{"id":254265,"date":"2009-03-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sayed-street-vs-kadam-marg-on-24-march-2009"},"modified":"2015-12-17T04:02:58","modified_gmt":"2015-12-16T22:32:58","slug":"sayed-street-vs-kadam-marg-on-24-march-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sayed-street-vs-kadam-marg-on-24-march-2009","title":{"rendered":"Sayed Street vs Kadam Marg on 24 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Sayed Street vs Kadam Marg on 24 March, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: S.A. Bobde, A.A. Sayed<\/div>\n
                                    :1:\n\n\n\n\n             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n               ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION\n                   APPEAL NO.1003 OF 2005\n\n\n\n\n                                                                     \n                                 IN\n                   NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2404 OF 2004\n                            IN\n\n\n\n\n                                             \n                   SUMMARY SUIT NO.3164 OF 2001\n\n     M\/s. Dev Sha Corporation\n     a registered partnership firm,\n     carrying on business at 12\/14, Kazi\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n     Sayed Street, 2nd floor,\n     Masjid Bunder, Mumbai-400 009                       ..Appellants\n            V\/s\n     Shree Ram Mills Ltd.\n     a company incorporated under\n\n\n\n\n                                   \n     the provisions of the Companies\n     Act<\/a>, 1956 and having its\n     registered office at Ganpatrao\n\n     Mumbai- 400 013\n                      \n     Kadam Marg, Lower Parel,\n                                                         ..Respondents\n\n     Shri J.P. Sen with M.A.          Shah i\/b A.G.         Shah for the\n                     \n     Appellants\n\n     Shri G. Joshi with Ms Pratibha Mehta i\/b                 Little\n     and Co. for the Respondents\n\n                        CORAM ;     S.A.BOBDE AND\n      \n\n\n                                    A.A.SAYED, JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
                        DATE    :     24TH MARCH, 2009<\/p>\n
     ORAL JUDGMENT (PER S.A.BOBDE, J.)<\/p>\n
     1.        This    appeal   is preferred by        the      plaintiffs<\/p>\n
     against     the    judgment    of the learned         Single        Judge<\/p>\n
     dated     17-6-2005    setting     aside the      exparte         decree<\/p>\n
     passed     in his favour in a suit under Order 37 Rule 4<\/p>\n
     of Code of Civil Procedure.\n<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:27:05 :::<\/span>
\n                                              :2:<\/span><\/p>\n
     2.        Shri       Joshi,       the    learned           Counsel        for      the<\/p>\n
     respondents has raised a preliminary objection to the<\/p>\n
     tenability        of     the      appeal      on     two      grounds.             (a)<\/p>\n
     According to the learned Counsel for the respondents,<\/p>\n
     there        is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure<\/p>\n
     including        Order      43,     for an appeal             from       an      order<\/p>\n
     setting       aside a decree in a summary suit.                           Further,<\/p>\n
     such     an     order not being a judgment, an appeal                            does<\/p>\n
     not lie from it under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent<\/p>\n
     of this Court.           (b) the appeal is not tenable because<\/p>\n
     the     appellants
\n                       ig       have     received the benefits                   of     the<\/p>\n
     order setting aside exparte decree by accepting costs<\/p>\n
     imposed on the respondents thereby and are therefore,<\/p>\n
     not     entitled to maintain the appeal in view of                               law,<\/p>\n
     laid     down by the Supreme Court in Bhau Ram V.                                Baij<\/p>\n
     Nath     Singh       and    others, reported in AIR                    1961      S.C.\n<\/p>\n
     1327.\n<\/p>\n
     3.        The    appellants sued the respondents for a sum<\/p>\n
     of     Rs.      5,94,597.99.            On 14-1-2002 the Summons                   for<\/p>\n
     Judgment        was served on them.                On 3-6-2003, the Court<\/p>\n
     granted       conditional         leave       to     the      respondents            to<\/p>\n
     defend         the     suit       on     deposit         of     sum       of       Rs.\n<\/p>\n
     5,94,597.99, within a period of 4 weeks.                             On 6-2-2004<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:27:05 :::<\/span>
\n                                              :3:<\/span><\/p>\n
     the     Court        passed    an       exparte        decree        against         the<\/p>\n
     respondents on failure to deposit the amount.\n<\/p>\n
     4.        On     31-07-2004         a        warrant of         attachment           was<\/p>\n
     issued.         This     was     stayed         on     30-8-2004,           on       the<\/p>\n
     respondents depositing a sum of Rs.                           21,91,675\/-.\n<\/p>\n
     5.        The        respondents         then took out the notice                      of<\/p>\n
     motion         for     setting      aside            the      order         granting<\/p>\n
     conditional          leave to defend the suit dated                         6-3-2003<\/p>\n
     and exparte decree dated 6-2-2004.                          The learned Trial<\/p>\n
     Judge     declined        to     set          side     the      order       granting<\/p>\n
     conditional          leave     to       defend the suit              but       however<\/p>\n
     granted        the     other prayer and set aside the                          exparte<\/p>\n
     decree     and granted extension of time to deposit                                  the<\/p>\n
     amount as ordered earlier.                    The plaintiffs have filed<\/p>\n
     the present appeal against this order.\n<\/p>\n
     6.        As         regards        the          first            objection            to<\/p>\n
     maintainability           there         is    no doubt that              the      order<\/p>\n
     setting        aside a decree under order 37 Rule 4 of                               the<\/p>\n
     Code of Civil Procedure is not appealable under Order<\/p>\n
     43    Rule 1 of CPC.           However, it appears that such                           an<\/p>\n
     order     setting        aside a decree under Order 37 Rule                              4<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:27:05 :::<\/span>
\n                                   :4:<\/span><\/p>\n
     has     been held to be a judgment within the meaning of<\/p>\n
     clause    15   of the Letters Patent.     In      Shah      Babulal<\/p>\n
     Khimji V.      Jayaben D.   Kania and another,
\n                                           another<\/a> reported in<\/p>\n
     1981 SC 1786.     The Supreme Court observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
              “Similarly, suppose the trial Judge passes an
\n              order setting aside an exparte decree against<\/p>\n
              the defendant, which is not appealable under
\n              any of the clauses of Order 43, Rule 1 though
\n              an order rejecting an application to set aside
\n              the decree passed exparte falls within Order
\n              43, Rule 1, clause (d) and is appealable, the<\/p>\n
              serious question that arises is whether or not
\n              the order first mentioned is a judgment within
\n              the meaning of Letters Patent.       The fact,<\/p>\n
              however, remains that the orders setting aside
\n              the exparte decree puts the defendant to a
\n              great advantage and works serious injustice to
\n              the plaintiff because as a consequences of the<\/p>\n
              order, the plaintiff has now to contest the
\n              suit and is deprived of the fruits of the
\n              decree passed in his      favour.    In   these
\n              circumstances, therefore, the order passed by
\n              the trial Judge setting aside the exparte
\n              decree vitally affects the valuable rights of<\/p>\n
              the   plaintiff and hence      amounts to    an
\n              interlocutory judgment and      is   therefore,<\/p>\n
              appealable to a larger Bench.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Though the aforesaid observation are in respect of an<\/p>\n
     order    under order 9 Rule 13 we are of the view                that<\/p>\n
     they apply with equal force to an order setting aside<\/p>\n
     the decree under order 37 Rule 4.        We therefore, hold<\/p>\n
     that     an order setting aside a decree whether on                the<\/p>\n
     ground    that it is exparte or otherwise is a judgment<\/p>\n
     within the meaning of clause 15 of the Letters Patent<\/p>\n
                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:27:05 :::<\/span>
\n                                            :5:<\/span><\/p>\n
     of    this Court and is therefore appealable under that<\/p>\n
     clause.\n<\/p>\n
     7.        This takes us to the next objection pertaining<\/p>\n
     to    tenability          viz.     that the appeal is not              tenable<\/p>\n
     because     the        appellants have received             the      benefits<\/p>\n
     under     order setting aside the exparte decree and are<\/p>\n
     therefore,          not entitled to file this appeal.                     There<\/p>\n
     is no dispute that the learned Judge imposed costs of<\/p>\n
     Rs.      15,000\/- while setting aside an exparte                        decree<\/p>\n
     and     extending
\n                          ig   the time to deposit the amount.                    The<\/p>\n
     order     was       passed       on   17-6-2005.      The      respondents<\/p>\n
     tendered        a    cheque       dated 27-6-2005 under            a    letter<\/p>\n
     dated 28-6-2005.           There is no dispute that the letter<\/p>\n
     alongwith        the      cheque      has   been    received           by    the<\/p>\n
     appellant.           The     appellants      retained          the      cheque<\/p>\n
     without     demur and without raising any objection                          and<\/p>\n
     filed     an appeal on 17-8-2005 i.e.               after a period of<\/p>\n
     about     two       months.       The appeal was placed            before        a<\/p>\n
     Division Bench of this Court.               The Court admitted the<\/p>\n
     appeal     on       1st December,2005.       Apparently, since                 an<\/p>\n
     objection        was raised by the respondents that the act<\/p>\n
     of accepting the cheque and filing the appeal amounts<\/p>\n
     approbation         and     reprobation the appellant                returned<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:27:05 :::<\/span>
\n                                    :6:<\/span><\/p>\n
     the   cheque under letter 29-11-2005.            Apparently           the<\/p>\n
     cheque    was     sent   back by the   respondents           and      the<\/p>\n
     appellants have retained the cheque since then.                     Shri<\/p>\n
     Joshi,    the     learned   Counsel    for     the      respondents<\/p>\n
     submitted       that   it is a settled law that it             is     not<\/p>\n
     permissible       to   approbate or repprobate by            adopting<\/p>\n
     one part of the order and refusing another part, when<\/p>\n
     the order is intended to take effect in its entirety.\n<\/p>\n
     The Supreme Court in Bhau Ram V.          Baij Nath Singh and<\/p>\n
     others,
\n     others      reported in AIR 1961 S.C.        1324, observed as<\/p>\n
     follows:-\n<\/p>\n
              “In support of his contention, learned Counsel
\n              has relied upon the well-known case of Tinkler
\n              v. Hilder, (1849) 154 ER 1176 and other cases
\n              which follow that decision or which proceed on
\n              the same reason as that in Tinkler’s case,
\n              (1849) 154 ER 1176. Those decisions are :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              Banku Chandra v. Marium Begum<\/a>, 21 Cal WN 232
\n              :    (AIR 1917 Cal 546 )(SB); Ramendramohan V.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              Keshabchandra, ILR 61 Cal 433: (AIR 1934 Cal\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              554);    Mani Ram V. Beharidas, (S) AIR 1955
\n              Raja     145;      Veeraswami      Pillai   V.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              Kalyanasundaram Mudaliar, AIR 1927 Mad 1009;
\n              Venkatarayudu V.     Rama Krishnayya, AIR 1930<\/p>\n
              Mad 268 and Pearce v. Chaplin, (1846) 115 ER
\n              1483.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              “The two English decisions just referred to
\n              and   some of the    Indian decisions   were
\n              considered in AIR 1930 Mad 268. Dealing with<\/p>\n
              them   Venkatasubba Rao,   J., observed   as
\n              follows:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              “What   is      the   principle underlying these
\n              decisions?       when an order shows plainly that<\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:27:05 :::<\/span>
\n                                           :7:<\/span><\/p>\n
              it is intended to take effect in its entirety
\n              and that several parts of it depend upon each
\n              other, a person cannot adopt one part and<\/p>\n
              repudiate another. For instance, if the Court
\n              directs that the suit shall be restored on the
\n              plaintiff paying the costs of the opposing<\/p>\n
              party, there is no intention to benefit the
\n              latter, except on the terms mentioned in the
\n              order itself.    If the party receives costs,
\n              his   act is tantamount     to adopting    the
\n              order……..According to Halsbury this rule<\/p>\n
              is an application of the doctrine ‘that a
\n              person may not approbate and reprobate’ (13
\n              Halsbury, para 508)….In other words, to
\n              allow a party, who takes a benefit under such
\n              an order, to complain against it, would be to<\/p>\n
              permit a breach of faith.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It<\/p>\n
     case
\n            may<\/p>\n
              that<\/p>\n
                    be noted that Their Lordships held<\/p>\n
                       the     benefit     that was      received
\n                                                                         in<\/p>\n
                                                                           by
\n                                                                                  that<\/p>\n
                                                                                   the<\/p>\n
     appellants       was of withdrawing the pre-emption                       price<\/p>\n
     and     that     such a benefit was not de hors the                     decree<\/p>\n
     and     therefore, the appellant could not be denied the<\/p>\n
     statutory       right     to    appeal.    However, there               is     no<\/p>\n
     doubt        that Their Lordships approved the statement of<\/p>\n
     law     that parties are not entitled to take a                       benefit<\/p>\n
     such     as     receiving costs which would               tantamount           to<\/p>\n
     adopting the order and then challenging the order.\n<\/p>\n
     8.       Shri       Sen        the   leaned      Counsel           for        the<\/p>\n
     appellants,       submitted that the appellants cannot                         be<\/p>\n
     said     to have received the benefits under the                        order,<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:27:05 :::<\/span>
\n                                         :8:<\/span><\/p>\n
     merely     because       they   have     accepted        the       cheque.\n<\/p>\n
     According       to     the   learned Counsel       the      appellants,<\/p>\n
     could     be said to have received the benefits only                        if<\/p>\n
     they     had encashed the cheque, apart from                  accepting.\n<\/p>\n
     It     is not possible to accept the contention of                      Shri<\/p>\n
     Sen.      The intention of the parties in such a                     matter<\/p>\n
     is     crucial.        It is clear that the respondents                 paid<\/p>\n
     the     costs     imposed on them by way of a cheque                   which<\/p>\n
     the     appellants accepted and retained without                     demur.\n<\/p>\n
     There     was     absolutely no attempt on the part of                    the<\/p>\n
     appellant<\/p>\n
                     to return the said cheque.              In fact,        they<\/p>\n
     proceeded       to     file an appeal about two months                 after<\/p>\n
     receiving       the costs by way of cheque.              It is obvious<\/p>\n
     that the appellants intended to receive the benefits,<\/p>\n
     and in fact did so, under the order setting aside the<\/p>\n
     exparte decree.          That apart, there seems to be little<\/p>\n
     doubt      that        receiving    a    cheque      amounts         to       a<\/p>\n
     conditional          acceptance of payment.        In     Commissioner<\/p>\n
     of    Income    Tax,Bombay South v.         Messers Ogale              Glass<\/p>\n
     Works    Ltd.,
\n              Ltd<\/a>   reported in AIR 1954 SC 429, the Supreme<\/p>\n
     Court    relied on Byles on Bills, 20th Edition P.                          23<\/p>\n
     and the position is summarised pithily as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
              “A cheque, unless dishonoured, is payment.”\n<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:27:05 :::<\/span>
\n                                           :9:<\/span><\/p>\n
     Accordingly their Lordships concluded as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
              ”     In     the case before us none of the                     cheques<\/p>\n
              has        been    dishonoured      on       presentation              and<\/p>\n
              payment       cannot,       therefore, be said                to     have<\/p>\n
              been         defeated       by    the      happening          of       the<\/p>\n
              condition         subsequent,       namely            dishonour          by<\/p>\n
              non-payment         and that being so there can be no<\/p>\n
              question, therefore, that the assessee did not<\/p>\n
              receive
\n                       ig       payment    by    the        receipt         of       the<\/p>\n
              cheques.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The     payment       thus takes effect from the delivery                         of<\/p>\n
     the     cheque       but may be defeated for failure                     of     the<\/p>\n
     condition        i.e.,      non payment on maturity.                   We      thus<\/p>\n
     have     no hesitation in coming to the conclusion                            that<\/p>\n
     the     appellants         have   received the benefits                  of     the<\/p>\n
     order     and by accepting the cheque towards the                             costs<\/p>\n
     of     Rs.15,000\/-         from the respondents and                 therefore,<\/p>\n
     are     not    entitled to maintain the appeal in view                            of<\/p>\n
     the     observations of the Supreme Court in Bhau Ram V.\n<\/p>\n
     Baij    Nath Sing and others, reported in AIR 1961 S.C.\n<\/p>\n
                                                           .\n<\/p>\n
     1327.\n<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:27:05 :::<\/span>
\n                              :10:<\/span><\/p>\n
     9.    In   the result the appeal is dismissed.               There<\/p>\n
     shall be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                         (S.A.BOBDE, J.)<\/p>\n
                                         ( A.A. SAYED, J.)<\/p>\n
                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:27:05 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Sayed Street vs Kadam Marg on 24 March, 2009 Bench: S.A. Bobde, A.A. Sayed :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.1003 OF 2005 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2404 OF 2004 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.3164 OF 2001 M\/s. Dev Sha Corporation a registered partnership firm, […]<\/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-254265","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSayed Street vs Kadam Marg on 24 March, 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\/sayed-street-vs-kadam-marg-on-24-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sayed Street vs Kadam Marg on 24 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sayed-street-vs-kadam-marg-on-24-march-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-03-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-16T22:32:58+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\\\/sayed-street-vs-kadam-marg-on-24-march-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sayed-street-vs-kadam-marg-on-24-march-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sayed Street vs Kadam Marg on 24 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-16T22:32:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sayed-street-vs-kadam-marg-on-24-march-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1757,\"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\\\/sayed-street-vs-kadam-marg-on-24-march-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sayed-street-vs-kadam-marg-on-24-march-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sayed-street-vs-kadam-marg-on-24-march-2009\",\"name\":\"Sayed Street vs Kadam Marg on 24 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-16T22:32:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sayed-street-vs-kadam-marg-on-24-march-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sayed-street-vs-kadam-marg-on-24-march-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sayed-street-vs-kadam-marg-on-24-march-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sayed Street vs Kadam Marg on 24 March, 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":"Sayed Street vs Kadam Marg on 24 March, 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\/sayed-street-vs-kadam-marg-on-24-march-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sayed Street vs Kadam Marg on 24 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sayed-street-vs-kadam-marg-on-24-march-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-16T22:32:58+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\/sayed-street-vs-kadam-marg-on-24-march-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sayed-street-vs-kadam-marg-on-24-march-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sayed Street vs Kadam Marg on 24 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-16T22:32:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sayed-street-vs-kadam-marg-on-24-march-2009"},"wordCount":1757,"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\/sayed-street-vs-kadam-marg-on-24-march-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sayed-street-vs-kadam-marg-on-24-march-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sayed-street-vs-kadam-marg-on-24-march-2009","name":"Sayed Street vs Kadam Marg on 24 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-16T22:32:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sayed-street-vs-kadam-marg-on-24-march-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sayed-street-vs-kadam-marg-on-24-march-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sayed-street-vs-kadam-marg-on-24-march-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sayed Street vs Kadam Marg on 24 March, 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\/254265","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=254265"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/254265\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=254265"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=254265"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=254265"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}