{"id":50834,"date":"2004-12-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-12-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-om-maheshwari-vs-vinitkumar-parikh-on-9-december-2004"},"modified":"2018-01-28T05:46:44","modified_gmt":"2018-01-28T00:16:44","slug":"hari-om-maheshwari-vs-vinitkumar-parikh-on-9-december-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-om-maheshwari-vs-vinitkumar-parikh-on-9-december-2004","title":{"rendered":"Hari Om Maheshwari vs Vinitkumar Parikh on 9 December, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Hari Om Maheshwari vs Vinitkumar Parikh on 9 December, 2004<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S Hegde<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: N.Santosh Hegde, S.B.Sinha<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  7978 of 2004\n\nPETITIONER:\nHari Om Maheshwari \n\nRESPONDENT:\nVinitkumar Parikh\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 09\/12\/2004\n\nBENCH:\nN.Santosh Hegde &amp; S.B.Sinha\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>(Arising out SLP (c) No. 16202 of 2003)<\/p>\n<p>With<\/p>\n<p>CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7979\t\tOF 2004<br \/>\n(Arising out SLP (c) No. 16360 of 2003)<\/p>\n<p>SANTOSH HEGDE, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tHeard learned counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>These appeals are preferred against the common judgment and order<br \/>\npassed by the Appellate Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay<br \/>\nwhereby the said Bench dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants herein<br \/>\nagainst the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge of the said High<br \/>\nCourt  allowing the applications filed by the respondent herein by setting<br \/>\naside the awards made by the Arbitrators.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tTwo disputes pertaining to the claim of the appellants against the<br \/>\nrespondent herein were referred to arbitration and the same were numbered<br \/>\nas Arbitration Reference No. 313\/95 in the case of Deepa Jain  and<br \/>\nArbitration Reference No. 316\/95 in the case of Hari Om Maheshwari the<br \/>\nappellants herein.  Though both the arbitration proceedings were taken up<br \/>\nfor consideration together. In Reference  Case No. 313\/95 i.e.  case of Deepa<br \/>\nJain the evidence of both the parties concluded on 29th of January, 1999<br \/>\nwhile the evidence of the appellant in Reference Case No. 316\/95 pertaining<br \/>\nto Hari Om Maheshwari was concluded on 8th of April, 1999 and the matter<br \/>\nwas listed for evidence of the respondent in that case to 10\/11th of May,<br \/>\n1999.  On that day i.e. on 10th of May, 1999 the respondent herein remained<br \/>\nabsent. The Arbitrators  on that day closed the evidence and posted the<br \/>\nmatter for making awards. Before the said awards were made on 20th May,<br \/>\n1999 the respondent herein sent an application to the Arbitrators seeking<br \/>\nfurther opportunity to lead evidence in the Reference Case No. 313\/95 of<br \/>\nDeepa Jain in which the evidence of both the parties had closed.  No<br \/>\napplication was made in Reference Case No. 316\/95 which is the arbitration<br \/>\ncase of Hari Om Maheshwari. From the record it is seen that the said<br \/>\napplication was not entertained by the Arbitrators and they delivered the<br \/>\naward sometime in November, 1999.  It is against the two awards the<br \/>\nrespondent herein preferred two applications to set aside the said awards<br \/>\nunder Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as &#8216;the<br \/>\nAct&#8217;)  before the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court.  It was his<br \/>\ncontention that he could not attend the arbitration proceedings on 10th May,<br \/>\n1999 because on the previous date of the proceedings he had wrongly noted<br \/>\ndown the next date of hearing.  Hence, the Arbitrators ought to have given<br \/>\nhim an opportunity of presenting his evidence before making an award.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe learned Single Judge who heard the two applications together<br \/>\naccepted the case of the respondent herein and set aside the awards in<br \/>\nquestion and remitted the same to the Arbitrators for fresh disposal after<br \/>\ngiving an opportunity  to the respondent to lead his evidence. They also<br \/>\ndirected that one more arbitration proceedings between one Jayesh Sanghani<br \/>\nand the respondent herein which was earlier remanded to the Arbitrators<br \/>\nshould be decided along with these arbitration proceedings.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAn appeal filed against the said common order of the learned Single<br \/>\nJudge before an Appellate Bench of the Bombay High Court came to be<br \/>\ndismissed and it is against this common order of High Court of Bombay that<br \/>\nthe appellant is before us.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tShri Jaideep Gupta, learned Sr. counsel appearing for appellant herein<br \/>\ncontended that the grounds on which the High Court has set aside the award<br \/>\nare not the grounds contemplated under Section 30 of the Act.  He submitted<br \/>\nthat arbitration proceedings having started in the year 1995 could not be<br \/>\ncompleted even in the year 1999, therefore, the High Court ought not to have<br \/>\ninterfered with the award. He pointed out that in Reference Case No. 316\/95<br \/>\npertaining to Deepa Jain the evidence had already concluded  and the<br \/>\nexplanation given by the respondent for not leading evidence on 10th of May,<br \/>\n1999 was frivolous  and the Arbitrators rightly  did not entertain a prayer for<br \/>\ngranting a further opportunity for leading evidence.  Such a denial of a<br \/>\nfurther opportunity by the Arbitrators would not be a ground contemplated<br \/>\nunder Section 30 of the Act to set aside the award.  Hence, the courts below<br \/>\nhave gone beyond the scope of Section 30 of the Act while allowing<br \/>\npetitions to set aside the arbitration awards.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tShri  U.U. Lalit, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the respondent<br \/>\ncontended that three arbitration proceedings against the respondent herein<br \/>\nwere being held simultaneously  by the same Arbitrators which involved<br \/>\nsimilar issues.  In the first arbitration case  of Jayesh Sanghani  court had<br \/>\nalready set aside the awards and remitted the matter to the Arbitrators and<br \/>\nsince the  Arbitrators did not grant a reasonable opportunity  to the<br \/>\nrespondent to lead his evidence in these cases,   the High Court was justified<br \/>\nin giving a further opportunity to the respondent. Hence, this is not a fit case<br \/>\nfor interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<p>From the above narrated facts the question that falls for our<br \/>\nconsideration is whether the learned Single Judge or the Division Bench of<br \/>\nthe High Court were justified in setting aside the award of the arbitrators<br \/>\nsolely on the ground that the respondent herein who failed to appear before<br \/>\nthe arbitrators on a day fixed for his evidence ought to have been granted<br \/>\nanother opportunity to produce his evidence. The relevant part of the<br \/>\nproceeding note of the arbitrators dated 8.4.1999 reads thus :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Meeting adjourned to 10th &amp; 11th of May, 1999 at 4.00<br \/>\np.m.\tNo notice to the parties.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tOn 10th of May, 1999 when the arbitrators met, the respondent was<br \/>\nnot present. So the following order was made by the arbitrators :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Neither the respondent nor his Advocate is present. Matter was<br \/>\nkept at 4.00 p.m. for hearing. We have waited for the<br \/>\nrespondent to come up to 4.40 p.m. Neither of them is present.<br \/>\nMatter was for Examination in Chief to be conducted by the<br \/>\nrespondent&#8217;s Advocate. It seems that they do not wish to lead<br \/>\nany evidence in the matter. The case is closed. We shall make<br \/>\nthe award.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFrom the above it is clear that though on 8.4.1999 the respondent and<br \/>\nhis advocate were present and in their presence the matter was adjourned to<br \/>\n10.5.1999. They were not present on the said date consequent to which the<br \/>\narbitrators decided to close the proceeding and adjourned the matter for<br \/>\npronouncement of the award. This is an order made in Reference<br \/>\nNo.316\/1995 in the case of Hari Om Maheshwari, one of the appellants<br \/>\nherein obviously because in Arbitration Reference No.313\/1995 in the case<br \/>\nof Deepa Jain the evidence of both the sides had already concluded which<br \/>\nwas well within the knowledge of the respondent. Inspite of the same for<br \/>\nreasons of his own, the  respondent sent a representation to the arbitrators in<br \/>\nReference No.313\/1995 on 20.5.1999 seeking another opportunity to lead<br \/>\nhis evidence which was not acceded to by the arbitrators who made the<br \/>\naward in November, 1999.\n<\/p>\n<p>It is the above award that was challenged under section 30 of the<br \/>\nArbitration Act, 1940 before the learned Single Judge by respondent which<br \/>\ncame to be allowed by the learned Single Judge. While doing so learned<br \/>\nSingle Judge observed :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;the cross-examination of M\/s D. Jain and Co. was<br \/>\nover in 1997, the cross-examination of witness<br \/>\nexamined in Shri Maheshwari&#8217;s reference was<br \/>\ncompleted on 8th April 1999 and the Arbitrators<br \/>\nadjourned the matter to 10th and 11th May 1999 for<br \/>\nthe petitioner to lead his evidence. However, it<br \/>\nappears that the petitioner noted a wrong date and<br \/>\ntherefore, he did not appear on 10th May 1999. It is<br \/>\nclear from the record that there is an application<br \/>\nsubmitted by the petitioner before the Arbitrators on<br \/>\n20th May 1999 regarding the mistake committed by<br \/>\nhim in recording the date of hearing and requested<br \/>\nthe Arbitrators to give an opportunity to lead the<br \/>\nevidence. One can understand if the Arbitrators have<br \/>\nafter closing the matter for award have delivered the<br \/>\naward immediately but since the Arbitrators had not<br \/>\ndeliver their award by 20th May 1999, they also did<br \/>\nnot deliver their award immediately thereafter, but<br \/>\nwaited till November 1999 to make their award, the<br \/>\nArbitrators could have easily permitted the petitioner<br \/>\nto lead evidence. I do not think that the Arbitrators<br \/>\nwere justified in denying the petitioner an<br \/>\nopportunity to lead evidence.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThis finding of the learned Single Judge has been accepted by the<br \/>\nDivision Bench without any further discussion.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn the above circumstances, the question for our consideration is ; was<br \/>\nthe High Court justified in interfering with the discretionary jurisdiction of<br \/>\nthe arbitrators while entertaining a petition under section 30 to set aside an<br \/>\naward. Section 30 of the Arbitration Act 1940 reads thus :\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;30. Grounds for setting aside award.  An award<br \/>\nshall not be set aside except on one or more of the<br \/>\nfollowing grounds, namely :\n<\/p>\n<p>(a)\tthat an arbitrator or umpire has misconducted himself<br \/>\nor the proceedings&#8217;<\/p>\n<p>(b)\tthat  an   award   has  been  made after the issue of an<br \/>\norder by the Court superseding the arbitration or after<br \/>\narbitration proceedings have become invalid under<br \/>\nSec. 35;\n<\/p>\n<p>(c)\tthat an award has been improperly procured or is<br \/>\notherwise invalid.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>A bare reading of the said section shows that the civil court has very<br \/>\nlimited jurisdiction to interfere with an award made by the arbitrators and it<br \/>\ncertainly does not permit the civil court including the High Court to interfere<br \/>\nwith the discretionary order of granting or refusing an adjournment. This<br \/>\nCourt in <a href=\"\/doc\/899181\/\">Arosan Enterprises Ltd. v. Union of India<\/a> [(1999) 9 SCC 449]<br \/>\nconsidering section 30 of the Act held thus :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 providing for<br \/>\nsetting aside an award of an arbitrator is rather restrictive<br \/>\nin its operation and the statute is also categorical on that<br \/>\nscore. The use of the expression &#8220;shall&#8221; in the main body<br \/>\nof the section makes it mandatory to the effect that the<br \/>\naward of an arbitration shall not be set aside excepting<br \/>\nfor the grounds as mentioned therein to wit: (i) arbitrator<br \/>\nor umpire has misconducted himself; (ii) award has been<br \/>\nmade after the supersession of the arbitration or the<br \/>\nproceedings becoming invalid; and (iii) award has been<br \/>\nimproperly procured or otherwise invalid. These three<br \/>\nspecific provisions under Section 30 thus can only be<br \/>\ntaken recourse to in the matter of setting aside of an<br \/>\naward. The legislature obviously had in its mind that the<br \/>\narbitrator being the Judge chosen by the parties, the<br \/>\ndecision of the arbitrator as such ought to be final<br \/>\nbetween the parties. Reappraisal of evidence by the court<br \/>\nis not permissible and as a matter of fact exercise of<br \/>\npower by the court to reappraise the evidence is unknown<br \/>\nto proceedings under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act.<br \/>\nIn the event of there being no reasons in the award,<br \/>\nquestion of interference of the court would not arise at<br \/>\nall. In the event, however, there are reasons, the<br \/>\ninterference would still be not available within the<br \/>\njurisdiction of the court unless of course, there exist a<br \/>\ntotal perversity in the award or the judgment is based on<br \/>\na wrong proposition of law. In the event however two<br \/>\nviews are possible on a question of law as well, the court<br \/>\nwould not be justified in interfering with the award. The<br \/>\ncommon phraseology &#8220;error apparent on the face of the<br \/>\nrecord&#8221; does not itself, however, mean and imply closer<br \/>\nscrutiny of the merits of documents and materials on<br \/>\nrecord. The court as a matter of fact, cannot substitute its<br \/>\nevaluation and come to the conclusion that the arbitrator<br \/>\nhad acted contrary to the bargain between the parties. If<br \/>\nthe view of the arbitrator is a possible view the award or<br \/>\nthe reasoning contained therein cannot be examined.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>A similar view has also been taken in  <a href=\"\/doc\/1010255\/\">State of U.P.  vs.  Allied<br \/>\nConstructions<\/a> (2003) 7 SCC 396 and  <a href=\"\/doc\/711794\/\">Continental Construction  Ltd.   vs.<br \/>\nState of U.P.<\/a>    (2003)8 SCC 4.\n<\/p>\n<p>From the above it is seen that the jurisdiction of court entertaining a<br \/>\npetition or application for setting aside an award under Section 30 of the Act<br \/>\nis extremely limited to the grounds mentioned therein and we do not think<br \/>\nthat grant or refusal of an adjournment by an arbitrator comes within the<br \/>\nparameters of section 30 of the Act. At any rate the arbitrator&#8217;s refusal of an<br \/>\nadjournment sought in 1999 in an arbitration proceeding pending since 1995<br \/>\ncannot at all be said to be perverse keeping in mind the object of the Act as<br \/>\nan alternate dispute resolution system aimed at speedy resolution of disputes.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWe think both the learned Single Judge and Division Bench have<br \/>\nerred in setting aside the award only with a view to give an opportunity to<br \/>\nthe defaulting respondent to lead evidence which was rejected by the<br \/>\narbitrators by their reasoned order of 10.5.1999.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFor the reasons stated above we allow these appeals, set aside the<br \/>\norders of the learned Single Judge as confirmed by the Division Bench and<br \/>\nrestore the award of the arbitrators. Appeals allowed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Hari Om Maheshwari vs Vinitkumar Parikh on 9 December, 2004 Author: S Hegde Bench: N.Santosh Hegde, S.B.Sinha CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 7978 of 2004 PETITIONER: Hari Om Maheshwari RESPONDENT: Vinitkumar Parikh DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09\/12\/2004 BENCH: N.Santosh Hegde &amp; S.B.Sinha JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out [&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-50834","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Hari Om Maheshwari vs Vinitkumar Parikh on 9 December, 2004 - 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\/hari-om-maheshwari-vs-vinitkumar-parikh-on-9-december-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Hari Om Maheshwari vs Vinitkumar Parikh on 9 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-om-maheshwari-vs-vinitkumar-parikh-on-9-december-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-28T00:16:44+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\/hari-om-maheshwari-vs-vinitkumar-parikh-on-9-december-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-om-maheshwari-vs-vinitkumar-parikh-on-9-december-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Hari Om Maheshwari vs Vinitkumar Parikh on 9 December, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-28T00:16:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-om-maheshwari-vs-vinitkumar-parikh-on-9-december-2004\"},\"wordCount\":2160,\"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\/hari-om-maheshwari-vs-vinitkumar-parikh-on-9-december-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-om-maheshwari-vs-vinitkumar-parikh-on-9-december-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-om-maheshwari-vs-vinitkumar-parikh-on-9-december-2004\",\"name\":\"Hari Om Maheshwari vs Vinitkumar Parikh on 9 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-28T00:16:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-om-maheshwari-vs-vinitkumar-parikh-on-9-december-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-om-maheshwari-vs-vinitkumar-parikh-on-9-december-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-om-maheshwari-vs-vinitkumar-parikh-on-9-december-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Hari Om Maheshwari vs Vinitkumar Parikh on 9 December, 2004\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Hari Om Maheshwari vs Vinitkumar Parikh on 9 December, 2004 - 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\/hari-om-maheshwari-vs-vinitkumar-parikh-on-9-december-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Hari Om Maheshwari vs Vinitkumar Parikh on 9 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-om-maheshwari-vs-vinitkumar-parikh-on-9-december-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-28T00:16:44+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\/hari-om-maheshwari-vs-vinitkumar-parikh-on-9-december-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-om-maheshwari-vs-vinitkumar-parikh-on-9-december-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Hari Om Maheshwari vs Vinitkumar Parikh on 9 December, 2004","datePublished":"2004-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-28T00:16:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-om-maheshwari-vs-vinitkumar-parikh-on-9-december-2004"},"wordCount":2160,"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\/hari-om-maheshwari-vs-vinitkumar-parikh-on-9-december-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-om-maheshwari-vs-vinitkumar-parikh-on-9-december-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-om-maheshwari-vs-vinitkumar-parikh-on-9-december-2004","name":"Hari Om Maheshwari vs Vinitkumar Parikh on 9 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-28T00:16:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-om-maheshwari-vs-vinitkumar-parikh-on-9-december-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-om-maheshwari-vs-vinitkumar-parikh-on-9-december-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-om-maheshwari-vs-vinitkumar-parikh-on-9-december-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hari Om Maheshwari vs Vinitkumar Parikh on 9 December, 2004"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/50834","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=50834"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50834\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=50834"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=50834"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=50834"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}