{"id":262041,"date":"2011-09-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-09-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangilal-jagrupji-jain-vs-shri-bharat-shankarlal-dhakad-on-15-september-2011"},"modified":"2016-04-21T22:54:50","modified_gmt":"2016-04-21T17:24:50","slug":"mangilal-jagrupji-jain-vs-shri-bharat-shankarlal-dhakad-on-15-september-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangilal-jagrupji-jain-vs-shri-bharat-shankarlal-dhakad-on-15-september-2011","title":{"rendered":"Mangilal Jagrupji Jain vs Shri Bharat Shankarlal Dhakad … on 15 September, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Mangilal Jagrupji Jain vs Shri Bharat Shankarlal Dhakad … on 15 September, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: Anoop V.Mohta<\/div>\n
                                                   1                                cra-538-11.sxw\n\n\n    dgm\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                         \n               IN THE  HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                \n                        APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION\n\n                 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 538  OF 2011\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n    Mangilal Jagrupji Jain                     ....   Petitioner\n          vs\n    Shri Bharat Shankarlal Dhakad (HUF) & ors. ....    Respondents\n\n\n\n\n                                                  \n                                \n    Mr. P. S. Dani for the petitioner.\n\n    Mr. N.V. Walawalkar, Senior Advocate i\/by Mr. Suresh M. Sabrad for \n                               \n    respondent no.2. \n\n\n                                          CORAM:   ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                                              DATE  :  September 15,   2011<\/p>\n
    ORAL JUDGMENT:\n<\/p>\n
           The Petitioner (Defendant No.3) is  one of the purchaser, along <\/p>\n
    with the Plaintiffs (Respondents 1 to 4) of a property described in the <\/p>\n
    Agreement dated 29 December 2007 (the Agreement),  executed with <\/p>\n
    Respondents 5 and 6 (Defendants 1 and 2).   The Agreement reflects <\/p>\n
    that   the   Plaintiffs   along   with   the   Petitioner,   as   partners   of   M\/s.\n<\/p>\n
    Mahavir   Developers   (the   firm),     entered   into   the   agreement   for <\/p>\n
    purchase of the property.   As the Defendants failed to perform their <\/p>\n
    part,   the   present   Suit   is   filed,     in   their   individual   capacity,     for   a <\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:44:14 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    2                                cra-538-11.sxw<\/p>\n
    specific performance  based upon the agreement.\n<\/p>\n
    2      The Petitioner  filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11 (d) <\/p>\n
    of   the   Code   of   Civil   Procedure   (CPC)   for   rejection   of   the   plaint <\/p>\n
    basically on the ground that the Defendants executed the agreement <\/p>\n
    with the partnership firm namely, M\/s.Mahavir Developers (the firm), <\/p>\n
    of   which   the   Plaintiffs   1   to   4   are   the   partners.       The   firm   is   not <\/p>\n
    registered.       Therefore   considering   Section   69(2)   of   the   Indian <\/p>\n
    Partnership Act (Mah. Amendment), the suit as filed in the individual <\/p>\n
    capacity is not maintainable.  The defence was that the Plaintiffs and <\/p>\n
    the Petitioner individually invested the amount and therefore in their <\/p>\n
    individual capacity entered into the transaction, though the document <\/p>\n
    reflects   the   name   of   the   intended   firm.     It   could   not   finalised   and <\/p>\n
    registered till this date       The learned Judge after hearing both the <\/p>\n
    parties, considering the averments made in the plaint and referring to <\/p>\n
    the provisions of law read with the judgments of the Supreme Court <\/p>\n
    rejected   the   said   application.     Therefore,   the   present   Civil   Revision <\/p>\n
    Application.\n<\/p>\n
    3      In view of this provision other party may apply for rejection of <\/p>\n
    the plaint if suit is barred by law based upon the basic averments in <\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:44:14 :::<\/span>
\n                                               3                              cra-538-11.sxw<\/p>\n
    the plaint itself.    The averments in the plaint also includes, as rightly <\/p>\n
    contended   by   the   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   Petitioner,   the <\/p>\n
    supporting   and   relevant   documents   filed   with   the   same,   at   the <\/p>\n
    relevant time.   There is no question of going to the defence\/written <\/p>\n
    statement,   filed or not.       Even the reply stating the merits of the <\/p>\n
    matter filed to such application for rejection of the plaint may not be <\/p>\n
    necessary to consider merits of the matter in view of the object, nature <\/p>\n
    and scope and purpose of Order VII, Rule 11(d) of CPC.\n<\/p>\n
    4     The Apex Court in Vishnu Dutt Sharma vs. Daya Sapra (Smt<\/a>)1 <\/p>\n
    has elaborated the scope and purpose of the provision as follows:\n<\/p>\n
                “7    Order   7   Rule   11(d)   of   the   Code   of   Civil
\n          Procedure,   1908   (for   short   “the   Code”)   provides   for
\n          rejection of a plaint inter alia on the premise that the suit <\/p>\n
          was   barred   by   any   statute.     Such   an   embargo   in   the
\n          maintainability   of   the   suit   must   be   apparent   from   the
\n          averments made in the plaint.\n<\/p>\n
    5     The Apex Court also in  Popat and Kotecha Property vs. State <\/p>\n
    Bank   of   India   Staff   Association2<\/a>    has   elaborated   the   scope   and <\/p>\n
    purpose of the provision as follows:<\/p>\n
\n\n\n    1 (2009) 13 SCC 729\n    2 (2005) 7 SCC 510\n\n\n                                                          ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:44:14 :::<\/span>\n                                                 4                               cra-538-11.sxw\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                     \n                 \"23 Rule 11 of Order 7 lays down an independent \n<\/pre>\n
          remedy made available to the defendant to challenge the <\/p>\n
          maintainability of the suit itself, irrespective of his right to
\n          contest the same on merits.   The law ostensibly does not
\n          contemplate   at   any   stage   when   the   objections   can   be
\n          raised, and also does not say in express terms about the <\/p>\n
          filing of a written statement.   Instead, the word “shall” is
\n          used clearly implying thereby that it casts a duty on the
\n          court     to   perform   its   obligations   in   rejecting   the   plaint
\n          when the same is hit by any of the infirmities provided in <\/p>\n
          the four clauses of Rule 11, even without intervention of
\n          the defendant.  In any event, rejection of the plaint under <\/p>\n
          Rule 11 does not preclude the plaintiffs from presenting a
\n          fresh plaint in terms of Rule 13.”\n<\/p>\n
    6     It   is   also   necessary   to   consider   at   this   stage   the   object   and <\/p>\n
    purpose of Section 69(2)<\/a> of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (Mah.\n<\/p>\n
    Amendment)   and   the   effect   of   non-registration   of   firm   and     the <\/p>\n
    averments so raised along with the document filed on record,  with a <\/p>\n
    view to see whether the impugned order is in accordance with law or <\/p>\n
    not.   The consequence of such application is always goes to the root <\/p>\n
    of the Suit itself.  If case is made out,  the plaint needs to be rejected <\/p>\n
    at that stage itself.\n<\/p>\n
    7     In the present case, there is no serious dispute and basically in <\/p>\n
    view of the averments made in the plaint that the alleged partnership <\/p>\n
    firm was not registered on 29 December 2007 when the  agreement in <\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:44:14 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  5                              cra-538-11.sxw<\/p>\n
    question   was   executed,   though   the   parties   have   signed   the <\/p>\n
    agreement\/document   as   partners   of   the   firm.       The   effect   of   non-\n<\/p>\n
    registration of such partnership firm just cannot be overlooked, but <\/p>\n
    subject to the averments made in the plaint only.   It is very clear from <\/p>\n
    the averments read with the documents annexed to the plaint that the <\/p>\n
    Suit   is   filed   for   specific   performance   of   the   agreement     in   their <\/p>\n
    individual   capacity,   against   the   Respondents   and   the   Petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
    Therefore, at this stage, from the averments it is clear that they have <\/p>\n
    not pleaded the specific performance of the agreement in the name of <\/p>\n
    the firm.  The effect of such prayers and\/or averments, the Court will <\/p>\n
    consider  during  the  trial.    But  to  say  that   such  Suit   is liable  to  be <\/p>\n
    dismissed,   at this stage, based upon the principle of Order VII Rule <\/p>\n
    11(d) CPC as contended, in my view, is not correct.   The submission <\/p>\n
    that the parties can have such oral partnership at any time and can be <\/p>\n
    registered at subsequent stage though cannot be disputed, yet in the <\/p>\n
    present facts and circumstances, that aspect just cannot be gone into <\/p>\n
    by overlooking the averments made in the plaint and the documents <\/p>\n
    on record,  which nowhere deals with the aspect of the un-registered <\/p>\n
    firm.     The intention  and\/or the object of reference of firm’s name <\/p>\n
    and   what   should   be   the   consequence   of   filing   of   the   suit   in   their <\/p>\n
    individual capacity also cannot be gone into at this stage merely on <\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:44:14 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 6                               cra-538-11.sxw<\/p>\n
    the basis of reply\/submission so made by the learned counsel for the <\/p>\n
    Petitioner.   All these facets need detail inquiry and evidence.     It is <\/p>\n
    unregistered till this date in view of the disputes between the parties.\n<\/p>\n
    The   submission   revolving   around   Section   69(2)<\/a>   of   the   Indian <\/p>\n
    Partnership Act   cannot be the foundation to reject the plaint, in the <\/p>\n
    present case.\n<\/p>\n
    8<\/span><\/p>\n
           The contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the <\/p>\n
    Respondents,   based   upon   the   above   judgments,   therefore,   supports <\/p>\n
    the   impugned   order   on   above   facets.     The   reasoning   given   by   the <\/p>\n
    learned trial Judge in this background cannot be stated to be bad in <\/p>\n
    law and\/or contrary to the facts on record.\n<\/p>\n
    9      The   judgment   in  Goverdhandoss   Takersey   vs.   M.   Abdul <\/p>\n
    Rahiman<\/a> and anr.1  as cited by the learned senior counsel appearing <\/p>\n
    for   the   Respondent   referring   to   Section   69(2)<\/a>   of   the   Indian <\/p>\n
    Partnership Act and the submission that in every matter, the plea of <\/p>\n
    non-registration   of   the   firm   that   itself   cannot   be   the   foundation   to <\/p>\n
    reject the plaint is also correct.There is also another facet that the Suit <\/p>\n
    filed   by   the   alleged   individual   partners   in   their   individual   capacity <\/p>\n
    1 AIR (29) 1942 Madras 634<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:44:14 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    7                              cra-538-11.sxw<\/p>\n
    cannot be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC at this stage <\/p>\n
    of the proceedings at the instance of the Petitioner who was also one <\/p>\n
    of the signatories to the agreement and who has full knowledge that <\/p>\n
    the   partnership   was   not   registered   or   was   not   in   existence   at   the <\/p>\n
    relevant time.\n<\/p>\n
    10         Resultantly,   I   see   there   is   no   reason   to   interfere   with   the <\/p>\n
    impugned order.  The CRA is dismissed.   There shall be no order as to <\/p>\n
    costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                                  (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:44:14 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Mangilal Jagrupji Jain vs Shri Bharat Shankarlal Dhakad … on 15 September, 2011 Bench: Anoop V.Mohta 1 cra-538-11.sxw dgm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 538 OF 2011 Mangilal Jagrupji Jain …. Petitioner vs Shri Bharat Shankarlal Dhakad (HUF) & ors. …. […]<\/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-262041","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMangilal Jagrupji Jain vs Shri Bharat Shankarlal Dhakad ... on 15 September, 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\/mangilal-jagrupji-jain-vs-shri-bharat-shankarlal-dhakad-on-15-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mangilal Jagrupji Jain vs Shri Bharat Shankarlal Dhakad ... on 15 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangilal-jagrupji-jain-vs-shri-bharat-shankarlal-dhakad-on-15-september-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=\"2011-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-21T17:24:50+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangilal-jagrupji-jain-vs-shri-bharat-shankarlal-dhakad-on-15-september-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangilal-jagrupji-jain-vs-shri-bharat-shankarlal-dhakad-on-15-september-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mangilal Jagrupji Jain vs Shri Bharat Shankarlal Dhakad … on 15 September, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-21T17:24:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangilal-jagrupji-jain-vs-shri-bharat-shankarlal-dhakad-on-15-september-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1287,\"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\\\/mangilal-jagrupji-jain-vs-shri-bharat-shankarlal-dhakad-on-15-september-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangilal-jagrupji-jain-vs-shri-bharat-shankarlal-dhakad-on-15-september-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangilal-jagrupji-jain-vs-shri-bharat-shankarlal-dhakad-on-15-september-2011\",\"name\":\"Mangilal Jagrupji Jain vs Shri Bharat Shankarlal Dhakad ... on 15 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-21T17:24:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangilal-jagrupji-jain-vs-shri-bharat-shankarlal-dhakad-on-15-september-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangilal-jagrupji-jain-vs-shri-bharat-shankarlal-dhakad-on-15-september-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangilal-jagrupji-jain-vs-shri-bharat-shankarlal-dhakad-on-15-september-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mangilal Jagrupji Jain vs Shri Bharat Shankarlal Dhakad … on 15 September, 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":"Mangilal Jagrupji Jain vs Shri Bharat Shankarlal Dhakad ... on 15 September, 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\/mangilal-jagrupji-jain-vs-shri-bharat-shankarlal-dhakad-on-15-september-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mangilal Jagrupji Jain vs Shri Bharat Shankarlal Dhakad ... on 15 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangilal-jagrupji-jain-vs-shri-bharat-shankarlal-dhakad-on-15-september-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-21T17:24:50+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangilal-jagrupji-jain-vs-shri-bharat-shankarlal-dhakad-on-15-september-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangilal-jagrupji-jain-vs-shri-bharat-shankarlal-dhakad-on-15-september-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mangilal Jagrupji Jain vs Shri Bharat Shankarlal Dhakad … on 15 September, 2011","datePublished":"2011-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-21T17:24:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangilal-jagrupji-jain-vs-shri-bharat-shankarlal-dhakad-on-15-september-2011"},"wordCount":1287,"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\/mangilal-jagrupji-jain-vs-shri-bharat-shankarlal-dhakad-on-15-september-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangilal-jagrupji-jain-vs-shri-bharat-shankarlal-dhakad-on-15-september-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangilal-jagrupji-jain-vs-shri-bharat-shankarlal-dhakad-on-15-september-2011","name":"Mangilal Jagrupji Jain vs Shri Bharat Shankarlal Dhakad ... on 15 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-21T17:24:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangilal-jagrupji-jain-vs-shri-bharat-shankarlal-dhakad-on-15-september-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangilal-jagrupji-jain-vs-shri-bharat-shankarlal-dhakad-on-15-september-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangilal-jagrupji-jain-vs-shri-bharat-shankarlal-dhakad-on-15-september-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mangilal Jagrupji Jain vs Shri Bharat Shankarlal Dhakad … on 15 September, 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\/262041","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=262041"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/262041\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=262041"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=262041"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=262041"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}