{"id":4397,"date":"2002-07-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-07-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tapash-kumar-mazumdar-so-dr-t-vs-sumit-usha-martin-finance-ltd-on-30-july-2002"},"modified":"2017-12-18T18:46:04","modified_gmt":"2017-12-18T13:16:04","slug":"tapash-kumar-mazumdar-so-dr-t-vs-sumit-usha-martin-finance-ltd-on-30-july-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tapash-kumar-mazumdar-so-dr-t-vs-sumit-usha-martin-finance-ltd-on-30-july-2002","title":{"rendered":"Tapash Kumar Mazumdar S\/O Dr. T. &#8230; vs Sumit Usha Martin Finance Ltd., &#8230; on 30 July, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Delhi High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Tapash Kumar Mazumdar S\/O Dr. T. &#8230; vs Sumit Usha Martin Finance Ltd., &#8230; on 30 July, 2002<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 2003 115 CompCas 611 Delhi, 99 (2002) DLT 627<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: V Aggarwal<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: V Aggarwal<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>V.S. Aggarwal, J.<\/p>\n<p> 1. Tapash Kumar Mazumdar (for short the petitioner)<br \/>\nis aggrieved by the order passed by the learned<br \/>\nMetropolitan Magistrate dated 24th January, 2000. By<br \/>\nvirtue of the impugned order the learned Metropolitan<br \/>\nMagistrate had summoned the petitioner and others for<br \/>\nthe offence punishable under Section 138 of the<br \/>\nNegotiable Instruments Act read with Section 420 of<br \/>\nthe Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n<p> 2. Some of the relevant facts are that Sumit Martin<br \/>\nFinance Ltd had filed a criminal complaint in which<br \/>\nthe petitioner had also been arrayed as a respondent<br \/>\naccused. It had been pleaded that the petitioner is<br \/>\none of the Additional Directors of Pertch Computers<br \/>\nLtd. In the course of the business the complainant<br \/>\nhad been approached by Pertch Computers Ltd. (for<br \/>\nshort the company) through its Managing Director,<br \/>\nDirectors and Additional Director in the month of<br \/>\nOctober 1996 for hire purchase of a large quantity of<br \/>\ncomputers. The assurance had been given by the<br \/>\npetitioner and others that they would discharge their<br \/>\ndebt liability. Acting on the said assurance the<br \/>\ncomplainant had agreed to enter into the agreement of<br \/>\nhire purchase and thereby to grant hire purchase<br \/>\nfacility. The complainant had disbursed an amount of<br \/>\nRs. 50 lakhs towards the purchase of the equipment and<br \/>\nhad given it to the company on hire for a period of<br \/>\nthree years. It is alleged to discharge the liability<br \/>\nthat had accrued the company had issued two cheques<br \/>\nwhich were dishonoured on presentment. It is<br \/>\nunnecessary to go into the other details but it has<br \/>\nbeen asserted that the petitioner is an additional<br \/>\ndirector of the company and is also the person at the<br \/>\ntime of commission of the offence was in charge and<br \/>\nresponsible to the company for the conduct of the<br \/>\naffairs of the said company.\n<\/p>\n<p> 3. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate had recorded<br \/>\nthe preliminary evidence and thereupon held that after<br \/>\nperusing the allegations in the complaint and the<br \/>\nevidence led thereto a prima facie case appears and<br \/>\naccordingly summoned the petitioner and others for the<br \/>\nabove said offences.\n<\/p>\n<p> 4. Aggrieved by the same the present petition has<br \/>\nbeen filed. It is the assertion of the petitioner<br \/>\nthat the learned Metropolitan Magistrate had committed<br \/>\nan error in taking cognizance of the alleged offence.<br \/>\nSo far as petitioner is concerned he is stated to be<br \/>\nnot the person in charge and responsible to the<br \/>\nday-to-day conduct of the company. There was no<br \/>\nevidence (preliminary evidence) against the petitioner<br \/>\nto satisfy the above said ingredients. It is further<br \/>\nasserted that there is no material to show that<br \/>\npetitioner had induced the complainant and thereby<br \/>\nsuch an offence had been committed. At best it was<br \/>\nstated that it was a civil liability. Needless to<br \/>\nstate that the petitioner as such has been contested<br \/>\nby the complainant.\n<\/p>\n<p> 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner had alleged<br \/>\nthat petitioner was not the director of the company<br \/>\nand therefore he could not have been arrayed as the<br \/>\naccused. He has no connection with the affairs of the<br \/>\nsaid company.\n<\/p>\n<p> 6. So far as this particular contention is<br \/>\nconcerned, this indeed relates to the merits of the<br \/>\nmatter. At this stage no detailed opinion need be<br \/>\nexpressed nor detailed examination would be required.<br \/>\nThe preliminary evidence and other material on record<br \/>\nhas only to be seen. Consequently for purposes of the<br \/>\npresent order only the contention is rejected. The<br \/>\ncourt is hastening to add that this should not be<br \/>\ntaken as an expression of opinion at the subsequent<br \/>\nstage.\n<\/p>\n<p> 7. The main argument of the learned counsel for the<br \/>\npetitioner in this regard had been in terms that in<br \/>\nthe preliminary evidence produced before the learned<br \/>\nMetropolitan Magistrate there was no material shown<br \/>\nnor there was any evidence that the petitioner was<br \/>\nin charge and responsible to the company for the<br \/>\nconduct of the affairs of the said company. According<br \/>\nto the learned counsel in the absence of any evidence<br \/>\nrigors of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments<br \/>\nAct could not have been drawn in this regard.<br \/>\nAttention of this court was therefore drawn towards<br \/>\nthe preliminary evidence that had been produced.\n<\/p>\n<p> 8. To appreciate the said particular controversy<br \/>\none can refer with advantage to the relevant material<br \/>\non the record. In preliminary evidence the<br \/>\ncomplainant had produced Julius Samson, its Vice<br \/>\nPresident. He had stated that petitioner is one of<br \/>\nthe directors of the company. After stating about the<br \/>\ncheques that was presented and dishonoured he added<br \/>\nfurther:\n<\/p>\n<p>  &#8220;&#8230;..The respondent No. 2 is the signatory of<br \/>\nthe dishonoured cheques in question and is<br \/>\nalso the person in-charge and responsible to<br \/>\nfor the day to day conduct of the affairs of<br \/>\nthe respondent No. 1 company. My complaint is<br \/>\nEx. CW1\/A46 is correct and the same bears my<br \/>\nsignatories at point &#8216;A&#8217; and the same may be<br \/>\nread as part of my evidence.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> In other words, specifically it was not stated in the<br \/>\npreliminary evidence that petitioner was in charge and<br \/>\nresponsible to day to day conduct and affairs of the<br \/>\ncompany. But it had been added that the complaint is<br \/>\nEx. CW1\/A46 and it may be read as part of the<br \/>\nevidence. As already pointed above the learned<br \/>\nMetropolitan Magistrate while passing the impugned<br \/>\norder had recorded specifically that he had gone<br \/>\nthrough the complaint and the evidence. The short<br \/>\nquestion therefore that came up for consideration has<br \/>\nbeen as to whether the trial court was justified in<br \/>\nreading the complaint and issuing summons on that<br \/>\nbasis.\n<\/p>\n<p> 9. To keep the record straight reference should be<br \/>\nmade to paragraph 36 of the complaint in which<br \/>\nassertions as against the petitioner reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n<p>  &#8220;That the respondent\/accused No. 2 is the<br \/>\nManaging Director, respondent\/accused Nos. 3,<br \/>\nand 4 are the Directors and respondent\/accused<br \/>\nNo. 5 is the Additional Director of the<br \/>\nrespondent No. 1 company, and also being the<br \/>\nperson who, at the time of the commissioning<br \/>\nof the offence, were in-charge of and<br \/>\nresponsible to the respondent No. 1 company for<br \/>\nthe conduct of the affairs of the said<br \/>\ncompany, are also guilty of the offence<br \/>\ncomplained of hereinabove particularly, having<br \/>\nregard to the fact that the offence has been<br \/>\ncommitted to the knowledge of the<br \/>\nrespondents\/accused Nos. 2 to 5 and that the<br \/>\nsaid respondents\/accused have not exercised<br \/>\nall their due diligence to prevent the<br \/>\ncommissioning of the offence. In this view of<br \/>\nthe matter and in view of the provisions of<br \/>\nSection 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,<br \/>\n1881, the said respondents\/accused are also<br \/>\nguilty of the offence and are liable to be<br \/>\nprosecuted and punished therefore.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> In other words in the complaint it had been pleaded<br \/>\nthat the petitioner along with others was in charge<br \/>\nand responsible to the company for the conduct of the<br \/>\naffairs of the said company.\n<\/p>\n<p> 10. Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure<br \/>\ndeals with the procedure with respect to complaints to<br \/>\nmagistrates. Under Section 200 of the Code of<br \/>\nCriminal Procedure a magistrate taking cognizance of<br \/>\nan offence shall examine on oath and the witness is<br \/>\npresent and substance of such examination shall be<br \/>\nreduced into writing. There are two exceptions when<br \/>\nmagistrate need not examine the complainant (a) if the<br \/>\ncomplaint is by a public servant acting or purporting<br \/>\nto act in discharge of his official duties and (b) if<br \/>\nthe magistrate makes over the case for inquiry or<br \/>\ntrial to another magistrate. Section 203 of the Code<br \/>\nof Criminal Procedure reads:-\n<\/p>\n<p>  203. Dismissal of complaint &#8211; If, after<br \/>\nconsidering the statements on oath (if any) of<br \/>\nthe complainant and of the witnesses and the<br \/>\nresult of the inquiry or investigation (if<br \/>\nany) under Section 202, the Magistrate is of<br \/>\nopinion that there is no sufficient ground for<br \/>\nproceedings, he shall dismiss the complaint,<br \/>\nand in every such case he shall briefly record<br \/>\nhis reasons for so doing.\n<\/p>\n<p> 11. Similarly Section 204 of the Code of Criminal<br \/>\nProcedure provides that if the magistrate finds that<br \/>\nthere is sufficient grounds for proceeding he can<br \/>\nissue summons or warrants as deemed appropriate in the<br \/>\nfacts of the case. The scheme of the provisions<br \/>\nclearly show that the magistrate is not required to<br \/>\nignore the contents of the complaint. This is for the<br \/>\nreason that Section 203 of the Code of Criminal<br \/>\nProcedure the magistrate can consider the statements<br \/>\non oath (if any) or in other words has to act on the<br \/>\nmaterial on the record.\n<\/p>\n<p> 12. In this regard reference can well be made to a<br \/>\nDivision Bench decision of this court in the case of<br \/>\n Dhanvinder Singh and Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi and<br \/>\nAnr. . The Division Bench held that<br \/>\nat the initial stage the court was only constrained to<br \/>\nconsider the assertions made in the complaint and the<br \/>\nsupporting documents and not the defense of the<br \/>\naccused filing the complaint.\n<\/p>\n<p> 13. Similarly in the case of  <a href=\"\/doc\/574884\/\">Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr.<br \/>\nv. Special Judicial Magistrate and Anr.  the Supreme Court<\/a> held:-\n<\/p>\n<p>  &#8220;Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is<br \/>\na serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set<br \/>\ninto motion as a matter of course. It is not<br \/>\nthat the complainant has to bring only two<br \/>\nwitnesses to support his allegations in the<br \/>\ncomplaint to have the criminal law set into<br \/>\nmotion. The order of the Magistrate summoning<br \/>\nthe accused must reflect that he has applied<br \/>\nhis mind to the facts of the case and the law<br \/>\napplicable thereto. He has to examine the<br \/>\nnature of allegations made to the complaint<br \/>\nand the evidence both oral and documentary in<br \/>\nsupport thereof and would that be sufficient<br \/>\nfor the complainant to succeed in bringing<br \/>\ncharge home to the accused. It is not that<br \/>\nthe Magistrate is a silent spectator at the<br \/>\ntime of recording of preliminary evidence<br \/>\nbefore summoning of the accused. The<br \/>\nMagistrate has to carefully scrutinise the<br \/>\nevidence brought on record and may even<br \/>\nhimself put questions to the complainant and<br \/>\nhis witnesses to elicit answers to find out<br \/>\nthe truthfulness of the allegations or<br \/>\notherwise and then examine if any offence is<br \/>\nprima facie committed by all or any of the<br \/>\naccused.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> 14. More close to the facts of the present case<br \/>\nindeed is the decision of the Kerala High Court in the<br \/>\ncase of  Ammini Amma v. Sukumaran 1981 Kerala Law<br \/>\nTimes 266. Therein too the allegations in the<br \/>\ncomplaint were looked into before summoning the<br \/>\nconcerned person. Almost a similar question came up<br \/>\nfor consideration and in paragraph 5 repelling such an<br \/>\nargument the court held:\n<\/p>\n<p>  &#8220;The scheme and purport of Sections 200, 203 and<br \/>\n204 of the Code are not sufficient to show<br \/>\nthat the averments in the complaint are not to<br \/>\nbe looked into for the purpose of taking a<br \/>\ndecision either to dismiss a complaint under<br \/>\nSection 203 or to issue process under Section 204 of<br \/>\nthe Code. This is made clear by the reference<br \/>\nis Section 203 to the words &#8220;if any&#8221; occurring<br \/>\nafter the words &#8220;statement on oath of the<br \/>\ncomplainant&#8221;. This make it clear that<br \/>\ncomplaint is also, at any rate, one of the<br \/>\nrecords to be looked into for the purpose of<br \/>\ntaking a decision under Sections 203 and 204 of<br \/>\nthe Code. It cannot be said that Court can<br \/>\nlook into the sworn statement only and not the<br \/>\ncomplaint itself.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> 15. One finds in respectful agreement with the said<br \/>\nview. It is therefore obvious that the learned<br \/>\nMetropolitan Magistrate was justified in not only<br \/>\nconsidering the preliminary evidence but also the<br \/>\ncontents of the complaint. If he has considered the<br \/>\ncontents of the complaint there is no illegality in<br \/>\nthis regard. Consequently the contentions so much<br \/>\nthought of by learned counsel must fail.\n<\/p>\n<p> 16. No other argument had been raised.\n<\/p>\n<p> 17. For these reasons petition being without merit<br \/>\nfails and is dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court Tapash Kumar Mazumdar S\/O Dr. T. &#8230; vs Sumit Usha Martin Finance Ltd., &#8230; on 30 July, 2002 Equivalent citations: 2003 115 CompCas 611 Delhi, 99 (2002) DLT 627 Author: V Aggarwal Bench: V Aggarwal JUDGMENT V.S. Aggarwal, J. 1. Tapash Kumar Mazumdar (for short the petitioner) is aggrieved by the order [&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-4397","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 v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Tapash Kumar Mazumdar S\/O Dr. T. ... vs Sumit Usha Martin Finance Ltd., ... on 30 July, 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\/tapash-kumar-mazumdar-so-dr-t-vs-sumit-usha-martin-finance-ltd-on-30-july-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Tapash Kumar Mazumdar S\/O Dr. T. ... vs Sumit Usha Martin Finance Ltd., ... on 30 July, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tapash-kumar-mazumdar-so-dr-t-vs-sumit-usha-martin-finance-ltd-on-30-july-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=\"2002-07-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-18T13:16:04+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tapash-kumar-mazumdar-so-dr-t-vs-sumit-usha-martin-finance-ltd-on-30-july-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tapash-kumar-mazumdar-so-dr-t-vs-sumit-usha-martin-finance-ltd-on-30-july-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Tapash Kumar Mazumdar S\\\/O Dr. T. &#8230; vs Sumit Usha Martin Finance Ltd., &#8230; on 30 July, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-07-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-18T13:16:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tapash-kumar-mazumdar-so-dr-t-vs-sumit-usha-martin-finance-ltd-on-30-july-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1967,\"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\\\/tapash-kumar-mazumdar-so-dr-t-vs-sumit-usha-martin-finance-ltd-on-30-july-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tapash-kumar-mazumdar-so-dr-t-vs-sumit-usha-martin-finance-ltd-on-30-july-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tapash-kumar-mazumdar-so-dr-t-vs-sumit-usha-martin-finance-ltd-on-30-july-2002\",\"name\":\"Tapash Kumar Mazumdar S\\\/O Dr. T. ... vs Sumit Usha Martin Finance Ltd., ... on 30 July, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-07-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-18T13:16:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tapash-kumar-mazumdar-so-dr-t-vs-sumit-usha-martin-finance-ltd-on-30-july-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tapash-kumar-mazumdar-so-dr-t-vs-sumit-usha-martin-finance-ltd-on-30-july-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tapash-kumar-mazumdar-so-dr-t-vs-sumit-usha-martin-finance-ltd-on-30-july-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Tapash Kumar Mazumdar S\\\/O Dr. T. &#8230; vs Sumit Usha Martin Finance Ltd., &#8230; on 30 July, 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":"Tapash Kumar Mazumdar S\/O Dr. T. ... vs Sumit Usha Martin Finance Ltd., ... on 30 July, 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\/tapash-kumar-mazumdar-so-dr-t-vs-sumit-usha-martin-finance-ltd-on-30-july-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Tapash Kumar Mazumdar S\/O Dr. T. ... vs Sumit Usha Martin Finance Ltd., ... on 30 July, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tapash-kumar-mazumdar-so-dr-t-vs-sumit-usha-martin-finance-ltd-on-30-july-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-07-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-18T13:16:04+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tapash-kumar-mazumdar-so-dr-t-vs-sumit-usha-martin-finance-ltd-on-30-july-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tapash-kumar-mazumdar-so-dr-t-vs-sumit-usha-martin-finance-ltd-on-30-july-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Tapash Kumar Mazumdar S\/O Dr. T. &#8230; vs Sumit Usha Martin Finance Ltd., &#8230; on 30 July, 2002","datePublished":"2002-07-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-18T13:16:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tapash-kumar-mazumdar-so-dr-t-vs-sumit-usha-martin-finance-ltd-on-30-july-2002"},"wordCount":1967,"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\/tapash-kumar-mazumdar-so-dr-t-vs-sumit-usha-martin-finance-ltd-on-30-july-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tapash-kumar-mazumdar-so-dr-t-vs-sumit-usha-martin-finance-ltd-on-30-july-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tapash-kumar-mazumdar-so-dr-t-vs-sumit-usha-martin-finance-ltd-on-30-july-2002","name":"Tapash Kumar Mazumdar S\/O Dr. T. ... vs Sumit Usha Martin Finance Ltd., ... on 30 July, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-07-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-18T13:16:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tapash-kumar-mazumdar-so-dr-t-vs-sumit-usha-martin-finance-ltd-on-30-july-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tapash-kumar-mazumdar-so-dr-t-vs-sumit-usha-martin-finance-ltd-on-30-july-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tapash-kumar-mazumdar-so-dr-t-vs-sumit-usha-martin-finance-ltd-on-30-july-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Tapash Kumar Mazumdar S\/O Dr. T. &#8230; vs Sumit Usha Martin Finance Ltd., &#8230; on 30 July, 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\/4397","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=4397"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4397\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4397"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4397"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4397"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}