{"id":37624,"date":"2008-07-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/markand-c-gandhi-vs-rohini-m-dandekar-on-17-july-2008"},"modified":"2015-12-08T11:01:18","modified_gmt":"2015-12-08T05:31:18","slug":"markand-c-gandhi-vs-rohini-m-dandekar-on-17-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/markand-c-gandhi-vs-rohini-m-dandekar-on-17-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Markand C. Gandhi vs Rohini M. Dandekar on 17 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Markand C. Gandhi vs Rohini M. Dandekar on 17 July, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.J.<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: B.N. Agrawal, G.S. Singhvi<\/div>\n<pre>                                 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n                         CIVIL APPEAL NO.4168 OF 2008\n\n\n\nMarkand C. Gandhi                    ...Appellant(s)\n\n                                      Versus\n\nRohini M. Dandekar                             ...Respondent(s)\n\n\n\n                                   O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n<p>           Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and Bar Council of<br \/>\nIndia [for short, &#8220;B.C.I.&#8221;].\n<\/p>\n<p>           By the impugned order, B.C.I. recorded a finding that the appellant<br \/>\nhad committed professional misconduct and suspended him from practising as an<br \/>\nadvocate before any court or authority in India for a period of five years. While<br \/>\nconcluding the disciplinary proceeding cost of Rupees five thousand has been<br \/>\nawarded against the appellant. It was directed that, in case the cost awarded is not<br \/>\npaid within a period of one month, the period of suspension shall be extended for a<br \/>\nfurther period of six months.\n<\/p>\n<p>           The sole respondent filed a complaint in the year 1984 before the Bar<br \/>\nCouncil of Maharashtra [for short, &#8220;the State Bar Council&#8221;] for taking<br \/>\ndisciplinary action against the appellant as, according to the complainant,<br \/>\nappellant had committed professional misconduct. As the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                         -2-<\/span><br \/>\ncomplaint could not be disposed of within the period of one year, as required<br \/>\nunder law, the same was transferred to the B.C.I. In view of the nature of the<br \/>\norder that we propose to pass, it is not necessary to state respective cases of the<br \/>\nparties. Suffice it to say that, on the pleadings of the parties, following issues were<br \/>\nframed by the Disciplinary Committee of the B.C.I.:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>           &#8220;1. Whether on 8th June, 1977, the respondent gave a threat<br \/>\n           to the petitioner as alleged? OPC<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>           2. Whether the respondent is guilty of preparing and drafting<br \/>\n           documents as alleged in Part No.7 of the complainant to the<br \/>\n           detriment of the complainant and her family members? OPC<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>           3. Whether the respondent accepted the briefs from persons<br \/>\n           whose interest was in clash to the interest of the complainant<br \/>\n           and her family member and thereby caused loss of the damage<br \/>\n           to the complainant as alleged?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>           4. Whether the respondent issued a false certificate regarding<br \/>\n           marketability of title with respect to the disputed property<br \/>\n           with a view to take illegal gains and thereby committed<br \/>\n           professional misconduct as alleged? OPC<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>           5. Whether the Respondent continued the said certificate to be<br \/>\n           used for illegal gains despite notice, if so to what effect? OPC<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>           6. Whether the respondent in collusion with Mr. Vora, the<br \/>\n           Architect and builder Mr. B.S. Jain committed illegal acts as<br \/>\n           alleged and as a result made personal gains and committed<br \/>\n           profession misconduct? OPC<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                        -3-<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>          7. Whether the respondent helped the builder and the<br \/>\n          Architect in their unauthorised acts to cross wrongful acts to<br \/>\n          the complainant as alleged? OPC<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>          8. Whether the respondent is guilty of having committed<br \/>\n          professional or other misconduct as alleged vis a vis the<br \/>\n          complainant and her family members on the one hand and the<br \/>\n          Architect and the builder on the other hand? OPC&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>          The impugned order runs into 23 pages. Upto the middle of Page 10,<br \/>\nthe Committee has referred to cases of the parties; from middle of Page 10 to<br \/>\nmiddle of Page 11, issues have been mentioned; from middle of Page 11 to the top<br \/>\nof Page 22, the Committee has referred to the evidence, oral and documentary,<br \/>\nadduced on behalf of the parties without discussing the same and recording any<br \/>\nfinding whatsoever in relation to the veracity or otherwise of the evidence; and<br \/>\nthereafter disposed of the proceeding which may be usefully quoted hereunder:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>          &#8220;We have gone through the records. The issues were framed<br \/>\n          on 18-8-1990. Issue No. 1 relates to a threat given by the<br \/>\n          respondent to the complainant on 8-6-1977. This issue is not<br \/>\n          related to the professional misconduct and in this regard the<br \/>\n          complainant has not submitted any documentary evidence to<br \/>\n          prove her stand.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>          As far as the issue No. 2 is concerned, this is a very important<br \/>\n          issue. The complainant has submitted document in support of<br \/>\n          her contention and proved the issue. This fact cannot be denied<br \/>\n          by oral version, as there is documentary record.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                              -4-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>As far as the issue No. 3 is concerned, this is also proved by the<br \/>\ncomplainant by her evidence. Issue No. 4 relates to the<br \/>\ncertificate issued by the respondent. This has also been proved<br \/>\nby the complainant by documentary proof which is on record.<br \/>\nLikewise Issue No. 6 is also proved by documentary proof.\n<\/p>\n<p>Issues Nos. 6 to 7 relate to one Mr. Vora, architect and builder<br \/>\nand Mr. B.S. Jain and the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>The main issue in this controversy is issue No. 8 i.e., whether<br \/>\nthe respondent is guilty of professional misconduct or other<br \/>\nmisconduct. In this respect it is the admitted position before<br \/>\nthe Committee that some documents were already on record<br \/>\nand retained by the respondent and the certificate issued by<br \/>\nthe respondent with regard to the property in question. It is<br \/>\nalso admitted position that in this matter a compromise letter<br \/>\nwas filed by the parties earlier.\n<\/p>\n<p>We have heard the arguments and we have also perused the<br \/>\ndocuments. The complainant has proved her allegations made<br \/>\nin the complaint against the respondent. The allegations made<br \/>\nare very serious. We are of the opinion that the respondent has<br \/>\ncommitted professional misconduct and thus we hold him<br \/>\nguilty of professional misconduct and suspend him from<br \/>\npractice as an advocate before any court or authority in India<br \/>\nfor a period of five years and we also impose a cost of Rs.<br \/>\n5,000\/- to be paid by him to the Bar Council of India which on<br \/>\ndeposit will go the Advocates Welfare Fund of the Bar Council<br \/>\nof India. If the amount of cost is not paid within one month<br \/>\nfrom the date of receipt of this order, the suspension will be<br \/>\nextended for six months more.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                        -5-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>           From a bare perusal of the order, it would appear that, virtually, there<br \/>\nis no discussion of oral or documentary evidence adduced by the parties. The<br \/>\nCommittee has not recorded any reason whatsoever for accepting or rejecting the<br \/>\nevidence adduced on behalf of the parties and recorded finding in relation to the<br \/>\nmisconduct by a rule of thumb and not rule of law. Such an order is not expected<br \/>\nfrom a Committee constituted by a statutory body like B.C.I.\n<\/p>\n<p>           We are clearly of the opinion that the finding in relation to misconduct<br \/>\nbeing in colossal ignorance of the doctrine of audi alteram partem is arbitrary and<br \/>\nconsequently in infraction of the principle enshrined in Article 14 of the<br \/>\nConstitution of India, which make the order wholly unwarranted and liable to be<br \/>\nset aside. This case is a glaring example of complete betrayal of confidence reposed<br \/>\nby the Legislature in such a body consisting exclusively of the members of legal<br \/>\nprofession which is considered to be one of the most noble profession if not the<br \/>\nmost.\n<\/p>\n<p>           Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned order rendered by the<br \/>\nDisciplinary Committee of the B.C.I. is set aside and the matter is remitted, for<br \/>\nfresh consideration and decision on merits in accordance with law. Chairman of<br \/>\nthe B.C.I. will see that this case is not heard by the Disciplinary Committee which<br \/>\nhad disposed of the complaint by the impugned order and an altogether different<br \/>\nCommittee shall be constituted for dealing with this case.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                       -6-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>           We hope and trust that in future the Chairman or any other person<br \/>\nempowered to constitute Disciplinary Committee shall act in such a manner so<br \/>\nthat the committee is manned by persons who can decide the matter with<br \/>\nproficiency.\n<\/p>\n<p>           It is unfortunate that, though the complaint was filed before the State<br \/>\nBar Council in the year 1984 and transferred to the B.C.I. and numbered as Case<br \/>\nNo.107 of 1986, the matter remained pending before it for twenty two years. The<br \/>\nChairman of the B.C.I. would see that, in future, complaints are disposed of with<br \/>\nreasonable despatch and not in this leisurely fashion so that people may repose<br \/>\nconfidence in the B.C.I., which is a statutory and autonomous body.                 The<br \/>\nCommittee shall be constituted within one month from the date of<br \/>\nreceipt\/production of copy of this order and, thereupon, the re-constituted<br \/>\nCommittee shall dispose of the matter after giving opportunity of hearing to the<br \/>\nparties in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of its<br \/>\nconstitution.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                                   &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.J.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                             [B.N. AGRAWAL]<\/p>\n<p>                                       &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;J.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                  [G.S. SINGHVI]<br \/>\nNew Delhi,<br \/>\nJuly 17, 2008.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Markand C. Gandhi vs Rohini M. Dandekar on 17 July, 2008 Author: &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.J. Bench: B.N. Agrawal, G.S. Singhvi IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.4168 OF 2008 Markand C. Gandhi &#8230;Appellant(s) Versus Rohini M. Dandekar &#8230;Respondent(s) O R D E R Heard learned counsel appearing for [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-37624","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Markand C. Gandhi vs Rohini M. Dandekar on 17 July, 2008 - 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\/markand-c-gandhi-vs-rohini-m-dandekar-on-17-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Markand C. Gandhi vs Rohini M. Dandekar on 17 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/markand-c-gandhi-vs-rohini-m-dandekar-on-17-july-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-07-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-08T05:31:18+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=\"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\\\/markand-c-gandhi-vs-rohini-m-dandekar-on-17-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/markand-c-gandhi-vs-rohini-m-dandekar-on-17-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Markand C. Gandhi vs Rohini M. Dandekar on 17 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-08T05:31:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/markand-c-gandhi-vs-rohini-m-dandekar-on-17-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1389,\"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\\\/markand-c-gandhi-vs-rohini-m-dandekar-on-17-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/markand-c-gandhi-vs-rohini-m-dandekar-on-17-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/markand-c-gandhi-vs-rohini-m-dandekar-on-17-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Markand C. Gandhi vs Rohini M. Dandekar on 17 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-08T05:31:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/markand-c-gandhi-vs-rohini-m-dandekar-on-17-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/markand-c-gandhi-vs-rohini-m-dandekar-on-17-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/markand-c-gandhi-vs-rohini-m-dandekar-on-17-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Markand C. Gandhi vs Rohini M. Dandekar on 17 July, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Markand C. Gandhi vs Rohini M. Dandekar on 17 July, 2008 - 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\/markand-c-gandhi-vs-rohini-m-dandekar-on-17-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Markand C. Gandhi vs Rohini M. Dandekar on 17 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/markand-c-gandhi-vs-rohini-m-dandekar-on-17-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-08T05:31:18+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/markand-c-gandhi-vs-rohini-m-dandekar-on-17-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/markand-c-gandhi-vs-rohini-m-dandekar-on-17-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Markand C. Gandhi vs Rohini M. Dandekar on 17 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-08T05:31:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/markand-c-gandhi-vs-rohini-m-dandekar-on-17-july-2008"},"wordCount":1389,"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\/markand-c-gandhi-vs-rohini-m-dandekar-on-17-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/markand-c-gandhi-vs-rohini-m-dandekar-on-17-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/markand-c-gandhi-vs-rohini-m-dandekar-on-17-july-2008","name":"Markand C. Gandhi vs Rohini M. Dandekar on 17 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-08T05:31:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/markand-c-gandhi-vs-rohini-m-dandekar-on-17-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/markand-c-gandhi-vs-rohini-m-dandekar-on-17-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/markand-c-gandhi-vs-rohini-m-dandekar-on-17-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Markand C. Gandhi vs Rohini M. Dandekar on 17 July, 2008"}]},{"@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\/37624","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=37624"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37624\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=37624"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=37624"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=37624"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}