{"id":257264,"date":"2005-10-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-10-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-praveen-nahar-vs-krishan-gopal-sanghi-and-anr-on-28-october-2005"},"modified":"2017-08-18T06:16:40","modified_gmt":"2017-08-18T00:46:40","slug":"dr-praveen-nahar-vs-krishan-gopal-sanghi-and-anr-on-28-october-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-praveen-nahar-vs-krishan-gopal-sanghi-and-anr-on-28-october-2005","title":{"rendered":"Dr. Praveen Nahar vs Krishan Gopal Sanghi And Anr. on 28 October, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court<\/div>\n
Dr. Praveen Nahar vs Krishan Gopal Sanghi And Anr. on 28 October, 2005<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: AIR 2006 MP 89, 2006 (1) MPHT 485<\/div>\n
Author: K Lahoti<\/div>\n
Bench: K Lahoti<\/div>\n

ORDER<\/p>\n

K.K. Lahoti, J.\n<\/p>\n

1. Petitioner has challenged order dated 8-9-2004 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Chhindwara in Civil Original Suit No. 2-B\/2002 by which the Trial Court decided the admissibility of a document and held that it is a Bond within the meaning of Section 2(5)<\/a> of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and directed that on payment of appropriate stamp duty, document shall be admissible in evidence.\n<\/p>\n

2. Learned Counsel for petitioner has challenged the order on the following grounds:–\n<\/p>\n

(i) That, the said document is not a Bond within the meaning of Section 2(5)<\/a> of the Act and in fact it is an acknowledgment of loan accompanied by a promise to pay.\n<\/p>\n

(ii) That, the document is not covered under the definition of Section 2(5)<\/a> of the Act.\n<\/p>\n

(iii) Reliance is placed to the judgments of Single Bench in Mannalal Nanhelal v. Sitambernath Ramhirdelal, 1961 MPLJ 169 and Nandram v. Vardichand, 1975 JLJ-SN 7 and submitted that the order passed by the Trial Court be set aside.\n<\/p>\n

3. Learned Counsel appearing for respondents supported the order and it is submitted that the document in question is a Bond and it falls within the definition of under Section 2(5)<\/a> of the Act and the Trial Court has rightly held it to be a Bond. He has placed reliance to a judgment of this Court in Radhe Shyam v. Kallu, 1980 JLJ Note 21 and submitted that this petition may be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n

4. To consider the rival contention of the parties, document in question may be seen which is on record as Annexure P-2. For ready reference, it is quoted as under :–\n<\/p>\n

^^jkthukek<\/p>\n

vkt fnukad 20&11&97 fnu xq:okj dks LFkku Jh ‘kodqekj th vxzoky ds nqdku ij Jh d`”.k xksiky la?kh]Jh ‘kadj ‘kekZ th] Jh vf[kys’k dqekj vxzoky] Jh jktdqekj th vxzoky] lat; vxzoky] vkseizdk’k lkgw] Jh izdk’k vxzoky] Jh jes’k vxzoky th dh mifLFkfr esa Jh d`”.k xksiky la?kh] Jh vf[kys’k dqekj vxzoky] MkW- ukgj lkgc] Jh gfjizlkn th la?kh ds e\/; tks nsu&ysu dk fookn Fkk mldk fuiVkjk bl izdkj gqvk tks fd fuEu gS%&<\/p>\n

\u00bc1\u00bd MkW- ukgj lkgc dk 2]00]000@& \u00bcnks yk[k\u00bd ,oa Jh gfjizlkn th la?kh ,oa cPpksa dh fQDl fMiksftV dh xkjaVh esa Jh ujcnk vk;y fey dh vks-Mh- fyfeV dh jkf’k nksuksa yxHkx 4 yk[k \u00bcpkj yk[k\u00bdA <\/p>\n

\u00bc2\u00bd dz- 1 \u00bc,d\u00bd dh jkf’k fooknxzLr gS tks fd ukgj lkgc dks nsuh gS ,oa Jh gfjizlkn th la?kh ,oa cPpksa dh ,Q-Mh- xkjaVh cSad esa jde tek dj okil nsuh gSA <\/p>\n

\u00bc3\u00bd nksuksa jkf’k Jh vf[kys’k dqekj th vxzoky ,oa Jh d`”.k xksiky la?kh cjkcj&cjkcj Hkqxrku dj pqdrk djsaxsA <\/p>\n

\u00bc4\u00bd Jh d`”.k xksiky la?kh cjkcjh ds lkFk jkf’k dk Hkqxrku djus gsrq rS;kj gSaA <\/p>\n

\u00bc5\u00bd Jh vf[kys’k dqekj th vxzoky m\u00e4 jkf’k esa cjkcjh dk fglkc \u00bcnks yk[k yxHkx\u00bd 8 ekfld fdLrksa esa C;kt lfgr djsaxsA <\/p>\n

\u00bc6\u00bd ,d fnlEcj ls nksuksa ikVhZ \u00bc1\u00bd d`”.k xksiky la?kh \u00bc2\u00bd Jh vf[kys’k dqekj th vxzoky nksuksa izfrekg 1 rkjh[k ls 5 rkjh[k ds chp 25]000&25]000 \u00bciPphl&iPphl gtkj #i;s\u00bd leku :i ls Jh jkt dqekj th vxzoky ds nqdku ij tek djsaxs tks fd Jh MkW- ukgj lkgc dks ,d cSad vks-Mh- fyfeV esa leku :i ls tek djsaxsA vkse izdk’k lkgqA <\/p>\n

\u00bc1\u00bd Jh d`”.k xksiky la?kh \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 lgh@gLrk-\n<\/p>\n

\u00bc2\u00bd Jh vf[kys’k dqekj vxzoky <\/p>\n

\u00bc3\u00bd Jh MkW- ukgj lkgc<\/p>\n

xokg<\/p>\n

\u00bc4\u00bd jktdqekj vxzoky <\/p>\n

\u00bc5\u00bd Jh ‘kadj ‘kekZ\u00a0 <\/p>\n

\u00bc6\u00bd jes’k vxzoky <\/p>\n

\u00bc7\u00bd izdk’k vxzoky <\/p>\n

\u00bc8\u00bd vkseizdk’k lkgq <\/p>\n

\u00bc9\u00bd Jh fNeu yky th lksyadh<\/p>\n

5. From the perusal of the document, it appears that on 20-11-1997, matter was settled between the parties that the defendant has to pay Rs. 2,00,000\/- to the plaintiff Dr. Nahar and Rs. 2,00,000\/- to Hariprasad Sanghi, total Rs. 4,00,000\/-. Defendants Akhilesh Agrawal and Krishan Gopal Sanghi promised to pay aforesaid amount and Krishan Gopal Sanghi agreed to pay half of the amount. Akhilesh Agrawal also agreed to pay half of the amount (nearabout Rs. 2,00,000\/-) in 8 monthly instalments. It was further agreed that defendants shall deposit Rs. 25,000\/- as an instalment between 1st and 5th of every month at the shop of Rajkumar Agrawal who would deposit the amount in Dr. Nahar’s bank O.D. limit. Document is signed by Dr. Nahar, defendants Krishan Gopal Sanghi and Akhilesh Agrawal, and is attested by six witnesses. This document is in question in this petition.\n<\/p>\n

6. Firstly the definition of Bond in Section 2(5)<\/a> of the Act may be seen which reads as under :–\n<\/p>\n

2(5) “Bond”.– “Bond” includes–\n<\/p>\n

(a) any instrument whereby a person obliges himself to pay money to another, on condition that the obligation shall be void if a specified act is performed, or is not performed, as the case may be;\n<\/p>\n

(b) any instrument attested by a witness and not payable to order or bearer, whereby a person obliges himself to pay money to another; and<\/p>\n

(c) any instrument so attested whereby a person obliges himself to deliver grain or other agricultural produce to another.\n<\/p>\n

7. Aforesaid definition specifically shows that if following elements are present then the instrument is a Bond :–\n<\/p>\n

(1) There must be an undertaking to pay.\n<\/p>\n

(2) Sum should be ascertained in money.\n<\/p>\n

(3) The payment is to be made by one person to another person named in the instrument,<\/p>\n

(4) Document should be signed by promisee.\n<\/p>\n

(5) Document must be attested by a witness and it should not be payable to order or bearer.\n<\/p>\n

A Full Bench of this Court in Sant Singh v. Maclandas Panika, 1976 JLJ 235, considering the distinction between promissory note and Bond held :–\n<\/p>\n

4. The essentials of a promissory note are :–\n<\/p>\n

(1) An unconditional undertaking to pay;\n<\/p>\n

(2) The sum should be a sum of money and should be certain;\n<\/p>\n

(3) The payment should be to the order of a person who is certain, or to the bearer of the instrument; and<\/p>\n

(4) The maker should sign it, if these four conditions exist, the instrument is a promissory note.\n<\/p>\n

5. The question of distinguishing a promissory note from a bond arises by reference to Clause (b) of the above definition of bond. The essentials of a bond are :–\n<\/p>\n

(1) There must be an undertaking to pay;\n<\/p>\n

(2) The sum should be a sum of money but not necessarily certain;\n<\/p>\n

(3) The payment will be to another person named in the instrument;\n<\/p>\n

(4) The maker should sign it;\n<\/p>\n

(5) The instrument must be attested by a witness; and<\/p>\n

(6) It must not be payable to order or bearer.\n<\/p>\n

On a comparison between the essentials of a promissory note and those of a bond three distinguishing features emerge :–\n<\/p>\n

(i) If money payable under the instrument is not certain, it can not be a promissory note, although it can be a bond.\n<\/p>\n

(ii) If the instrument is not attested by a witness, it can not be a bond, although it may be a promissory note.\n<\/p>\n

(iii) If the instrument is payable to order or bearer, it can not be a bond, but it can be a promissory note.\n<\/p>\n

8. Therefore, an instrument, which is not payable to bearer are order but is attested by a witness will also be a bond within a definition of Section 2(5)<\/a> of the Stamp Act, although simultaneously it may also fall within the definition of a promissory note within the meaning of Section 2(22)<\/a> of the Stamp Act read with Section 4<\/a> of the Negotiable Instruments Act.\n<\/p>\n

9. Having thus pointed out the distinction between promissory note and a bond, be may at once that in the last mentioned situation that is, where an instrument comes within the description of a promissory note as well as that of bond, by virtue of Section 6<\/a> of the Stamp Act, it will be chargeable only with the highest of the duties chargeable, that is, stamp duty as chargeable on a bond. That section reads thus:–\n<\/p>\n

Subject to the provisions of the last preceding section, an instrument so framed as to come within two or more of the descriptions in Schedule 1, shall where the duties chargeable thereunder are different be chargeable only with the highest of such duties :\n<\/p>\n

Provided that nothing in this Act contained shall render chargeable with duty exceeding one rupee a counter part or duplicate of any instrument chargeable with duty and in respect of which the proper duty has been paid.\n<\/p>\n

14. As a result of the above discussion we would answer the two questions set out in the beginning as follows :–\n<\/p>\n

(1) An instrument is a promissory note if there are present the following elements :–\n<\/p>\n

(i) There should be an unconditional undertaking to pay;\n<\/p>\n

(ii) The sum should be a sum of money and should be certain;\n<\/p>\n

(iii) The payment should be to the order of a person who is certain, or to the bearer of the instrument, and<\/p>\n

(iv) The maker should sign it.\n<\/p>\n

(2) An instrument is a bond within the meaning of Section 2(5)(b)<\/a> of the Stamp Act, if the following elements are present:–\n<\/p>\n

(i) There must be an undertaking to pay;\n<\/p>\n

(ii) The sum should be a sum of money but not necessarily certain;\n<\/p>\n

(iii) The payment will be to another person named in the instrument;\n<\/p>\n

(iv) The maker should sign it;\n<\/p>\n

(v) The instrument must be attested by a witness; and<\/p>\n

(vi) It must not be payable to order or bearer.\n<\/p>\n

(3) A bond has two distinguishing features :–\n<\/p>\n

(i) Positive — it must be attested by a witness.\n<\/p>\n

(ii) Negative — it must not be payable to order or bearer.\n<\/p>\n

(4) For the purposes of the Stamp Act<\/a>, it is only the definition as contained in Section 4<\/a> of the Negotiable Instruments Act which is to be read as if reproduced verbatim in Section 2(22)<\/a> of the Stamp Act, but no other provision of the Negotiable Instruments Act<\/a> can be read in Section 2(22)<\/a> of the Stamp Act, because of the restrictive words “as defined in”.\n<\/p>\n

(5) Explanation (i) to Section 13<\/a> of the Negotiable Instruments Act may have its own effect and impact on a promissory note for the purposes of the Negotiable Instruments Act<\/a>, but it has nothing to do with the “definition” of promissory note and, therefore, that explanation is wholly irrelevant for the purposes of the Stamp Act<\/a>. It can not, therefore, be said that every promissory note must be excluded from the definition of Stamp Act<\/a>, unless it contains an express prohibition within the meaning of the explanation to Section 13<\/a> of the Negotiable Instruments Act.\n<\/p>\n

8. In the present case, document specifically shows that defendants promised to pay the amount in equal share to the plaintiff, in the instalment of Rs. 25,000\/- each. Document is duly signed by the executant and is attested by six witnesses. In aforesaid circumstances, there is no iota of doubt that the document is a Bond and is liable for the payment of stamp duty under the Stamp Act<\/a>. So far as the judgments relied on by the petitioner are concerned, in Mannalal Nanhelal (supra), the question before the Court was whether the document is acknowledgment or promissory note. There was no question before the Court when the document is Bond or an acknowledgment. In these circumstances, ratio of Mannalal Nanhelal’s case (supra) is not applicable in the present case. So far as another judgment which is relied on by the petitioner, in Nandram’s case (supra) is concerned, the question before this Court was whether a document can be said to be a Bond simply because of an implied promise to pay. The Court held that in absence of express promise contained in the document, document can not be treated as a Bond and same amounts to an acknowledgment. In this case there is an express promise to pay and there is no condition in the document that the payment is to be made to order or bearer, and it has been duly signed by the maker and attested by the witnesses. In aforesaid circumstances, I do not find any merit in this petition. It is dismissed with no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Madhya Pradesh High Court Dr. Praveen Nahar vs Krishan Gopal Sanghi And Anr. on 28 October, 2005 Equivalent citations: AIR 2006 MP 89, 2006 (1) MPHT 485 Author: K Lahoti Bench: K Lahoti ORDER K.K. Lahoti, J. 1. Petitioner has challenged order dated 8-9-2004 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Chhindwara in Civil Original […]<\/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":[8,24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-257264","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madhya-pradesh-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDr. Praveen Nahar vs Krishan Gopal Sanghi And Anr. on 28 October, 2005 - 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\/dr-praveen-nahar-vs-krishan-gopal-sanghi-and-anr-on-28-october-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dr. Praveen Nahar vs Krishan Gopal Sanghi And Anr. on 28 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-praveen-nahar-vs-krishan-gopal-sanghi-and-anr-on-28-october-2005\" \/>\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=\"2005-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-18T00:46:40+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-praveen-nahar-vs-krishan-gopal-sanghi-and-anr-on-28-october-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-praveen-nahar-vs-krishan-gopal-sanghi-and-anr-on-28-october-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dr. Praveen Nahar vs Krishan Gopal Sanghi And Anr. on 28 October, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-18T00:46:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-praveen-nahar-vs-krishan-gopal-sanghi-and-anr-on-28-october-2005\"},\"wordCount\":2045,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madhya Pradesh High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-praveen-nahar-vs-krishan-gopal-sanghi-and-anr-on-28-october-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-praveen-nahar-vs-krishan-gopal-sanghi-and-anr-on-28-october-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-praveen-nahar-vs-krishan-gopal-sanghi-and-anr-on-28-october-2005\",\"name\":\"Dr. Praveen Nahar vs Krishan Gopal Sanghi And Anr. on 28 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-18T00:46:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-praveen-nahar-vs-krishan-gopal-sanghi-and-anr-on-28-october-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-praveen-nahar-vs-krishan-gopal-sanghi-and-anr-on-28-october-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-praveen-nahar-vs-krishan-gopal-sanghi-and-anr-on-28-october-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dr. Praveen Nahar vs Krishan Gopal Sanghi And Anr. on 28 October, 2005\"}]},{\"@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":"Dr. Praveen Nahar vs Krishan Gopal Sanghi And Anr. on 28 October, 2005 - 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\/dr-praveen-nahar-vs-krishan-gopal-sanghi-and-anr-on-28-october-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dr. Praveen Nahar vs Krishan Gopal Sanghi And Anr. on 28 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-praveen-nahar-vs-krishan-gopal-sanghi-and-anr-on-28-october-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-18T00:46:40+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-praveen-nahar-vs-krishan-gopal-sanghi-and-anr-on-28-october-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-praveen-nahar-vs-krishan-gopal-sanghi-and-anr-on-28-october-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dr. Praveen Nahar vs Krishan Gopal Sanghi And Anr. on 28 October, 2005","datePublished":"2005-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-18T00:46:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-praveen-nahar-vs-krishan-gopal-sanghi-and-anr-on-28-october-2005"},"wordCount":2045,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madhya Pradesh High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-praveen-nahar-vs-krishan-gopal-sanghi-and-anr-on-28-october-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-praveen-nahar-vs-krishan-gopal-sanghi-and-anr-on-28-october-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-praveen-nahar-vs-krishan-gopal-sanghi-and-anr-on-28-october-2005","name":"Dr. Praveen Nahar vs Krishan Gopal Sanghi And Anr. on 28 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-18T00:46:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-praveen-nahar-vs-krishan-gopal-sanghi-and-anr-on-28-october-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-praveen-nahar-vs-krishan-gopal-sanghi-and-anr-on-28-october-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-praveen-nahar-vs-krishan-gopal-sanghi-and-anr-on-28-october-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dr. Praveen Nahar vs Krishan Gopal Sanghi And Anr. on 28 October, 2005"}]},{"@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\/257264","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=257264"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/257264\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=257264"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=257264"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=257264"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}