{"id":28118,"date":"2002-08-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-08-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-gautam-nimani-vs-s-n-surekha-co-on-9-august-2002"},"modified":"2018-10-14T10:30:18","modified_gmt":"2018-10-14T05:00:18","slug":"shri-gautam-nimani-vs-s-n-surekha-co-on-9-august-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-gautam-nimani-vs-s-n-surekha-co-on-9-august-2002","title":{"rendered":"Shri Gautam Nimani vs S.N. Surekha &amp; Co. on 9 August, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Delhi High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Shri Gautam Nimani vs S.N. Surekha &amp; Co. on 9 August, 2002<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 102 (2003) DLT 771<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: V Aggrwal<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: V Aggarwal<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>V.S. Aggrwal, J.<\/p>\n<p>1. The present petition is directed against the<br \/>\norder passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate<br \/>\ndismissing the application filed by the petitioner<br \/>\n(Gautam Nimani ) for recalling the summoning order<br \/>\ndated 3rd December, 1997.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.   Some  of  the  relevant  facts  are  that  the respondent had filed a criminal complaint with respect<br \/>\nto the offence punishable under Section 138 Negotiable<br \/>\nInstruments  Act,  1881.  It had been asserted by  the<br \/>\nrespondent\/complainant that the respondent\/complainant<br \/>\nM\/s S.N. Surekha  &amp; Co.  is a  sole  proprietorship<br \/>\nconcern.   The petitioner  had  purchased shares  of<br \/>\nRajasthan  Spinning and Weaving Mills.  Acting on  the<br \/>\nrepresentation  of the petitioner the complainant  had<br \/>\nagreed  to  sell the shares.  As per rules  of  Bombay<br \/>\nStock Exchange, the petitioner was under an obligation<br \/>\nto  clear  all  the dues of the  respondent  within  a<br \/>\nperiod of  15 days.  The  respondent\/complainant  is<br \/>\nentitled to recover the outstanding dues with Interest<br \/>\nat 3% per mensum.  It is alleged that cheque for Rs. 10<br \/>\nlakh was given by the petitioner which was dishonoured<br \/>\non  it being presented.  After serving the due  notice<br \/>\nand  there  being  non  payment  of  the  amount  the<br \/>\ncomplaint had been filed.\n<\/p>\n<p>3. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate had recorded<br \/>\nthe statement of two witnesses and thereupon passed<br \/>\nthe impugned order summoning the petitioner for the<br \/>\nabove said offence. The petitioner filed an<br \/>\napplication for recalling the order so passed and vide<br \/>\nthe impugned order the learned Metropolitan Magistrate<br \/>\ndismissed the said application. Hence the present<br \/>\npetition.\n<\/p>\n<p>4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised<br \/>\ntwo pertinent arguments (i) the attorney of the<br \/>\nrespondent could not have appeared in the preliminary<br \/>\nevidence and in any case he is not the present<br \/>\nconversant with the facts and consequently his<br \/>\nevidence could not be considered and (ii) even as per<br \/>\nthe assertions and material on the record the impugned<br \/>\ncheque was without any liability contemplated under<br \/>\nSection 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The<br \/>\ntwo cheques constitute the total payment of interest<br \/>\nthat had been given. In any case orders passed by the<br \/>\nMumbai Stock Exchange and SEBI on its own complaint is<br \/>\nbinding.\n<\/p>\n<p>5. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of<br \/>\nthe complainant that once the order summoning the.<br \/>\npetitioner had been passed the court had no power to<br \/>\nrecall the said order.\n<\/p>\n<p>6. So far as the respondent&#8217;s contention is<br \/>\nconcerned reference can well be made to the decision in  the case of  K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala and Anr. .  It was specifically held that it is open to the accused to plead before the Magistrate<br \/>\nthat process against him ought not to have been<br \/>\nissued. The Magistrate may drop the proceedings if he is satisfied on reconsideration of the complaint that<br \/>\nthere is no offence for which accused could be tried.<br \/>\nIt appears that the matter has been referred by the Supreme  Court  in  the case of  <a href=\"\/doc\/52675\/\">Nilamani  Routray  v. Bennett Coleman &amp; Co. Ltd.<\/a>  to  a larger bench. But as the position stands today the<br \/>\nratio decidendi of the decision in the case of K.M.<br \/>\nMathew (Supra) would bind and in face of the said<br \/>\ndecision the preliminary objection raised by the<br \/>\nrespondent for the present must be rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>7. Reverting back to the contentions of the<br \/>\npetitioner for purposes of the present decision it was<br \/>\nnot in dispute that on behalf of the respondent his attorney  had  appeared as CW1.  Under Section 200 of the  Code  of Criminal Procedure a  Magistrate  taking cognizance of an offence is duty bound to examine on<br \/>\noath the complainant and witness is present. Clause\n<\/p>\n<p>(a) and (b) of the proviso to Section 200 would not be<br \/>\nattracted in the present case. But the expression<br \/>\n&#8216;complainant&#8217; in the context does not mean the<br \/>\ncomplainant himself. The law does not insist that it<br \/>\nhas to be the same person. Once he has legally<br \/>\nappointed an attorney he is competent to make the<br \/>\nstatement on behalf of the complainant because he<br \/>\nsteps into the shows of the complainant. As regards<br \/>\nthe contention that the attorney is not shown to be conversant with the facts of the case once again the<br \/>\nargument is without any basis. The respondent had<br \/>\nalso examined an assistant from the Corporation Bank.<br \/>\nHe had brought the necessary record and had proved<br \/>\nabout the cheque having been presented and it being<br \/>\nnot honoured because of insufficiency of funds. The<br \/>\nother ingredients for purposes of the summoning the<br \/>\npetitioner fell from the statement of the attorney and<br \/>\nonce the ingredients as such were satisfied it is<br \/>\nobvious that the attorney of the respondent was<br \/>\ncompetent to depose regarding the relevant facts.<br \/>\nOnce he has so deposed the argument so much thought of<br \/>\nby the learned counsel must fail.\n<\/p>\n<p>In that event it was contended that the cheque<br \/>\nis without consideration and the argument as already<br \/>\nreferred to above raised was that as per the letters<br \/>\nof SEBI the amount claimed could not be a liability<br \/>\ncontemplated under Section 138 of the Negotiable<br \/>\nInstruments Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>9. In this regard at this stage the reply of the<br \/>\nrespondent pertaining to this controversy necessarily<br \/>\nhas to be taken note of. In paragraph 5 of the reply<br \/>\nto the application filed by the petitioner for<br \/>\nrecalling the summoning order it had been pleaded:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Contents of para 5 are wrong and denied. It is submitted that there existed a dispute<br \/>\nbetween the parties herein regarding payments<br \/>\nwhich the accused had to pay to the<br \/>\ncomplainant. The accused was bound to pay the<br \/>\ncomplainant a sum of Rs. 1.44 crores on account<br \/>\nof sale of shares but, the accused failed to<br \/>\ndo so within the stipulated time period. Left<br \/>\nwith no alternative, the complainant lodged a<br \/>\ncomplaint before the SEBI seeking<br \/>\nadjudication. It is not denied that SEBI<br \/>\ndirected the accused vide its letter dated<br \/>\n23rd September, 1996 to pay the complainant<br \/>\nits dues. The said letter reads:-\n<\/p>\n<p> &#8220;&#8230;..   As on date, they have received only 1.412 crores leaving a balance payment of<br \/>\nRs. 2.73 lacks and interest for the delayed<br \/>\nperiod amount to Rs. 17.5 lacs.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>It is submitted that the accused issued two<br \/>\ncheques amount to Rs.17.5 lacs towards payment<br \/>\nof interest as referred to in the above said<br \/>\nletter of SEBI. It is wrong and denied that<br \/>\nat that point of time, the outstanding was<br \/>\nRs. 2.73 lacs only. In fact, the total amount<br \/>\ndue at that point of time as referred to by<br \/>\nthe accused was Rs. 20.23 lacs.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>10. Perusal of the aforesaid clearly show that a<br \/>\ndispute of fact has been raised as to what amount and<br \/>\nhow much was due. It is denied by the respondent that<br \/>\nat that point of time outstanding amount was Rs. 2.73<br \/>\nlakhs. It is alleged t hat in fact Rs. 20..23 lakhs<br \/>\nwas due. In face of this controversy at this stage no<br \/>\nfurther opinion need be expressed. It had to be<br \/>\nadjudicated and gone into after the evidence is<br \/>\nrecorded and therefore it, must be held that petition<br \/>\nso filed is without merit. Thus at this stage no<br \/>\nopinion is expressed regarding the letter of SEBI.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.  FOR   these  reasons  petition   fails  and   is<br \/>\ndismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court Shri Gautam Nimani vs S.N. Surekha &amp; Co. on 9 August, 2002 Equivalent citations: 102 (2003) DLT 771 Author: V Aggrwal Bench: V Aggarwal JUDGMENT V.S. Aggrwal, J. 1. The present petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dismissing the application filed by the petitioner (Gautam Nimani [&hellip;]<\/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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-28118","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Shri Gautam Nimani vs S.N. Surekha &amp; Co. on 9 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/shri-gautam-nimani-vs-s-n-surekha-co-on-9-august-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri Gautam Nimani vs S.N. Surekha &amp; Co. on 9 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-gautam-nimani-vs-s-n-surekha-co-on-9-august-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-14T05:00:18+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-gautam-nimani-vs-s-n-surekha-co-on-9-august-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-gautam-nimani-vs-s-n-surekha-co-on-9-august-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri Gautam Nimani vs S.N. Surekha &amp; Co. on 9 August, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-14T05:00:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-gautam-nimani-vs-s-n-surekha-co-on-9-august-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1205,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-gautam-nimani-vs-s-n-surekha-co-on-9-august-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-gautam-nimani-vs-s-n-surekha-co-on-9-august-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-gautam-nimani-vs-s-n-surekha-co-on-9-august-2002\",\"name\":\"Shri Gautam Nimani vs S.N. Surekha &amp; Co. on 9 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-14T05:00:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-gautam-nimani-vs-s-n-surekha-co-on-9-august-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-gautam-nimani-vs-s-n-surekha-co-on-9-august-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-gautam-nimani-vs-s-n-surekha-co-on-9-august-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri Gautam Nimani vs S.N. Surekha &amp; Co. on 9 August, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"Shri Gautam Nimani vs S.N. Surekha &amp; Co. on 9 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/shri-gautam-nimani-vs-s-n-surekha-co-on-9-august-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri Gautam Nimani vs S.N. Surekha &amp; Co. on 9 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-gautam-nimani-vs-s-n-surekha-co-on-9-august-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-14T05:00:18+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-gautam-nimani-vs-s-n-surekha-co-on-9-august-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-gautam-nimani-vs-s-n-surekha-co-on-9-august-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri Gautam Nimani vs S.N. Surekha &amp; Co. on 9 August, 2002","datePublished":"2002-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-14T05:00:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-gautam-nimani-vs-s-n-surekha-co-on-9-august-2002"},"wordCount":1205,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-gautam-nimani-vs-s-n-surekha-co-on-9-august-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-gautam-nimani-vs-s-n-surekha-co-on-9-august-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-gautam-nimani-vs-s-n-surekha-co-on-9-august-2002","name":"Shri Gautam Nimani vs S.N. Surekha &amp; Co. on 9 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-14T05:00:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-gautam-nimani-vs-s-n-surekha-co-on-9-august-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-gautam-nimani-vs-s-n-surekha-co-on-9-august-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-gautam-nimani-vs-s-n-surekha-co-on-9-august-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri Gautam Nimani vs S.N. Surekha &amp; Co. on 9 August, 2002"}]},{"@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\/28118","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=28118"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28118\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=28118"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=28118"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=28118"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}