{"id":268725,"date":"1969-12-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1969-12-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandra-prakash-agarwal-vs-chaturbhuj-das-parikh-ors-on-18-december-1969"},"modified":"2017-06-07T03:10:29","modified_gmt":"2017-06-06T21:40:29","slug":"chandra-prakash-agarwal-vs-chaturbhuj-das-parikh-ors-on-18-december-1969","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandra-prakash-agarwal-vs-chaturbhuj-das-parikh-ors-on-18-december-1969","title":{"rendered":"Chandra Prakash Agarwal vs Chaturbhuj Das Parikh & Ors on 18 December, 1969"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Chandra Prakash Agarwal vs Chaturbhuj Das Parikh & Ors on 18 December, 1969<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1970 AIR 1061, 1970 SCR (3) 354<\/div>\n
Author: Shelat<\/div>\n
Bench: Sikri, S.M., Shelat, J.M., Bhargava, Vishishtha, Mitter, G.K., Vaidyialingam, C.A.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nCHANDRA PRAKASH AGARWAL\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCHATURBHUJ DAS PARIKH & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n18\/12\/1969\n\nBENCH:\nSHELAT, J.M.\nBENCH:\nSHELAT, J.M.\nSIKRI, S.M.\nBHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA\nMITTER, G.K.\nVAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.\n\nCITATION:\n 1970 AIR 1061\t\t  1970 SCR  (3) 354\n 1970 SCC  (1) 182\n\n\nACT:\nConstitution of, India, 1950, Art. 217(2)(b)-\"<\/a>Advocate of  a\nHigh  Court\",  meaning\tof  Art.  124(3)<\/a>  and\t233(2)-<\/a>Legal\nPractitioners Act<\/a>, 1897-Bar Councils Act<\/a>, 1926.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  appointment  of the respondent as a Judge of  the\tHigh\nCourt  was  challenged\ton the ground  that  though  he\t was\nenrolled as an advocate more than twenty years ago he  could\nnot 'claim to be one who \"has for at least ten years been an\nadvocate of a High Court\" as he was all along practicing  in\nthe Muffasil and not in the High Court.\nHELD : The expression \"an Advocate of a High Court\" in\tArt.\n217(2)(b)<\/a> mean an advocate on the roll of a, High Court\t and\nentitled as of right by that reason to practice in, the High\nCourt.\tThere is nothing In the Article to indicate that  an\nAdvocate  of a High Court can only be that advocate who\t has\nbeen practising in the High Court. [358 HI\nSengalani Gramani v. Subayya Nadar<\/a>, A.I.R. 1967 Mad. 344 and\nV.   G. Row v. Alogiriswamy, A.I.R. 1967 Mad. 347,  referred\nto.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL  APPELLATE.JURISDICTION  : Civil Appeal  No.  2331  of
\n1968.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tfrom the judgment and order dated July 24,  1968  of
\nthe  Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc.  Writ No. 14433  of
\n1968.\n<\/p>\n
M.P.  Bajpai,  S.  M.  Jain and G.  M.\tWantoo,\t for  the
\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n
O.   P. Rana, for respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 5.\n<\/p>\n
I.   N. Shroff, for respondent No. 3.\n<\/p>\n
L.   M. Singhvi and S. P. Nayar, for respondent No. 4.
\nShelat, J. I he appellant filed a writ petition in the\tHigh
\nCourt at Allahabad for a quo warranto against respondent  1,
\nchallenging therein his appointment as 4 Judge of that\tHigh
\nCourt.\t The ground on which he challenged  the\t appointment
\nwas  that  though respondent 1 was enrolled as\tan  advocate
\nmore  than 20 years ago, he could not still claim to be\t one
\nwho  “has for at least ten years been an advocate of a\tHigh
\nCourt” within,.the meaning of Art.\n<\/p>\n
\t      355<\/span><\/p>\n
217(2)(b)  of the Constitution, as admittedly  respondent  1
\nwas  all  along practising at Benaras and not  in  the\tHigh
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
The  writ petition came up for a preliminary hearing  before
\nW.  Broome  and G. Kumar, JJ., when it was  urged  that\t the
\nexpression  “an advocate of a High Court” in Art.  217(2)(b)<\/a>
\nmeant  an advocate practising in the High Court and not\t one
\npractising  in\ta court or courts  subordinate\tto-the\tHigh
\nCourt.\tIn support of that interpretation, the language used
\nin  Art. 124(3)<\/a> on the one hand and that in Art.  233(2)<\/a>  on
\nthe  other was relied on to show that the  Constitution\t has
\nemployed  different  language in connection  with  different
\npurposes thereby making a deliberate distinction between “an
\nadvocate”  and\t“an advocate of a High\tCourt”,\t the  former
\nmeaning\t an  advocate  practising  in  a  court\t or   courts
\nsubordinate  to\t the High Court and the\t latter\t meaning  an
\nadvocate  practising  in a High Court.\tThe  contention\t was
\nthat while dealing with the qualifications for the post of a
\ndistrict judge Art. 233(2)<\/a> uses the expression “an advocate”
\nas  distinguished  from the expression “advocate of  a\tHigh
\nCourt”\tin  Arts. 217(2)(b) and 124(3) which  lay  down\t the
\nqualifications\tfor the offices of a Judge of a\t High  Court
\nand  a\tJudge of the Supreme Court.  The difference  in\t the
\nlanguage, it was contended, indicated that whereas a  person
\nto be appointed a district judge need be only an advocate of
\nthe  prescribed\t standing, the one to be appointed  a  Judge
\neither\tof  a  High Court or the Supreme Court\tmust  be  an
\nadvocate who has practised for the required number of  years
\nin  a High Court or two or more High Courts  in\t succession.
\nIt  was\t further contended that such an indication  is\talso
\nfurnished by the language of Art. 124(3) (a)<\/a> and (b<\/a>), in the
\nsense that just as the expression “a judge of a High  Court”
\nin  sub-cl. (a) must mean a Judge who has worked as a  Judge
\nin  the\t High Court, the expression “an advocate of  a\tHigh
\nCourt” must similarly mean an advocate who has practised  in
\na High Court.\n<\/p>\n
There  was a difference of opinion between the two  learned.
\nJudges,\t Broome,  J. held that “on a plain  reading  of\t the
\nrelevant   clauses”  the  correct  interpretation   of\t the
\nexpression  “an advocate of a High Court” meant an  advocate
\nenrolled  as  an advocate of a High Court,  irrespective  of
\nwhether on such enrolment he practised in a High Court or  a
\ncourt or courts subordinate to the High Court’ G. Kumar, J.,
\non  the other hand, accepted the contention urged on  behalf
\nof the appellant and held that the expression ”\t an advocate
\nof  a  High  Court”  meant one who  has\t practised  for\t the
\nrequired period in a High Court, and therefore, a person who
\nhas  practised only in a court or courts subordinate to\t the
\nHigh Court would not answer the qualification required under
\nArt.  217(2)(b).<\/a>  Such a difference of opinion\thaving\tthus
\narisen\tbetween\t the  two learned  Judges,  the\t matter\t was
\nreferred to Mathur,
\n356<\/span>
\nJ.,  who  agreed  with Broome J.,  and\tthereupon  the\twrit
\npetition  was dismissed.  The present appeal on\t certificate
\ngranted by the High Court challenges the correctness of\t the
\norder dismissing the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
Counsel\t for  the  appellant repeated  before  us  the\tsame
\ncontentions which were urged first before Broome and  Kumar,
\nJJ.,  and  later on before- Matkur, J. In  our\topinion\t the
\nlanguage used in Art. 217 (2) (b)<\/a> is plain and incapable  of
\nbearing\t an  interpretation  other than\t the  one  given  by
\nBroome, J., and agreeing with him by Mathur, J.
\nOne broad point against the interpretation sought by counsel
\nfor the appellant would be that the expression “an  advocate
\nof  a High Court” in its ordinary plain meaning must mean  a
\nperson\twho  has  by enrolling himself\tunder  the  relevant
\nprovisions of law become an advocate of a High Court.  If it
\nwas  intended that the: qualification under  Art.  217(2)(b)<\/a>
\nshould\tbe that a person appointed to the office of a  Judge
\nof  a High Court should have practised in a High  Court\t and
\nthat practising in a court or courts subordinate to it would
\nnot  answer the qualification, the language used in  sub-cl.\n<\/p>\n
(b) of Art. 217(2)<\/a> would have been as follows
\n“A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a  Judge
\nof  a  High  Court  unless he has for  at  least  ten  years
\npractised as an advocate in a High Court or in -two or\tmore
\nsuch Courts in succession”.\n<\/p>\n
Apart from this aspect, some of the earlier statutes bearing
\non the same subject have also used the very same or  similar
\nexpression.  The Legal Practitioners Act<\/a>, 1879 defined by S.
\n3<\/a>  a “legal practitioner” as meaning an Advocate,  Vakil  or
\nAttorney  of any High Court, a Pleader, Mukhtar or  Revenue-
\nagent.\tSec. 4 of that Act provided
\n“Every\tperson\tnow or hereafter entered as an\tAdvocate  or
\nVakil on the roll of any High Court under the Letters Patent
\nconstituting’such Court, or under section 41<\/a> of this Act, or
\nenrolled as a pleader in the Chief Court of the Punjab under
\nsection 8<\/a> of this Act, shall be entitled to practise in\t all
\nthe Courts subordinate to the Court on the roll of which  he
\nis   entered-and  any  person  so  entered  who\t  ordinarily
\npractises in the Court on the roll of which he is entered or
\nsome   Court  subordinate  thereto  shall,   notwithstanding
\nanything herein contained, be entitled, as such, to practise
\nin  any Court in the territories to which this\tAct  extends
\nother than a High Court on whose roll he is not entered, or,
\nwith
\n\t      357<\/span>
\nthe permission of the Court-in any High Court on whose\troll
\nhe is not entered-.”\n<\/p>\n
Sec.  41 of the Act empowered a High Court to make rules  as
\nto the qualifications and admission of proper persons to  be
\n“Advocates of the Court” and subject to such rules to  enrol
\nsuch  and  so  many  Advocates as  it  thought\tfit.   These
\nprovisions clearly show that advocates enrolled-under s.  41<\/a>
\nwere  enrolled\tas  advocates  of  a  High  Court  and\twere
\nentitled,  once\t enrolled, to practise\teither\tin.the\tHigh
\nCourt  or  courts subordinate to such High  Court  or  both.
\nThere  was  thus  in the case of advocates  so\tenrolled  no
\ndistinction  between those who practiced in the\t High  Court
\nand  those who practiced in the courts subordinate  to\tsuch
\nHigh Court as they were entitled on enrolment, as aforesaid,
\nto practise either in the High Court or in a court or courts
\nsubordinate  thereto or both.  The Indian Bar Councils\tAct<\/a>,
\nXXXVIIII  of  1926 also defined an  ‘advocate’\tmeaning\t one
\n“entered in the roll of advocates of a High Court under\t the
\nprovisions of this Act.” Section 8<\/a> laid down that no  person
\nwould be entitled as of right to practise in any High  Court
\nunless his name was entered in the roll of “the advocates of
\nthe  High Court maintained under this Act.” Under  s.  8(2)<\/a>,
\nthe High Court was required to prepare and maintain “a\troll
\nof  advocates of the High Court” in which should be  entered
\nthe names of (a) all persons who were, as advocates,  vakils
\nor  pleaders, entitled as of right to practise in  the\tHigh
\nCourt  – immediately before the date on which  this  section
\ncame  into  force  in respect thereof;\tand  (b)  all  other
\npersons\t who  were  admitted to be “advocates  of  the\tHigh
\nCourt” under this Act.\tSection 9<\/a> empowered the Bar  Council
\nto  make  rules to regulate the admission of persons  to  be
\n“advocates of the High Court”, and s. 1<\/a> 0<\/a> gave power to\t the
\nHigh  Court  in the manner therein  provided  to  reprimand,
\nsuspend\t or remove from practice “any advocate of  the\tHigh
\nCourt”\twhom  it  found\t guilty\t of  professional  or  other
\nmisconduct.   Section  14(1)<\/a>  of the Act  provided  that  an
\nadvocate, i.e., one whose name was entered under this Act in
\nthe-roll of advocates of a High Court, shall be entitled  as
\nof  right  to practise in the High Court of which he  is  an
\nadvocate or in any other court save as otherwise provided by
\nsub-s. 2 or by or under any other law for the time being  in
\nforce.\t Once,\ttherefore,  the name  of-  an  advocate\t was
\nentered\t in the roll of advocates of a High Court under\t one
\nor  the other Act, he was entitled to practise in  the\tHigh
\nCourt  and  in courts subordinate thereto or  in  any  court
\nsubject of course to the provisions aforesaid.\tHe was\tthus
\nan  advocate  of the High Court irrespective of\t whether  he
\npracticed  in  the High Court or in the\t courts\t subordinate
\nthereto, and as seen from s. 10<\/a> of the Bar Councils Act,  he
\nbecame amenable to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the High
\nCourt by reason of his being enrolled as an advocate of\t the
\nHigh Court. L7Sup.  Cl((NP)70-8
\n358<\/span>
\nThe   expression  “an  advocate\t of  a\tHigh  Court”   must,
\ntherefore,  mean,  in  the light  of  these  provisions,  an
\nadvocate  whose name has been enrolled as an advocate  of  a
\nHigh  Court,  no matter\t whether he practised  in  the\tHigh
\nCourt  itself or in courts subordinate to it or\t both.\t The
\nexpression “an advocate or a pleader of a High Court” having
\nthus acquired the meaning as aforesaid, it must be  presumed
\nthat a similar expression, namely “a pleader of a High Court
\nfor  a period of -not less than ten years” was used  in\t the
\nsame  sense in S. 101(3)(d) of the Government of India\tAct,
\n1915, when that section laid down the qualifications for the
\noffice of a Judge of a High Court in the case of a  pleader.
\nThe  same phraseology was also repeated in s.  220(3)(d)<\/a>  of
\nthe  Government -of India Act<\/a>, 1935, except for one  change,
\nnamely, that in calculating 10 years’ standing, his standing
\nas a pleader of 2 or more High Courts in succession was also
\nto be included.\n<\/p>\n
It will be noticed that in the latter part of sub-s. 3 of S.
\n220<\/a>,  which provided that in calculating the  period  during
\nwhich  a person had been a pleader, the period during  which
\nhe had held judicial office after he became a pleader  shall
\nbe  included, the expression used is simply a “pleader”\t and
\nnot a pleader of any High Court.  But the word “pleader”  in
\nthis  part of s. 220(3)<\/a> must obviously mean the same  person
\nas “the pleader of any High Court” mentioned earlier in\t the
\nsame sub-section because the period during which he held any
\njudicial  office was to be reckoned for his standing of\t ten
\nyears  as.  a pleader of a High Court.\tThis  clearly  high-
\nlights the point that what s.220(3) in the 1935 Act required
\nas a qualification was that a person to be appointed a Judge
\nof a High Court had to have ten years’ standing as a pleader
\nof  any\t High  Court, which meant that\the  must  have\tbeen
\nenrolled  as  a pleader of any High Court for  that  period.
\nThe  question as to where he was practising, whether in\t the
\nHigh Court itself or in courts subordinate thereto, does not
\nappear to make any difference.\tThe same phraseology, except
\nfor  the  change  from\tthe  word  ‘Pleader’  to  the\tword
\n‘advocate’  has been carried into Art. 217(2)(b).<\/a>  That\t was
\nbecause\t under S. 8<\/a> of the Bar Council’s Act the roll  which
\nthe  High Court was to prepare and maintain was the roll  of
\nthe  advocates\tof the High Court  which  included  pleaders
\nentitled  as  of  right\t to  practise  in  the\tHigh   Court
\nimmediately  before the date on which S. 8<\/a> of that  Act\t was
\nbrought into force.\n<\/p>\n
It  seems,  therefore,\tindisputable  that  the\t  expression
\n‘pleader  of a High Court’ used in the Constitution Act<\/a>s  of
\n1915  and  1935 and the expression “an advocate\t of  a\tHigh
\nCourt”\tused  in  Arts. 217 (2) (b) and 124  (3)  must\tmean
\nrespectively a pleader or an advocate on the roll as such of
\na  High\t Court and entitled as of right by  that  reason  to
\npractise in the High Court.  There is nothing
\n359<\/span>
\nan any of these provisions to indicate that an advocate of a
\nHigh court can only be that advocate who has been practising
\nin  the\t High Court.  If the meaning of the  expression\t “an
\nadvocate  of  a high Court” as suggested on  behalf  of\t the
\nappellant  were\t to be accepted a very strange\tanomaly,  as
\npointed\t out  by Broome, J., would result  while  construing
\nArt.  124(3<\/a>), namely, that an advocate who has practised  in
\nthe Supreme Court for the required period but not in a\tHigh
\nCourt would not be eligible for the office of a Judge of the
\nSupreme\t Court.\t For these reasons we are in agreement\twith
\nBroome\tand Mathur, JJ., on the construction placed by\tthem
\non  Art. 217 (2) (b).<\/a>  The first contention of\tcounsel\t for
\nthe appellant, therefore, must fail.\n<\/p>\n
Counsel\t next  relied  on Art. 233 (2)<\/a>\tin  support  of\t the
\nconstruction suggested by him of Art. 217(2)(b)<\/a> and  pointed
\nout that wherever the Constitution did not wish to insist on
\nan  appointee having been an advocate practising in  a\tHigh
\nCourt,\tit  has\t used a\t different  expression,\t namely,  an
\nadvocate  simpliciter,\tas in Art. 233(2).<\/a>  Art.  233<\/a>  deals
\nwith  appointment  of  district judges\tand  cl.  2  thereof
\nprovides  that\ta person not already in the service  of\t the
\nUnion or the State shall only be eligible to be appointed  a
\ndistrict judge if he has been for not less than seven  years
\nan  advocate  or a pleader and is recommended  by  the\tHigh
\nCourt  for appointment.\t It is true that in this clause\t the
\nword  “advocate” is used without the qualifying words “of  a
\nHigh Court”.  It is difficult, however, to see how the\tfact
\nthat  the word “advocate” only used in connection  with\t the
\nappointment of a district judge would assist counsel in\t the
\nconstruction suggested by him of the expression “advocate of
\nany  High Court” in Art. 217<\/a>, or that that  expression\tmust
\nmean an advocate who has had the necessary number of  years’
\npractice  in.  the High Court itself.  The  distinction,  if
\nany, between the words “an advocate” in Art. 233(2)<\/a> and\t the
\nwords “an advocate of a High Court” in Art. 217(2)(b)<\/a> has no
\nsignificance in any event after the coming into force of the
\nAdvocate Act, 1961, as by virtue of s. 16<\/a> of that Act  there
\nare  now only two classes of persons entitled  to  practice,
\nnamely, senior advocates and other advocates.
\nWe  find that in two of its decisions, in Sengalani  Gramani
\nv.,  Subbayya  Nadar  &\t Ors.  ()  and\tV.  C.\tRow  v.\t  A.
\nAlagiriswamy  & OrS.(2). the High Court of Madras  also\t has
\ninterpreted  Art.  217(2)(b)’<\/a>in the same manner as  we\thave
\ndone.\tIn  our\t view the  construction\t of  Art.  217(2)(b)<\/a>
\nadopted by Broome, J., and on a reference to him by  Mathur,
\nJ., is correct.\t The result is that the appeal fails and  is
\ndismissed with costs.  One hearing fee only.
\nAppeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Y.P.\n<\/p>\n
(1) A.I.R. 1967 Mad. 344.\n<\/p>\n
(2).A.I.R. 1967 Mad. 347-\n<\/p>\n
360<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Chandra Prakash Agarwal vs Chaturbhuj Das Parikh & Ors on 18 December, 1969 Equivalent citations: 1970 AIR 1061, 1970 SCR (3) 354 Author: Shelat Bench: Sikri, S.M., Shelat, J.M., Bhargava, Vishishtha, Mitter, G.K., Vaidyialingam, C.A. PETITIONER: CHANDRA PRAKASH AGARWAL Vs. RESPONDENT: CHATURBHUJ DAS PARIKH & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18\/12\/1969 BENCH: […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-268725","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nChandra Prakash Agarwal vs Chaturbhuj Das Parikh & Ors on 18 December, 1969 - 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\/chandra-prakash-agarwal-vs-chaturbhuj-das-parikh-ors-on-18-december-1969\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chandra Prakash Agarwal vs Chaturbhuj Das Parikh & Ors on 18 December, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandra-prakash-agarwal-vs-chaturbhuj-das-parikh-ors-on-18-december-1969\" \/>\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=\"1969-12-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-06T21:40:29+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandra-prakash-agarwal-vs-chaturbhuj-das-parikh-ors-on-18-december-1969#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandra-prakash-agarwal-vs-chaturbhuj-das-parikh-ors-on-18-december-1969\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chandra Prakash Agarwal vs Chaturbhuj Das Parikh & Ors on 18 December, 1969\",\"datePublished\":\"1969-12-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-06T21:40:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandra-prakash-agarwal-vs-chaturbhuj-das-parikh-ors-on-18-december-1969\"},\"wordCount\":2655,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandra-prakash-agarwal-vs-chaturbhuj-das-parikh-ors-on-18-december-1969#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandra-prakash-agarwal-vs-chaturbhuj-das-parikh-ors-on-18-december-1969\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandra-prakash-agarwal-vs-chaturbhuj-das-parikh-ors-on-18-december-1969\",\"name\":\"Chandra Prakash Agarwal vs Chaturbhuj Das Parikh & Ors on 18 December, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1969-12-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-06T21:40:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandra-prakash-agarwal-vs-chaturbhuj-das-parikh-ors-on-18-december-1969#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandra-prakash-agarwal-vs-chaturbhuj-das-parikh-ors-on-18-december-1969\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandra-prakash-agarwal-vs-chaturbhuj-das-parikh-ors-on-18-december-1969#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chandra Prakash Agarwal vs Chaturbhuj Das Parikh & Ors on 18 December, 1969\"}]},{\"@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":"Chandra Prakash Agarwal vs Chaturbhuj Das Parikh & Ors on 18 December, 1969 - 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\/chandra-prakash-agarwal-vs-chaturbhuj-das-parikh-ors-on-18-december-1969","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chandra Prakash Agarwal vs Chaturbhuj Das Parikh & Ors on 18 December, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandra-prakash-agarwal-vs-chaturbhuj-das-parikh-ors-on-18-december-1969","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1969-12-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-06T21:40:29+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandra-prakash-agarwal-vs-chaturbhuj-das-parikh-ors-on-18-december-1969#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandra-prakash-agarwal-vs-chaturbhuj-das-parikh-ors-on-18-december-1969"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chandra Prakash Agarwal vs Chaturbhuj Das Parikh & Ors on 18 December, 1969","datePublished":"1969-12-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-06T21:40:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandra-prakash-agarwal-vs-chaturbhuj-das-parikh-ors-on-18-december-1969"},"wordCount":2655,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandra-prakash-agarwal-vs-chaturbhuj-das-parikh-ors-on-18-december-1969#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandra-prakash-agarwal-vs-chaturbhuj-das-parikh-ors-on-18-december-1969","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandra-prakash-agarwal-vs-chaturbhuj-das-parikh-ors-on-18-december-1969","name":"Chandra Prakash Agarwal vs Chaturbhuj Das Parikh & Ors on 18 December, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1969-12-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-06T21:40:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandra-prakash-agarwal-vs-chaturbhuj-das-parikh-ors-on-18-december-1969#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandra-prakash-agarwal-vs-chaturbhuj-das-parikh-ors-on-18-december-1969"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandra-prakash-agarwal-vs-chaturbhuj-das-parikh-ors-on-18-december-1969#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chandra Prakash Agarwal vs Chaturbhuj Das Parikh & Ors on 18 December, 1969"}]},{"@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\/268725","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=268725"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/268725\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=268725"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=268725"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=268725"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}