/s Impression<br \/>\nAdvertising and  Marketing.   After the commencement of the<br \/>\nbusiness the defendant was remitting the rent  to the plaintiff on<br \/>\nbehalf of the defendant no.1.    Therefore, the  defendant no. 1<br \/>\ndenied that the defendant no. 3  was the unlawful occupant as<br \/>\nalleged.  It was also contended that the  business of the defendant<br \/>\nNo. 3  was run by the defendant no. 1 as the Managing Director.<br \/>\nTherefore,   the allegation that defendant had unlawfully  sub-let or<br \/>\ngiven on leave and on licence  basis to the defendant No. 3 was not<br \/>\nproved.    it was urged that defendant No. 1 carried on the business in<br \/>\nthe name of the defendant No. 2 and the premises continued to<br \/>\nremain in her custody and control and defendant No. 3 did not claim<br \/>\nany right or   claim in  the suit premises.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\"> 5.\tHowever, the trial court after examining the necessary evidence<br \/>\ndismissed the suit.  Hence, the respondent approached the appellate<br \/>\nauthority against the judgment and order passed by the  trial court on<br \/>\n22.12.1998.   The appellate authority  examined the factual<br \/>\ncontroversy and after reviewing  all the oral &amp; documentary evidence<br \/>\nof the defendant No. 1 did not feel persuaded that she was controlling<br \/>\nthe whole business as Director of the company in the suit premises.<br \/>\nThe trial court after referring to the  Annual Returns  from 1988 to<br \/>\n1994 found that   defendant No. 1 the appellant owns  1400 shares<br \/>\nout of 2000 shares  of the said company and one   Shri  Shivdutt<br \/>\nSharma owns 240 shares and Shri Gautam Sachdeva owns 250<br \/>\nshares of the said company.   It was further held that Ms. Shibani<br \/>\nSachdeva and M\/s Nikki Sachdeva own 60  &amp; 50 shares respectively<br \/>\nwhereas S\/Shri Charles D Souza  &amp; Bhooshan Prabhu were holding<br \/>\n90 shares &amp; 50 shares respectively and on that basis the trial court<br \/>\nfound that the defendant (appellant herein) was found to be<br \/>\ncontrolling the whole business.   However, this finding was reversed<br \/>\nby the appellate court.   The appellate court found that simple<br \/>\nshareholding of the appellant in the  company  is not enough &amp;  there<br \/>\nis no factual foundation in respect of actual control over the business<br \/>\nof the company in suit premises.   Mere statement that  the appellant<br \/>\nholds  1400 shares or  production of balance sheet is not sufficient to<br \/>\nprove her actual control.  The appellate  court found that  except this<br \/>\ndocumentary evidence there is no evidence to show that the day to<br \/>\nday activity is being controlled  by the defendant No.1. On this<br \/>\nevidence, the appellate  court reversed the finding and held that<br \/>\nmerely she  was having a majority  share-holding by that it cannot be<br \/>\nconcluded that she was in actual control of the business of the<br \/>\ncompany in suit premises.  Aggrieved against the order of the<br \/>\nappellate court,  the writ was filed before the High Court and the  High<br \/>\nCourt after reviewing the evidence affirmed the  finding recorded by<br \/>\nthe first appellate court that there is no sufficient material from which<br \/>\nit can be concluded  that  actually  the  defendant &#8211; appellant is<br \/>\nlooking after the business of the company in the suit premises.<br \/>\nAccordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and affirmed<br \/>\nthe order of the appellate court.   Aggrieved  against  this order,  the<br \/>\npresent appeal was filed.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">6.\tWe have heard learned counsel for the parties &amp; perused the<br \/>\nrecord.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">7.\tMr. Dwivedi, learned senior counsel strenuously urged before<br \/>\nus that the principal of lifting the corporate  veil has been  accepted<br \/>\nand, therefore, if the corporate veil is lifted then it appears that the<br \/>\nappellant who holds the major share is looking after the  day to day<br \/>\nfunctioning  of the company and learned counsel accordingly placed<br \/>\nreliance on the decision of this Court in the case of   <a href=\"\/doc\/1106992\/\" id=\"a_1\">Madras<br \/>\nBangalore  Transport Co. (West)  v.  Inder Singh<\/a>  reported in  (1986)<br \/>\n3 SCC 62 and also placed reliance in a number of other judgments.<br \/>\nThe decision of Madras Bangalore Transport Co. (West) (Supra)<br \/>\ncame up for consideration before this Court in a subsequent<br \/>\njudgment in the case of  <a href=\"\/doc\/690250\/\" id=\"a_1\">Sait Nagjee Purushotham &amp; Co. Ltd.  V.<br \/>\nVimalabai Prabhulal<\/a> reported in (2005)8 SCC 252  wherein the case<br \/>\nof Madras Bangalore Transport Co. (West) (Supra)  was considered<br \/>\nalongwith all other cases cited by learned  counsel and it was<br \/>\nspecifically recorded with regard to Madras Bangalore Transport Co.<br \/>\n(West) (Supra) .\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">\t&#8221; This case has been decided purely  on facts peculiar to it and<br \/>\nno principle of law has been laid down.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">8.\tAll other cases referred by learned counsel were  also<br \/>\nexamined and we do not feel any need to refer any  more of them.<br \/>\nThe theory of lifting the corporate veil has been accepted in certain<br \/>\ncircumstances which have already been  referred by this Court in  a<br \/>\nseries of  decisions.   However,   so far as this case is concerned,<br \/>\nas per the finding of fact recorded by the appellate court as well as by<br \/>\nthe  High Court  that the  appellant-defendant has not been able to<br \/>\nsuccessfully prove  that she is controlling the  company,   it was  held<br \/>\nby the appellate court that merely  by holding a large number of<br \/>\nshares  is not sufficient but something more is required to  prove  that<br \/>\nshe is actually controlling  and managing the business herself.  That<br \/>\nfinding of the Appellate  Court has been upheld by the High Court.<br \/>\nHence, in view of the concurrent finding of  both the courts below,<br \/>\nthere is no reason for us to take a different view of the matter.  Hence<br \/>\nwe  do not find any merit in this appeal  and accordingly  the appeal<br \/>\nstands dismissed.  No order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Santosh Ajit Sachdeva &amp; Ors vs Anoopi Shahani on 21 August, 2007 Author: A Mathur Bench: A.K.Mathur, Markandey Katju CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1386 of 2005 PETITIONER: Santosh Ajit Sachdeva &amp; Ors RESPONDENT: Anoopi Shahani DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21\/08\/2007 BENCH: A.K.MATHUR &amp; MARKANDEY KATJU JUDGMENT: J U D G M E [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-251817","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Santosh Ajit Sachdeva &amp; Ors vs Anoopi Shahani on 21 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/santosh-ajit-sachdeva-ors-vs-anoopi-shahani-on-21-august-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Santosh Ajit Sachdeva &amp; Ors vs Anoopi Shahani on 21 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-ajit-sachdeva-ors-vs-anoopi-shahani-on-21-august-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-08-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-31T22:51:04+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\\\/santosh-ajit-sachdeva-ors-vs-anoopi-shahani-on-21-august-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santosh-ajit-sachdeva-ors-vs-anoopi-shahani-on-21-august-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Santosh Ajit Sachdeva &amp; Ors vs Anoopi Shahani on 21 August, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-08-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-31T22:51:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santosh-ajit-sachdeva-ors-vs-anoopi-shahani-on-21-august-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1562,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santosh-ajit-sachdeva-ors-vs-anoopi-shahani-on-21-august-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santosh-ajit-sachdeva-ors-vs-anoopi-shahani-on-21-august-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santosh-ajit-sachdeva-ors-vs-anoopi-shahani-on-21-august-2007\",\"name\":\"Santosh Ajit Sachdeva &amp; Ors vs Anoopi Shahani on 21 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-08-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-31T22:51:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santosh-ajit-sachdeva-ors-vs-anoopi-shahani-on-21-august-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santosh-ajit-sachdeva-ors-vs-anoopi-shahani-on-21-august-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santosh-ajit-sachdeva-ors-vs-anoopi-shahani-on-21-august-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Santosh Ajit Sachdeva &amp; Ors vs Anoopi Shahani on 21 August, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Santosh Ajit Sachdeva &amp; Ors vs Anoopi Shahani on 21 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/santosh-ajit-sachdeva-ors-vs-anoopi-shahani-on-21-august-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Santosh Ajit Sachdeva &amp; Ors vs Anoopi Shahani on 21 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-ajit-sachdeva-ors-vs-anoopi-shahani-on-21-august-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-08-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-31T22:51:04+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\/santosh-ajit-sachdeva-ors-vs-anoopi-shahani-on-21-august-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-ajit-sachdeva-ors-vs-anoopi-shahani-on-21-august-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Santosh Ajit Sachdeva &amp; Ors vs Anoopi Shahani on 21 August, 2007","datePublished":"2007-08-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-31T22:51:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-ajit-sachdeva-ors-vs-anoopi-shahani-on-21-august-2007"},"wordCount":1562,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-ajit-sachdeva-ors-vs-anoopi-shahani-on-21-august-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-ajit-sachdeva-ors-vs-anoopi-shahani-on-21-august-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-ajit-sachdeva-ors-vs-anoopi-shahani-on-21-august-2007","name":"Santosh Ajit Sachdeva &amp; Ors vs Anoopi Shahani on 21 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-08-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-31T22:51:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-ajit-sachdeva-ors-vs-anoopi-shahani-on-21-august-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-ajit-sachdeva-ors-vs-anoopi-shahani-on-21-august-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santosh-ajit-sachdeva-ors-vs-anoopi-shahani-on-21-august-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Santosh Ajit Sachdeva &amp; Ors vs Anoopi Shahani on 21 August, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/251817","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=251817"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/251817\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=251817"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=251817"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=251817"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}