{"id":254075,"date":"2009-01-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-01-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/javed-hanif-quareshi-vs-lakhani-traders-on-29-january-2009"},"modified":"2018-03-19T17:39:44","modified_gmt":"2018-03-19T12:09:44","slug":"javed-hanif-quareshi-vs-lakhani-traders-on-29-january-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/javed-hanif-quareshi-vs-lakhani-traders-on-29-january-2009","title":{"rendered":"Javed Hanif Quareshi vs Lakhani Traders on 29 January, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Bombay High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Javed Hanif Quareshi vs Lakhani Traders on 29 January, 2009<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S. S. Shinde<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD.\n\n                CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2442 OF 2008\n\n\n\n\n                                                                        \n     Javed Hanif Quareshi,\n     Age 28 yrs., Occu. Business,\n     R\/o. Near Vegetable Market,\n\n\n\n\n                                                \n     Songadh, Tq. Songadh, Dist.\n     Surat (Gujrath).\n                                                          ..Applicant.\n\n                     VERSUS\n\n\n\n\n                                               \n     Lakhani Traders, Through its\n     Mnager Shri.Nadim Nazir Inamdar,\n     Age   years, Occu. Business,\n     R\/o. Devalfali, Nawapur,\n\n\n\n\n                                  \n     Tq. Nawapur, dist. Nandurbar.\n                                                     ..Respondent.\n                     \n     Shri.V.P.Raje Advocate h\/f. Shri.C.R.Deshpande,\n                    \n     Advocate for applicant.\n\n     Shri.Swapnil S. Patil, Advocate for respondent.\n      \n\n\n                                  CORAM : S.S.SHINDE, J.\n   \n\n\n\n                                  DATED : 29th JANUARY, 2009.\n\n     JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">     .       Rule.     Rule     made      returnable        forthwith          by<\/p>\n<p>     consent of parties heard finally.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">     2.      This    application       is filed,      challenging            the<\/p>\n<p>     judgment and order dated 21st June, 2008 passed by the<\/p>\n<p>     Additional      Sessions          Judge,      Nandurbar              below<\/p>\n<p>     application, Exh.    4, in Criminal Appeal No.                  2\/2008.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_1\">                                                ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 14:17:25 :::<\/span><\/p>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">                                      (    2    )\n\n\n\n\n     3.        The     present applicant is the original accused\n\n\n\n\n                                                                              \n     in    S.T.C.No.          60\/05 which is tried by             the      Judicial\n\n     Magistrate,       First     Class,       Navapur      for      the     offence\n\n\n\n\n                                                      \n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_2\">     punishable under <a href=\"\/doc\/1823824\/\" id=\"a_1\">section 138<\/a> of Negotiable Instruments<\/p>\n<p>     Act, 1881.<\/p>\n<pre id=\"pre_2\">\n\n\n\n\n                                                     \n     4.        The       present    respondent           filed       a      private\n\n     complaint       in the Court of Judicial Magistrate,                       First\n\n\n\n\n                                        \n     Class,        Navapur,     alleging       that      the      accused          had\n\n     purchased\n\n     of    worth     Rs.\n                        \n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_3\">                     the live chicken stock from the complainant<\/p>\n<p>                              3 lacks.    Towards the payment of                  said<\/p>\n<p>     amount     the accused had issued one cheque bearing                          No.<\/p>\n<p>     194321     to     the complainant for the amount of                    Rs.        3<\/p>\n<p>     lacks.        The said cheque dated 22nd November, 2004 was<\/p>\n<p>     drawn on the State Bank of India, Branch at Songad.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">     5.        On      29.2.2008 the learned Judicial Magistrate,<\/p>\n<p>     First     Class, Navapur has been pleased to convict                          the<\/p>\n<p>     accused       for the offence punishable under <a href=\"\/doc\/1823824\/\" id=\"a_1\">section                        138<\/a><\/p>\n<p>     of    Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and has sentenced<\/p>\n<p>     the     accused     to     suffer simple imprisonment                 for     six<\/p>\n<p>     months     and to pay the compensation of Rs.                     3 lacks to<\/p>\n<p>     the original complainant.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_1\">                                                      ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 14:17:25 :::<\/span><\/p>\n<pre id=\"pre_3\">                                            (     3   )\n\n\n\n\n     6.          On     25.3.2008          the       present       applicant           filed\n\n     Criminal         Appeal        No.     2\/2008        before        the     Court      of\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                    \n     Additional         Sessions Judge, Nandurbar, challenging the\n\n     judgment         and     order       dated 29.02.2008 passed                 by     the\n\n\n\n\n                                                            \n     J.M.F.C., Navapur.\n\n\n\n\n                                                           \n     7.          In     the     said        appeal        the     appellant\/present\n\n     applicant has filed application Exh.                         4 for suspension\n\n     of    sentence and for releasing the appellant on                                bail,\n\n\n\n\n                                              \n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_5\">     pending the hearing and final disposal of the criminal<\/p>\n<p>     appeal.<\/p>\n<pre id=\"pre_4\">\n\n     Judge,\n                      On\n\n                 Nandurbar\n                            \n                             21st June, 2008 the Additional\n\n                                    has     been         pleased        to\n                                                                                 Sessions\n\n                                                                               allow     the\n                           \n     application,            Exh.     4, partly and has granted the stay\n\n     to    the     operation          of the judgment             and        order     dated\n\n     29.2.2008         passed        by    the J.M.F.C.,           Navapur        on     the\n      \n\n\n     condition         of depositing 50 % amount by the appellant\/\n   \n\n\n\n     present applicant.\n\n\n\n     8.          The        present       application        is       filed       by     the\n\n\n\n\n\n     applicant         under        <a href=\"\/doc\/1679850\/\" id=\"a_2\">section 482<\/a> of Cr.P.C.,                  challenging\n\n     the    said       order        passed by        the    Additional           Sessions\n\n     Judge,      Nandurbar below Exh.                4 in Criminal Appeal No.\n\n\n\n\n\n     2\/2008      to        the extent of direction to deposit 50%                          of\n\n     the amount of compensation.\n\n\n\n\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_2\">                                                            ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:17:25 :::<\/span>\n                                             (    4   )\n\n\n\n\n     9.            The      learned         counsel        appearing          for       the\n\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_6\">     applicant submits that the impugned judgment and order<\/p>\n<p>     is contrary to the facts on record of this case to the<\/p>\n<p>     extent of direction in respect of payment of amount of<\/p>\n<p>     compensation.            He further submits that this Court                          in<\/p>\n<p>     case     of Mohamad Hafiz Khan Vs.                   Anand Finance &amp;              Anr.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">     reported        in     2003     ALL     M.R.      (Cri.)      1937       has      been<\/p>\n<p>     pleased       to suspend the sentence on deposit of                            amount<\/p>\n<p>     equivalent           to 1\/4th of the compensation awarded.                           He<\/p>\n<p>     further       submits        that in other Criminal                 Applications<\/p>\n<p>     Nos.<\/p>\n<pre id=\"pre_5\">\n\n     allowed\n               119\/2006,\n                            ig     120\/2006      and      121\/2006\n\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_8\">                   the application filed by the original accused<br \/>\n                                                                          this        Court<\/p>\n<p>     and     the     order        of stay to th effect,              operation          and<\/p>\n<p>     execution        of     the     judgment and order passed                   by     the<\/p>\n<p>     learned       J.M.F.C.,        directing        to deposit 1\/4              of     the<\/p>\n<p>     compensation           amount.        The sum and substance                 of     the<\/p>\n<p>     argument        of     the     counsel for applicant is                  that      the<\/p>\n<p>     interim       order      passed       by this Court,            directing          the<\/p>\n<p>     present         applicant         to       deposit         1\/4       amount          of<\/p>\n<p>     compensation should be made absolute.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">     10.        The         learned         counsel        appearing          for       the<\/p>\n<p>     respondent           vehemently       opposed       the       prayer        of     the<\/p>\n<p>     applicant        and     submitted that Sessions Court,                        taking<\/p>\n<p>     facts     and        circumstances of this case in to                      account,<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_3\">                                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 14:17:25 :::<\/span><br \/>\n                                           (   5   )<\/p>\n<p>     has     rightly        directed      the applicant to            deposit        50%<\/p>\n<p>     amount,        therefore, no interference is called for                         and<\/p>\n<p>     prayed        that     this Court may not be interfered in                      the<\/p>\n<p>     order        passed        by the Additional Sessions Judge.                    The<\/p>\n<p>     learned        counsel relied on the judgment of this                        Court<\/p>\n<p>     in     the     case of Maheshwar Dattatraya Kale Vs.                         Capt.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">     Atul     Wasudeo           Divekar   &amp; Anr.      reported in           2006     (1)<\/p>\n<p>     A.I.R.         Bom.        R 361 and submitted that              the     learned<\/p>\n<p>     judge        would have been justified in imposing condition<\/p>\n<p>     of     deposit        of    the entire compensation              amount.          He<\/p>\n<p>     further<\/p>\n<p>     has<\/p>\n<p>                    submitted that the Additional Sessions<\/p>\n<p>             taken a reasonable view and directed the<br \/>\n                                                                                  Judge<\/p>\n<p>                                                                              present<\/p>\n<p>     applicant to deposit 50% amount.                  He further submitted<\/p>\n<p>     that     in     view       of the order passed          by     the      Sessions<\/p>\n<p>     Court, taking reasonable view, this application may be<\/p>\n<p>     rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">     11.          Heard     the     learned counsel for the                 applicant<\/p>\n<p>     and     respondent at great length.               Mere perusal of               the<\/p>\n<p>     application and ground No.               4 taken in the application<\/p>\n<p>     would        show     that the applicant is resident                   of    small<\/p>\n<p>     town namely Songad.             There are large number of members<\/p>\n<p>     in     his     family who are dependant on his income.                          The<\/p>\n<p>     applicant           belongs to poor strata of the society.                      The<\/p>\n<p>     applicant is running a small business in retail.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_4\">                                                        ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 14:17:25 :::<\/span><\/p>\n<pre id=\"pre_6\">                                               (    6     )\n\n\n\n\n     12.         This       Court        by       order dated         30      July,       2008,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                        \n     directed         the applicant to deposit 25% amount in stead\n\n     of     50% as directed by the Sessions Court.                               It is true\n\n\n\n\n                                                                \n     that     normally         the       Court should            direct        to     deposit\n\n     entire           amount        of        compensation.             However,            such\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n     direction         is      necessarily depend upon the                       facts       and\n\n     circumstances            of     each         case.      This     Court         taking       a\n\n     reasonable         view        passed interim order on                    30th       July,\n\n\n\n\n                                                 \n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_12\">     2008, directing the applicant to deposit 25% amount in<\/p>\n<p>     It     is    not<\/p>\n<p>     stead of 50% amount as directed by the Sessions Court.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">                            in dispute that in pursuance                       to     interim<\/p>\n<p>     order       of     this       Court,          the       present       applicant         has<\/p>\n<p>     deposited the amount.                In my view, the ends of justice<\/p>\n<p>     would       be met if the lower appellate Court is directed<\/p>\n<p>     to      decide         the      appeal            filed     by     the         applicant<\/p>\n<p>     expeditiously            and     till then effect and operation                           of<\/p>\n<p>     judgment and order dated 29th February, 2008 passed by<\/p>\n<p>     the     learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Navapur<\/p>\n<p>     is stayed.<\/p>\n<pre id=\"pre_7\">\n\n\n\n\n\n     13.         In     the        result, the criminal                 application            is\n\n     partly allowed.               The lower appellate Court is directed\n\n     to decide the Criminal Appeal No.                           2\/2008 filed by the\n\n\n\n\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_5\">                                                                ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:17:25 :::<\/span>\n                                     (    7   )\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_14\">     applicant on merits within a period of six months from<\/p>\n<p>     today.       It is further directed that till the decision<\/p>\n<p>     of     the lower appellate Court the effect and operation<\/p>\n<p>     of     the   judgment     and order passed         by     the      Judicial<\/p>\n<p>     Magistrate,       First   Class, Navaur dated 2nd                February,<\/p>\n<p>     2008     stands     stayed.    The      original        complainant          is<\/p>\n<p>     permitted     to withdraw the amount of 25% deposited                        by<\/p>\n<p>     the     applicant    towards       compensation.        Rule       is     made<\/p>\n<p>     absolute as indicated above.\n<\/p>\n<pre id=\"pre_8\">                        ig                       [ S.S.SHINDE, J.]\n                      \n     ssc\/criapln2442.08\n      \n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_6\">                                                   ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:17:25 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Bombay High Court Javed Hanif Quareshi vs Lakhani Traders on 29 January, 2009 Bench: S. S. Shinde IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2442 OF 2008 Javed Hanif Quareshi, Age 28 yrs., Occu. Business, R\/o. Near Vegetable Market, Songadh, Tq. Songadh, Dist. Surat (Gujrath). ..Applicant. VERSUS Lakhani [&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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-254075","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Javed Hanif Quareshi vs Lakhani Traders on 29 January, 2009 - 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\/javed-hanif-quareshi-vs-lakhani-traders-on-29-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Javed Hanif Quareshi vs Lakhani Traders on 29 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/javed-hanif-quareshi-vs-lakhani-traders-on-29-january-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-19T12:09:44+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/javed-hanif-quareshi-vs-lakhani-traders-on-29-january-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/javed-hanif-quareshi-vs-lakhani-traders-on-29-january-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Javed Hanif Quareshi vs Lakhani Traders on 29 January, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-19T12:09:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/javed-hanif-quareshi-vs-lakhani-traders-on-29-january-2009\"},\"wordCount\":721,\"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\/javed-hanif-quareshi-vs-lakhani-traders-on-29-january-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/javed-hanif-quareshi-vs-lakhani-traders-on-29-january-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/javed-hanif-quareshi-vs-lakhani-traders-on-29-january-2009\",\"name\":\"Javed Hanif Quareshi vs Lakhani Traders on 29 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-19T12:09:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/javed-hanif-quareshi-vs-lakhani-traders-on-29-january-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/javed-hanif-quareshi-vs-lakhani-traders-on-29-january-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/javed-hanif-quareshi-vs-lakhani-traders-on-29-january-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Javed Hanif Quareshi vs Lakhani Traders on 29 January, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Javed Hanif Quareshi vs Lakhani Traders on 29 January, 2009 - 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\/javed-hanif-quareshi-vs-lakhani-traders-on-29-january-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Javed Hanif Quareshi vs Lakhani Traders on 29 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/javed-hanif-quareshi-vs-lakhani-traders-on-29-january-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-19T12:09:44+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/javed-hanif-quareshi-vs-lakhani-traders-on-29-january-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/javed-hanif-quareshi-vs-lakhani-traders-on-29-january-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Javed Hanif Quareshi vs Lakhani Traders on 29 January, 2009","datePublished":"2009-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-19T12:09:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/javed-hanif-quareshi-vs-lakhani-traders-on-29-january-2009"},"wordCount":721,"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\/javed-hanif-quareshi-vs-lakhani-traders-on-29-january-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/javed-hanif-quareshi-vs-lakhani-traders-on-29-january-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/javed-hanif-quareshi-vs-lakhani-traders-on-29-january-2009","name":"Javed Hanif Quareshi vs Lakhani Traders on 29 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-19T12:09:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/javed-hanif-quareshi-vs-lakhani-traders-on-29-january-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/javed-hanif-quareshi-vs-lakhani-traders-on-29-january-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/javed-hanif-quareshi-vs-lakhani-traders-on-29-january-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Javed Hanif Quareshi vs Lakhani Traders on 29 January, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/254075","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=254075"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/254075\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=254075"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=254075"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=254075"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}