{"id":25921,"date":"2011-03-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-03-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-shaintilal-mistry-vs-ms-ajanta-printpack-industries-on-7-march-2011"},"modified":"2015-10-28T18:30:40","modified_gmt":"2015-10-28T13:00:40","slug":"rajendra-shaintilal-mistry-vs-ms-ajanta-printpack-industries-on-7-march-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-shaintilal-mistry-vs-ms-ajanta-printpack-industries-on-7-march-2011","title":{"rendered":"Rajendra Shaintilal Mistry vs M\/S Ajanta Printpack Industries on 7 March, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Rajendra Shaintilal Mistry vs M\/S Ajanta Printpack Industries on 7 March, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: Shrihari P. Davare<\/div>\n
                             1                       Cri.A.4723.10\n\n        IN  THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY \n                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD\n\n\n\n\n                                                            \n            CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4723 OF 2010\n\n     Rajendra Shaintilal Mistry,\n\n\n\n\n                                    \n     Age: 49 years,Occupation :Service,\n     R\/o Plot No.38, Anand-B Building,\n     Vidyanagar, Aurangabad.         ...APPLICANT. \n\n\n\n\n                                   \n            VERSUS             \n\n     1.   M\/s Ajanta Printpack Industries,\n          Plot No. 44, MIDC Industrial Area,\n\n\n\n\n                           \n          Waluj, Auragabad.\n\n     2.          \n          Mahendra Keshav Mahakal,\n          Partner for M\/s Ajanta Printpack\n          Industries, Age : 33 years, Occup.\n          Business, R\/o Plot No. 5, Warsha-\n                \n          Bhavan, Bassayye Nagar,Aurangabad.\n\n     3.   Ravindra Keshav Mahakal,\n          Partner for M\/s Ajanta Printpack\n      \n\n          Industries, Age : 35 years, Occup.\n          Business, R\/o Plot No. 5, Warsha-\n   \n\n\n\n          Bhavan, Bassayye Nagar,Aurangabad.\n\n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n                          ...\n\n\n\n\n\n        Shri.Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate for Applicant\n        Shri.Pravin S.Patil,Advocate for Respondents. \n                          ...\n\n                     CORAM:  SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J.\n\n\n\n\n\n                     DATE :  07TH MARCH, 2011.\n                                      \n     JUDGMENT  :\n<\/pre>\n
     1.    Heard Mr. Chatarjee learned counsel for the <\/p>\n
                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:03:46 :::<\/span>
\n                                   2                        Cri.A.4723.10<\/p>\n
     applicant (Original Complainant) and Mr. Pravin S.\n<\/p>\n
     Patil, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.\n<\/p>\n
     2.       This   is   an   application   preferred   by   the <\/p>\n
     applicant-appellant(Original   complainant)   seeking <\/p>\n
     leave   to   file   an   appeal   challenging   the   order <\/p>\n
     dated   24th  September,   2010   passed   below   Exh.1   in <\/p>\n
     S.C.C.No.   9491   of   2007,   by   the   learned   Judicial <\/p>\n
     Magistrate   First   Class-10,   Aurangabad,   thereby <\/p>\n
     dismissing the complaint filed by the complainant, <\/p>\n
     and   acquitting the   respondents-accused from the <\/p>\n
     charge   under   section   138   of   the   Negotiable <\/p>\n
     Instruments Act.\n<\/p>\n
         FACTUAL MATRIX CAN BE SUMMARISED AS FOLLOWS:\n<\/p>\n
     3.       Appellant(original   complainant)   has   filed <\/p>\n
     complaint   bearing   S.C.C.No.   9491   of   2007   on <\/p>\n
     17.12.2007,   before   learned   Judicial   Magistrate <\/p>\n
     First   Class,   Aurangabad   against   respondents <\/p>\n
     (Original   Accused)   under   section   138   of   the <\/p>\n
     Negotiable   Instruments   Act.   Respondent   NO.1   is <\/p>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:03:46 :::<\/span>
\n                                   3                         Cri.A.4723.10<\/p>\n
     partnership  Firm  and respondent  Nos.  2 and  3  are <\/p>\n
     partners   thereof,   who   are   managing   affairs   of <\/p>\n
     respondent   NO.1-Firm.   Accordingly,   Judicial <\/p>\n
     Magistrate  First  Class,  Aurangabad  issued  summons <\/p>\n
     to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and their presence was <\/p>\n
     secured   on   18.01.2010,   after   issuance   of   Non <\/p>\n
     Bailable Warrants against them.\n<\/p>\n
     4.         Thereafter,   the   matter   was   adjourned     for <\/p>\n
     several   times.   It   is   alleged   that   on   18.06.2010, <\/p>\n
     learned   counsel   for   the   accused     and   accused <\/p>\n
     informed   the   learned   Magistrate   that   the   matter <\/p>\n
     would   be   settled   and   therefore,   the   case   was <\/p>\n
     adjourned  to 3rd  July, 2010 and thereafter  it was <\/p>\n
     adjourned   to   07.08.2010   and   on   24.09.2010.\n<\/p>\n
     However, on 24.09.2010   adjournment was sought by <\/p>\n
     the advocate of accused because accused was out of <\/p>\n
     station.   Moreover,   the   complainant   and   his <\/p>\n
     advocate were  also absent, and therefore, learned <\/p>\n
     trial Court passed order below Exh.1 and dismissed <\/p>\n
     the   complaint   and   acquitted   the   respondents-\n<\/p>\n
     accused.\n<\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:03:46 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                   4                         Cri.A.4723.10<\/p>\n
     5.     Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with said <\/p>\n
     order   dated   24.09.2010   complainant-applicant-\n<\/p>\n
     appellant   preferred   present   application   seeking <\/p>\n
     leave to file appeal assailing the said order.\n<\/p>\n
     6.       It is canvassed that on 24.09.2010 accused <\/p>\n
     himself was absent.   Application Exh.27 was filed <\/p>\n
     seeking   his   personal   exemption   and   same   was <\/p>\n
     granted. Therefore, it is submitted that although <\/p>\n
     the case was posted for evidence on that day, no <\/p>\n
     inconvenience would be caused to the accused since <\/p>\n
     he   was   absent.   It   is   also   submitted   that   under <\/p>\n
     such   situation,   action   of   dismissal   of   the <\/p>\n
     complaint is   a harsh action and the matter could <\/p>\n
     have   been   postponed   or   deferred,   since   no <\/p>\n
     prejudice or hardship was caused to the accused as <\/p>\n
     he was absent. It was also argued on behalf of the <\/p>\n
     applicant that advocate for complainant could not <\/p>\n
     remain present on 24.09.2010, as he had gone   to <\/p>\n
     New Delhi by railway  at 13.40 hours on 24.09.2010 <\/p>\n
     to   appear   for   examination   on   26.09.2010   for   the <\/p>\n
     post of public Prosecutor in the CBI and although <\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:03:46 :::<\/span>
\n                                    5                         Cri.A.4723.10<\/p>\n
     requested   his   junior   to   attend   the   case,   due   to <\/p>\n
     oversight his Junior did not attend the said case.\n<\/p>\n
     7.       Learned counsel for the respondents opposed <\/p>\n
     the  present  application  vehemently,  and  submitted <\/p>\n
     that no ground has been put forth for absence of <\/p>\n
     complainant   on   24.09.2009.   It   is   also   submitted <\/p>\n
     that   since   the   complainant   remained   absent   for <\/p>\n
     three times earlier, as well as he remained absent <\/p>\n
     on   24.09.2010,   learned   trial   Court   rightly <\/p>\n
     dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused <\/p>\n
     under   section   138   of   the   Negotiable   Instruments <\/p>\n
     Act     and   applicant   is   not   entitled   for   leave   to <\/p>\n
     file appeal against the said order.\n<\/p>\n
     8.         Considering   the   rival   submissions,   at   the <\/p>\n
     outset,   it   is   apparent   that   dismissal   of   the <\/p>\n
     complaint filed by the complainant, by order dated <\/p>\n
     24.09.2010, passed by the learned trial Court, is <\/p>\n
     apparently   technical   dismissal   due   to   absence   of <\/p>\n
     complainant   and   his   advocate,   and   the   said <\/p>\n
     complaint, admittedly, has not been dismissed   on <\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:03:46 :::<\/span>
\n                                   6                         Cri.A.4723.10<\/p>\n
     merits.     Principles   of   natural   justice   require <\/p>\n
     that   opportunity   be   given   to   the   parties   to <\/p>\n
     prosecute,   as   well   as   to   contest   the   matter,   on <\/p>\n
     its own merits. Therefore, leave is required to be <\/p>\n
     granted   to   the   applicant   to   file   appeal <\/p>\n
     challenging the impugned order dated 24.09.2010 in <\/p>\n
     the interest of justice.\n<\/p>\n
     9.    Accordingly, present application is allowed.\n<\/p>\n
     Leave   to   file   appeal   is   granted   and   present <\/p>\n
     application itself is treated as Appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     10.     Admit   the   appeal,   learned   counsel   for <\/p>\n
     respondent   waives   the   service   of   notice   after <\/p>\n
     admission.\n<\/p>\n
     11.     Accordingly,   with   the   consent   of   learned <\/p>\n
     counsel for respective parties, appeal is taken up <\/p>\n
     for final hearing.\n<\/p>\n
     12.    Heard learned counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:03:46 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                     7                          Cri.A.4723.10<\/p>\n
     13.   Considering the facts and circumstances, and <\/p>\n
     after   considering   rival   submissions   advanced   by <\/p>\n
     the learned counsel for the parties, as mentioned <\/p>\n
     herein above, it is apparent that dismissal of the <\/p>\n
     complaint by order dated 24.09.2010, passed by the <\/p>\n
     trial   Court,   in   the   instant   case   is   apparently <\/p>\n
     technical   dismissal   due   to   absence   of   the <\/p>\n
     complainant   and   his   advocate,   but   the   said <\/p>\n
     dismissal is not on merits, hence I am of the view <\/p>\n
     that  fair  opportunity  is  required  to  be given  to <\/p>\n
     the   applicant-appellant,   therefore,   the   impugned <\/p>\n
     order dated 24.09.2010 deserves to be quashed and <\/p>\n
     set   aside   and   matter   is   required   to   be   remitted <\/p>\n
     back   to   the   trial   Court   to   decide   it   on   its   own <\/p>\n
     merits, in accordance with law, with directions to <\/p>\n
     parties   to   remain   present   before   trial   Court   on <\/p>\n
     specified   date,   subject   to   saddling   reasonable <\/p>\n
     costs upon the applicant.\n<\/p>\n
     14.     Accordingly,   present   appeal   is   allowed, <\/p>\n
     subject   to   payment   of   costs   of   Rs.   5000\/-(Rupees <\/p>\n
     Five   Thousand),   by   the   applicant-appellant-\n<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:03:46 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                   8                         Cri.A.4723.10<\/p>\n
     complainant to the respondent-Accused before lower <\/p>\n
     Court,   within   a   period   of   two   weeks   from   today, <\/p>\n
     and the impugned order dated 24.09.2010 passed by <\/p>\n
     the   Judicial   Magistrate   First   Class   –   10, <\/p>\n
     Aurangabad,   in   S.C.C.No.   9491   of   2007   stands <\/p>\n
     quashed  and set  aside  and the  matter  is remitted <\/p>\n
     back to the trial Court, with direction to decide <\/p>\n
     it   on   its   own   merits   afresh,   in   accordance   with <\/p>\n
     law,   after   giving   due   opportunity   to   the   parties <\/p>\n
     to adduce\/produce their respective evidences.  The <\/p>\n
     parties are directed to remain present before the <\/p>\n
     trial Court on 6th April, 2011 at 11.00 a.m.<\/p>\n
     15.    Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
                                       Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                             [SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J.]
\n     MTK<\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:03:46 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Rajendra Shaintilal Mistry vs M\/S Ajanta Printpack Industries on 7 March, 2011 Bench: Shrihari P. Davare 1 Cri.A.4723.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4723 OF 2010 Rajendra Shaintilal Mistry, Age: 49 years,Occupation :Service, R\/o Plot No.38, Anand-B Building, Vidyanagar, Aurangabad. …APPLICANT. VERSUS 1. […]<\/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-25921","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRajendra Shaintilal Mistry vs M\/S Ajanta Printpack Industries on 7 March, 2011 - 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\/rajendra-shaintilal-mistry-vs-ms-ajanta-printpack-industries-on-7-march-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rajendra Shaintilal Mistry vs M\/S Ajanta Printpack Industries on 7 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-shaintilal-mistry-vs-ms-ajanta-printpack-industries-on-7-march-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-03-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-28T13:00:40+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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajendra-shaintilal-mistry-vs-ms-ajanta-printpack-industries-on-7-march-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajendra-shaintilal-mistry-vs-ms-ajanta-printpack-industries-on-7-march-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rajendra Shaintilal Mistry vs M\\\/S Ajanta Printpack Industries on 7 March, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-28T13:00:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajendra-shaintilal-mistry-vs-ms-ajanta-printpack-industries-on-7-march-2011\"},\"wordCount\":991,\"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\\\/rajendra-shaintilal-mistry-vs-ms-ajanta-printpack-industries-on-7-march-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajendra-shaintilal-mistry-vs-ms-ajanta-printpack-industries-on-7-march-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajendra-shaintilal-mistry-vs-ms-ajanta-printpack-industries-on-7-march-2011\",\"name\":\"Rajendra Shaintilal Mistry vs M\\\/S Ajanta Printpack Industries on 7 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-28T13:00:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajendra-shaintilal-mistry-vs-ms-ajanta-printpack-industries-on-7-march-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajendra-shaintilal-mistry-vs-ms-ajanta-printpack-industries-on-7-march-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajendra-shaintilal-mistry-vs-ms-ajanta-printpack-industries-on-7-march-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rajendra Shaintilal Mistry vs M\\\/S Ajanta Printpack Industries on 7 March, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Rajendra Shaintilal Mistry vs M\/S Ajanta Printpack Industries on 7 March, 2011 - 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\/rajendra-shaintilal-mistry-vs-ms-ajanta-printpack-industries-on-7-march-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rajendra Shaintilal Mistry vs M\/S Ajanta Printpack Industries on 7 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-shaintilal-mistry-vs-ms-ajanta-printpack-industries-on-7-march-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-03-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-28T13:00:40+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-shaintilal-mistry-vs-ms-ajanta-printpack-industries-on-7-march-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-shaintilal-mistry-vs-ms-ajanta-printpack-industries-on-7-march-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rajendra Shaintilal Mistry vs M\/S Ajanta Printpack Industries on 7 March, 2011","datePublished":"2011-03-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-28T13:00:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-shaintilal-mistry-vs-ms-ajanta-printpack-industries-on-7-march-2011"},"wordCount":991,"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\/rajendra-shaintilal-mistry-vs-ms-ajanta-printpack-industries-on-7-march-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-shaintilal-mistry-vs-ms-ajanta-printpack-industries-on-7-march-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-shaintilal-mistry-vs-ms-ajanta-printpack-industries-on-7-march-2011","name":"Rajendra Shaintilal Mistry vs M\/S Ajanta Printpack Industries on 7 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-03-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-28T13:00:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-shaintilal-mistry-vs-ms-ajanta-printpack-industries-on-7-march-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-shaintilal-mistry-vs-ms-ajanta-printpack-industries-on-7-march-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-shaintilal-mistry-vs-ms-ajanta-printpack-industries-on-7-march-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rajendra Shaintilal Mistry vs M\/S Ajanta Printpack Industries on 7 March, 2011"}]},{"@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\/25921","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=25921"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25921\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25921"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25921"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25921"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}