{"id":48559,"date":"2009-03-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-rajya-sahakari-upbhokta-vs-ms-banshi-lal-anr-on-31-march-2009"},"modified":"2017-03-31T18:16:42","modified_gmt":"2017-03-31T12:46:42","slug":"raj-rajya-sahakari-upbhokta-vs-ms-banshi-lal-anr-on-31-march-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-rajya-sahakari-upbhokta-vs-ms-banshi-lal-anr-on-31-march-2009","title":{"rendered":"Raj. Rajya Sahakari Upbhokta … vs M\/S. Banshi Lal & Anr on 31 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur<\/div>\n
Raj. Rajya Sahakari Upbhokta … vs M\/S. Banshi Lal & Anr on 31 March, 2009<\/div>\n
                                        1\n                                            S.B.Civil First Appeal No.121\/1982\n\n\n\n    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT\n                        JODHPUR\n\n               S.B. CIVIL FIRST APPEAL NO. 121\/1982\n\nAppellant :\n\nRajasthan Rajya Sahakari UP-bhokta\nSangh Ltd, 100 Subhash Marg\nC- Scheme, Jaipur\n\n\n                               VERSUS\n\nRespondents :\n\n(1) M\/s Banshi lal Chattar lal Mundra\n    Udaipur.\n\n(2) Udaipur Sahkari Up-bhokta Thok Bhandar Ltd\n\n\n                Date of Judgment :          31st March, 2009\n\n\n                                PRESENT\n\n                      HON'BLE MR. C.M. TOTLA, J.\n\nMr. B.K. Bhatnagar for the appellant.\nMr. D.R. Bhandari for the respondent.\n                               =====\n\nBY THE COURT :-<\/pre>\n
              Against the appellant, decreed for Rs. 68900\/- plus interest<\/p>\n
at the rate of 6% is respondent’s suit for damages on account of breach of<\/p>\n
contract of sale of grain.\n<\/p>\n
              Respondent plaintiff instituted a suit in July, 1974 averring
\n                                      2<\/span>
\n                                          S.B.Civil First Appeal No.121\/1982<\/p>\n
that (i) defendants are co-operative societies and No.2 agent of<\/p>\n
respondent no. 2 (ii) in October, 1973 D1 had a good quantity of maize-<\/p>\n
3200 bags of which sold by D1 through D2 to plaintiff as per letter dated<\/p>\n
24.10.73 (iii) rate was Rs. 101\/- per quintal including tax and goods to be<\/p>\n
delivered at Udaipur within 15 days (iv) advance at the rate of Rs. 10\/- per<\/p>\n
bag liable to be confiscated in case of breach (v) plaintiff deposited<\/p>\n
advance at the rate of Rs. 10 per bag i.e. Rs. 32000\/- on 27.10.73 and<\/p>\n
was ready to take goods (vi) goods not delivered and defendant vide letter<\/p>\n
dated 02.11.73 enclosing cheque of Rs. 32000\/-          as re-payment of<\/p>\n
advance informed that D1 has communicated not to deliver (vii) on<\/p>\n
5.11.73 by telegram again demanded goods (viii) cheque of Rs. 32,000\/-<\/p>\n
was handed over to an employee at plaintiff’s shop on these days (ix)<\/p>\n
plaintiff by several means informed that payment of refund cheque is not<\/p>\n
taken and repeatedly requesting made every effort for same but goods<\/p>\n
not delivered. Averred that subsequent to this agreement on 24.10.73,<\/p>\n
price of goods (of maize) continued to increase and was Rs. 115\/- on 1st<\/p>\n
2nd and 3rd November, Rs. 128\/- on November 4th and 7th, Rs. 130\/- on 6th,<\/p>\n
Rs. 127\/- on 8 & 9and on November 11 to November 15th,         Rs. 135\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                                                           which<\/p>\n
rose to Rs. 142\/- by mid December and by the date of institution of suit<\/p>\n
Rs. 165\/-. Pleading that the goods were to be delivered and taken within<\/p>\n
15 days i.e. by 8th of November, so though on this date rate was much<\/p>\n
above but damages claimed at the rate of Rs. 122\/- per quintal adjusting<\/p>\n
tax etc comes to Rs. 63968\/-. Also claimed that re-payment of advance
\n                                      3<\/span>
\n                                           S.B.Civil First Appeal No.121\/1982<\/p>\n
taken only on November, 12 and interest not less than Rs. 32\/-. Stated<\/p>\n
that notices under Section 143 of Co-operative Societies Act dated<\/p>\n
04.12.73 delivered on 14.12.73 but no reply or payment, so the suit is<\/p>\n
instituted.\n<\/p>\n
              Appellant defendant no.1 in their written statement averred<\/p>\n
that (i) D1 had 3200 bags of maize and apprehension was of fall in price<\/p>\n
in October, so as per directions of the State Government, possibility of<\/p>\n
selling same in open market explored (ii) agreement with P was only for<\/p>\n
distribution of grain which was to be under supervision of D1 and it was<\/p>\n
not a sale to plaintiff (iii) P knew that grain is not for commercial purpose<\/p>\n
and plaintiff was knowing that agreement can be over ruled by<\/p>\n
Government or District Supply Officer. Appellant claimed that (i) District<\/p>\n
Supply Officer, Udaipur as per their letter dated 31.10.73 superseded this<\/p>\n
deal so cheque of earnest money returned (ii) the deal i.e to say the<\/p>\n
contract was always subject to approval of Commissioner (Civil Supply)<\/p>\n
and District Supply Officer and as the same not approved by them, the<\/p>\n
contract was never concluded (iii) contract stood rescinded on 1.11.73 so<\/p>\n
basis for damages, if any,    can only be 01.11.73. Defendant no.2 the<\/p>\n
appellant further averred that (a) plaintiff was no more than a agent of<\/p>\n
appellant for distribution of this grain (b) as per provisions of Section 75<\/p>\n
of the Co-operative Societies Act, the Court has no jurisdiction (c) the<\/p>\n
contract if any is and was against public policy (d) the maize could not<\/p>\n
have been supplied in violation of direction of Supply Officer – claimed
\n                                        4<\/span>
\n                                             S.B.Civil First Appeal No.121\/1982<\/p>\n
that if plaintiff had any apprehension of damages, same should have been<\/p>\n
taken care on 01.11.73.\n<\/p>\n
             Defendant no.2, the R2 averred in pleadings that (i) D2 had<\/p>\n
no right and did not sale (ii) no contract of D2 with P (iii) P did not fulfil<\/p>\n
terms of contract by 27.10.73 (iv) direction of Government and orders of<\/p>\n
Supply Officer prohibiting disposal and (v) State Government necessary<\/p>\n
party.\n<\/p>\n
             Following issues were framed :-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                      “(1) Is the plaintiff entitled to get
\n              Rs.64000\/- as damages ?\n<\/p>\n
                      (2) Was it a binding agreement
\n              for sale between the plaintiff and the
\n              defendant No.2 ? If so, defendant No.2
\n              is also liable for its breach ?\n<\/p>\n
                      (3) Does the order of D.S.O.\n<\/p>\n
              Excuse the non-performance by the
\n              defendant ? And what is its effect ?\n<\/p>\n
                      (4) Was the transaction a mere
\n              bailment for distribution as per
\n              Government instructions ? And as such
\n              defendants are not liable for breach ?\n<\/p>\n
                      (5) Was the agreement against
\n              public policy and hence void ?\n<\/p>\n
                      (6) If it is held that such contract
\n              was not of the Government then such
\n              transaction entered into comes in the
\n              business of co-operative society and as
\n              such this court has no jurisdiction to
\n              hear the suit ?\n<\/p>\n
                      (7) As the date of breach is
\n              1.11.73 only the plaintiff can in no
\n              circumstances get damages at the rate
\n              of maize prevalent on subsequent
\n              dates ?\n<\/p>\n
                      (8) Is plaintiff entitled to get
\n              Rs.49000 as interest on a sum of
\n                                      5<\/span>
\n                                            S.B.Civil First Appeal No.121\/1982<\/p>\n
              Rs.32000\/- withheld by the Defendants.\n<\/p>\n
                    (9) Relief.”\n<\/p>\n
             On behalf of plaintiff examined are five witnesses and on<\/p>\n
behalf of defendants three.\n<\/p>\n
             In course of pendency of this appeal, part B,C & D of the<\/p>\n
record of trial court weeded out and for re-construction, photo copies of<\/p>\n
the available documents are submitted which finds mention in orders<\/p>\n
dated 03.07.2008 and 10.02.2009.         Neither side had any objection for<\/p>\n
considering these as originally produced.\n<\/p>\n
             Learned Judge deciding issue No.1 in favour of plaintiff –<\/p>\n
No. 3,4,5,6 & 7 against defendant no.1,     no. 2 against plaintiff and no.8<\/p>\n
in favour of plaintiff awarded decree for Rs. 68,900 with interest from<\/p>\n
11.07.74in favour of plaintiff R1.\n<\/p>\n
              Learned counsel for the appellant argued that (1) the Court<\/p>\n
at Udaipur had no jurisdiction and issue for it not framed, though raised<\/p>\n
was plea. (2) Findings on all the issues and very particularly on issues No.<\/p>\n
3 and 5 are totally erroneous. (3) The goods were grain – an essential<\/p>\n
commodity governed       by orders of the authorities under the Essential<\/p>\n
Commodities Act and order of District Supply Officer (DSO) for prohibiting<\/p>\n
and restraining any such sale or disposal of grain. (4) The deal to the<\/p>\n
knowledge of plaintiff was subject to approval by Government – the<\/p>\n
Government by order dated 24.10.73 prohibited         such deals – appellant<\/p>\n
was not free to deal with maize – such dealing was against public policy –
\n                                      6<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                           S.B.Civil First Appeal No.121\/1982<\/p>\n
and DSO order prohibiting it. (5) Suit prescribed by Section 75 of the Co-<\/p>\n
operative Societies Act. For appellant also contended that the State<\/p>\n
Government is a necessary party and appellant prevented by lawful orders<\/p>\n
of the authorities from fulfilling contract. Lastly argued that amount of<\/p>\n
earnest money was refunded by cheque on 1.11.73 and appellant<\/p>\n
disclosed   inability to deliver the goods so if any breach of      contract<\/p>\n
occurred, it occurred only on 1.11.73, so the date of termination of<\/p>\n
contract is 1.11.73 and loss incurred, if any, is to be computed as per this<\/p>\n
date.\n<\/p>\n
             Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that (1) no<\/p>\n
basis of disputing jurisdiction. (2) Provisions of Co-operative Societies Act<\/p>\n
do not bar such suit. (3) Sale specifically made after obtaining permission<\/p>\n
of the State Government. (4) DSO had no right to prohibit sale and<\/p>\n
delivery of goods. (5) Contract not rescinded at least not finally rescinded<\/p>\n
on 1.11.73 and was in force upto 8.11.73. Submitted that findings of the<\/p>\n
learned trial Judge are sound one based on sound discussion of the<\/p>\n
material and inference as per facts and law applicable.<\/p>\n
             Thoughtfully considered rival arguments, perused record and<\/p>\n
also the judgment impugned.\n<\/p>\n
             The main thrust of the appellant’s argument is based on<\/p>\n
orders of the State Government and of the DSO. Deposition on record is of<\/p>\n
the then DSO Shri Rameshwar Dayal D. W. 2, the then General Manager<\/p>\n
(GM) DW 1 and Assistant Accounts Officer D3 (AAO) of appellant.           In
\n                                      7<\/span>
\n                                            S.B.Civil First Appeal No.121\/1982<\/p>\n
cross-examination, DW 2 states that the Supply Officer may be having<\/p>\n
authority to issue such an order. Broadly speaking, these witnesses have<\/p>\n
deposed as per the documents which are on record.<\/p>\n
             Ex.2 is the agreement entered into between the parties<\/p>\n
which is of 24.10.73 as per which 3200 bags of maize agreed to be sold<\/p>\n
at the rate of 101 per quintal – sales tax extra – advance at Rs.10\/- per<\/p>\n
bag payable by 29.10.73 and goods to be delivered within 15 days-to be<\/p>\n
removed in this period, otherwise advance to be forfeited. Witness D3<\/p>\n
that is appellant DW 3 has admitted in evidence documents Exs. 18, 20,<\/p>\n
Exs. A-1, A-2 to A-6 and other documents also do not seem to have been<\/p>\n
disputed.\n<\/p>\n
             Ex.A-4 letter of 30.10.73 by appellant’s      G.M. to the Food<\/p>\n
Commissioner states that 3200 bags lying at Udaipur are old and copy of<\/p>\n
contract already sent but the supply officer is not permitting delivery of<\/p>\n
maize who may be immediately asked to permit. Noting Ex.A-5 shows that<\/p>\n
accounts officer on   2.11.73 was telephonically directed to stop sale –<\/p>\n
Udaipur, if not already sold who         from Jaipur, telephonic directions,<\/p>\n
directed Udaipur not to do because of the orders of the Food Department.<\/p>\n
Order of supply officer Ex.A-6 dated 31\/10\/73 directs that disposal to be<\/p>\n
made after order of that office. As per letter Ex.18, by appellant’s G.M. to<\/p>\n
Commissioner    Supplies   states that consequential to Food Department<\/p>\n
endorsement dated 10.10.73 allowing arrangement of free sale of maize
\n                                       8<\/span>
\n                                           S.B.Civil First Appeal No.121\/1982<\/p>\n
as declining    of price of maize, a package deal for entire maize lying at<\/p>\n
Udaipur is made by contract dated 24.10.73,       but subsequently, is this<\/p>\n
order of DSO, Udaipur but no such directions at other places so clear<\/p>\n
instructions may be to the DSO. The Food Commissioner vide letter dated<\/p>\n
16.11.73    Ex.19 mentioning permission of such sale on 3.10.73 and<\/p>\n
subsequent above development asked the Collector to look into and<\/p>\n
reconsider the matter. The G.M. of appellant vide letter dated 27.11.73<\/p>\n
Ex.20 to Food Commissioner mentioned about all this and earlier<\/p>\n
correspondence asked to do needful by asking concerned so in order to<\/p>\n
avoid possible losses.\n<\/p>\n
               The letter Ex.18 specific mention of disposal allowed in this<\/p>\n
manner     on 10.10.73 and this position is not controverted anywhere and<\/p>\n
specifically accepted is in the oral evidence. Subsequently, even the Food<\/p>\n
Commissioner asked the authorities to look and reconsider the matter<\/p>\n
regarding order of DSO. It is not disputed that Rajasthan Food Grains<\/p>\n
(Prevention of Holding) Act, 1973 promulgated under E.C. Act was in force<\/p>\n
at that time, but    the learned trial Court, extensively dealing with the<\/p>\n
matter, found that the DSO had no authority to issue any such order.<\/p>\n
Further as above, the Food Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Food and<\/p>\n
Supplies Department in his letter too has mentioned about it. Thus,<\/p>\n
minimum at least, it seems that concerned relevant higher authorities did<\/p>\n
not endorse the order of supply officer – any how highly diminished is<\/p>\n
significance of the order considering permission of Government dated
\n                                       9<\/span>
\n                                          S.B.Civil First Appeal No.121\/1982<\/p>\n
10.10.73 as mentioned above. Learned trial Judge, exhaustively dealing<\/p>\n
with the question, has arrived at conclusions that appellant on excuse of<\/p>\n
this order, could not have declined delivery of goods. The learned Judge<\/p>\n
also concluded that Ex.A-6 not under valid authority.<\/p>\n
               Second contention is regarding as to when the contract<\/p>\n
rescinded – finally rescinded – as per agreement goods the maize was to<\/p>\n
be delivered within 15 days of 24.10.73, that is by upto 8.11.73. Though<\/p>\n
the amount of advance Rs.32,000\/- paid back on 1.11.73, but this by itself<\/p>\n
can hardly be said to be conclusive determination of agreement.<\/p>\n
Subsequent communication as above clearly discloses          inclination of<\/p>\n
appellant to honour the agreement. Though the appellants could have<\/p>\n
asked for picking up the goods any day after 29.10.73 when advance was<\/p>\n
paid. Even after return of advance, the appellants could have very well<\/p>\n
asked and insisted upto 8.11.73     defendant to pick the goods. In the<\/p>\n
circumstances, the agreement continued to be valid and not rescinded<\/p>\n
upto 8.11.73 and amount of damages, in absence of specific reason,<\/p>\n
determinable as on 8.11.73. Proved by the evidence is that on 8.11.73,<\/p>\n
rate of maize 127 quintal and allowed is as per rate of Rs.122 as sought<\/p>\n
by the plaintiff. From the evidence, it appears that on November 3rd rate<\/p>\n
was Rs.121 and after Sunday on 5.11.73 Rs.127 and then in ascending<\/p>\n
order, as such, this rate Rs.122 some what appears as per on November<\/p>\n
3rd to November 5th – agreement was for rate of Rs.101, so calculated<\/p>\n
damages of Rs.63968 is correct one.\n<\/p>\n
                                     10<\/span><\/p>\n
                                          S.B.Civil First Appeal No.121\/1982<\/p>\n
             The agreement entered into at Udaipur and goods too were<\/p>\n
to be delivered there,    so   contention regarding jurisdiction finds no<\/p>\n
strength.\n<\/p>\n
             Lastly argument of non-maintainability as per provisions of<\/p>\n
Section 75 of the Act. A plain reading of Section 75       will clear   that<\/p>\n
provisions are not applicable for the matter like this suit pertains to, so<\/p>\n
this argument too, without force.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             For the above reasons, the appeal being devoid of merit<\/p>\n
deserves to be rejected. The appeal is dismissed. Costs of appeal made<\/p>\n
easy.\n<\/p>\n
                                                      (C. M. TOTLA), J.\n<\/p>\n
bjsh\/scd\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur Raj. Rajya Sahakari Upbhokta … vs M\/S. Banshi Lal & Anr on 31 March, 2009 1 S.B.Civil First Appeal No.121\/1982 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. CIVIL FIRST APPEAL NO. 121\/1982 Appellant : Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari UP-bhokta Sangh Ltd, 100 Subhash Marg C- Scheme, Jaipur […]<\/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":[8,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-48559","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court-jodhpur"],"yoast_head":"\nRaj. Rajya Sahakari Upbhokta ... vs M\/S. Banshi Lal & Anr on 31 March, 2009 - 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\/raj-rajya-sahakari-upbhokta-vs-ms-banshi-lal-anr-on-31-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Raj. Rajya Sahakari Upbhokta ... vs M\/S. Banshi Lal & Anr on 31 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-rajya-sahakari-upbhokta-vs-ms-banshi-lal-anr-on-31-march-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-03-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-31T12:46:42+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raj-rajya-sahakari-upbhokta-vs-ms-banshi-lal-anr-on-31-march-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raj-rajya-sahakari-upbhokta-vs-ms-banshi-lal-anr-on-31-march-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Raj. Rajya Sahakari Upbhokta … vs M\\\/S. Banshi Lal & Anr on 31 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-31T12:46:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raj-rajya-sahakari-upbhokta-vs-ms-banshi-lal-anr-on-31-march-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2175,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raj-rajya-sahakari-upbhokta-vs-ms-banshi-lal-anr-on-31-march-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raj-rajya-sahakari-upbhokta-vs-ms-banshi-lal-anr-on-31-march-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raj-rajya-sahakari-upbhokta-vs-ms-banshi-lal-anr-on-31-march-2009\",\"name\":\"Raj. Rajya Sahakari Upbhokta ... vs M\\\/S. Banshi Lal & Anr on 31 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-31T12:46:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raj-rajya-sahakari-upbhokta-vs-ms-banshi-lal-anr-on-31-march-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raj-rajya-sahakari-upbhokta-vs-ms-banshi-lal-anr-on-31-march-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raj-rajya-sahakari-upbhokta-vs-ms-banshi-lal-anr-on-31-march-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Raj. Rajya Sahakari Upbhokta … vs M\\\/S. Banshi Lal & Anr on 31 March, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Raj. Rajya Sahakari Upbhokta ... vs M\/S. Banshi Lal & Anr on 31 March, 2009 - 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\/raj-rajya-sahakari-upbhokta-vs-ms-banshi-lal-anr-on-31-march-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Raj. Rajya Sahakari Upbhokta ... vs M\/S. Banshi Lal & Anr on 31 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-rajya-sahakari-upbhokta-vs-ms-banshi-lal-anr-on-31-march-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-31T12:46:42+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-rajya-sahakari-upbhokta-vs-ms-banshi-lal-anr-on-31-march-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-rajya-sahakari-upbhokta-vs-ms-banshi-lal-anr-on-31-march-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Raj. Rajya Sahakari Upbhokta … vs M\/S. Banshi Lal & Anr on 31 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-31T12:46:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-rajya-sahakari-upbhokta-vs-ms-banshi-lal-anr-on-31-march-2009"},"wordCount":2175,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-rajya-sahakari-upbhokta-vs-ms-banshi-lal-anr-on-31-march-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-rajya-sahakari-upbhokta-vs-ms-banshi-lal-anr-on-31-march-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-rajya-sahakari-upbhokta-vs-ms-banshi-lal-anr-on-31-march-2009","name":"Raj. Rajya Sahakari Upbhokta ... vs M\/S. Banshi Lal & Anr on 31 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-31T12:46:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-rajya-sahakari-upbhokta-vs-ms-banshi-lal-anr-on-31-march-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-rajya-sahakari-upbhokta-vs-ms-banshi-lal-anr-on-31-march-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-rajya-sahakari-upbhokta-vs-ms-banshi-lal-anr-on-31-march-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Raj. Rajya Sahakari Upbhokta … vs M\/S. Banshi Lal & Anr on 31 March, 2009"}]},{"@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\/48559","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=48559"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48559\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=48559"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=48559"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=48559"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}