{"id":52815,"date":"2000-02-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-02-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suman-sethi-vs-ajay-k-churiwal-on-2-february-2000"},"modified":"2016-04-07T15:32:40","modified_gmt":"2016-04-07T10:02:40","slug":"suman-sethi-vs-ajay-k-churiwal-on-2-february-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suman-sethi-vs-ajay-k-churiwal-on-2-february-2000","title":{"rendered":"Suman Sethi vs Ajay K, Churiwal on 2 February, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Suman Sethi vs Ajay K, Churiwal on 2 February, 2000<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: G.T. Nanavati, S.N. Phukan<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  113 of 2000\n\nPETITIONER:\nSUMAN SETHI\n\nRESPONDENT:\nAJAY K, CHURIWAL\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 02\/02\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nG.T. NANAVATI &amp; S.N. PHUKAN\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>2000 (1) SCR 601<\/p>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PHUKAN, J. Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 3,10.1997<br \/>\npassed by the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Revision No. 1611\/97. By the<br \/>\nimpugned judgment, the High Court set aside the order of the Metropolitan<br \/>\nMagistrate &#8211; 16th, Calcutta passed b case No. C\/1661\/96.\n<\/p>\n<p>Briefly stated the facts are as follows :\n<\/p>\n<p>The appellant issued a cheque for Rs. 20,00.000 (Rupees Twenty Lacs) in<br \/>\nfavour of respondent No, 1 The cheque was presented to the banker which was<br \/>\nreturned on 2nd August, 1996 with the remarks &#8220;Insufficient Fund&#8221;.<br \/>\nThereafter within 15 days of return of the cheque, respondent No. 1 gave a<br \/>\nnotice of demand as required under proviso (b) to Section 138 of the<br \/>\nNegotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as amended, (for short the Act). As the<br \/>\nappellant failed to meet the demand, a complaint was filed before the<br \/>\nMetropolitan Magistrate. On perusal of the above notice, the Magistrate was<br \/>\nof the view that the (demand made in the notice being higher than the<br \/>\namount of the cheque), notice was bad in view of an earlier decision of the<br \/>\nHigh Court. Respondent No. 1 approached the High Court by filing the<br \/>\nrevision petition which was allowed by the impugned order and the order of<br \/>\nthe Metropolitan Magistrate was set aside. The High Court was of the view<br \/>\nthat the decision of the High Court on which reliance was placed by<br \/>\nMagistrate was distinguishable. The High Court held that as in notice,<br \/>\nrespondent No. 1 clearly demanded the cheque amount, the notice was a valid<br \/>\none and accordingly set aside the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate.\n<\/p>\n<p>We have heard Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned senior counsel for the appellant,<br \/>\nMr. Sanjiv Sen, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Dilip Sinha,<br \/>\nlearned counsel for respondent No. 2 &#8211; the State of West Bengal.\n<\/p>\n<p>The only question for consideration by us is whether the notice in question<br \/>\nissued under proviso (b) to Section 138 of the Act was valid or not. We<br \/>\nextract below Sections 138 and 139 of the Act :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;138 &#8211; Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8211; Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a<br \/>\nbanker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of<br \/>\nthat account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other<br \/>\nliability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of<br \/>\nmoney standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the<br \/>\ncheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account<br \/>\nby an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have<br \/>\ncommitted an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of<br \/>\nthis Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one<br \/>\nyear, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or<br \/>\nboth :\n<\/p>\n<p>Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>(b)  the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may<br \/>\nbe, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a<br \/>\nnotice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within fifteen days of the<br \/>\nreceipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the<br \/>\ncheque as unpaid; and<\/p>\n<p>(c)  the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount<br \/>\nof money to the payee or as the case may be, to the holder in due course of<br \/>\nthe cheque within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice&#8221;.<br \/>\n(Emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;139 &#8211; Presumption in favour of holder. &#8211; It shall be presumed, unless the<br \/>\ncontrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque, of the<br \/>\nnature referred to in Section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part,<br \/>\nof any debt or other liability.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>We have to ascertain the meaning of the words &#8220;said amount of money&#8221;<br \/>\noccurring in clauses (b) and (c) to the proviso to Section 138. Reading the<br \/>\nSection as a whole we have no hesitation to hold that the above expression<br \/>\nrefers to the words &#8220;payment of any amount of money&#8221; occurring in main<br \/>\nSection 138 i.e. the cheque amount. So in notice, under clause (b) to the<br \/>\nproviso, demand has to be made for the cheque amount. Dr. Dhawan, learned<br \/>\nsenior counsel has urged that Section 138 being a penal provision has to be<br \/>\nconstrued strictly. We may refer the decision of this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/35536\/\">M. Narayanan<br \/>\nNambiar v. State of Kerala, AIR<\/a> (1963) SC 1116 = [1963] 2 Supp. SCR 724.<br \/>\nThis Court considered the rule of construction of a penal provision and<br \/>\nquoted with approval the following passage of the decision of the Judicial<br \/>\nCommittee in Dyke v, Elliot, (1872) LR 4 AC 184. The passage runs as<br \/>\nfollows :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8221;No doubt all penal Statutes are to be construed strictly, that is to say,<br \/>\nthe Court must see that the thing charged as an offence is within the plain<br \/>\nmeaning of the words used, and must not strain the words on any notion that<br \/>\nthere has been a slip, that there has been a casus omissus, that the thing<br \/>\nis so clearly within the mischief that it must have been intended to be<br \/>\nincluded if thought of. On the other hand, the person charged has a right<br \/>\nto say that he thing charged although within the words, is not within the<br \/>\nspirit of the enactment. But where the thing is brought within the words<br \/>\nand within the spirit, there a penal enactment is to be construed, like any<br \/>\nother instrument, according to the fair commonsense meaning of the language<br \/>\nused, and the Court is not to find or make any doubt or ambiguity in the<br \/>\nlanguage of a penal statute, where such doubt or ambiguity would clearly<br \/>\nnot be found or made in the same language in any other instrument.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>There is no ambiguity or doubt in the language of Section 138. Reading the<br \/>\nentire Section as a whole and applying commonsense, from the words, as<br \/>\nstated above, it is clear that the legislature intended that in notice<br \/>\nunder clause (b) to the proviso, the demand has to be made for the cheque<br \/>\namount. According to Dr. Dhawan, the notice of demand should not contain<br \/>\nanything more or less than what is due under the cheque.\n<\/p>\n<p>It is well settled principle of law that the notice has to he read as a<br \/>\nwhole. In the notice, demand has to be made for the &#8220;said amount&#8221; i.e.<br \/>\ncheque amount. If no such demand is made the notice no doubt would fall<br \/>\n.short of its legal requirement Where in addition to &#8220;said amount&#8221; there is<br \/>\nalso a claim by way of interest, cost etc. whether the notice is bad would<br \/>\ndepend on the language of the notice. If in a notice while giving the break<br \/>\nup of the claim the cheque amount, interest, damages etc. are separately<br \/>\nspecified, other such claims for interest, cost etc. would be superfluous<br \/>\nand these additional claims would he severable- and will not invalidate the<br \/>\nnotice. If, however, in the notice an ommbus demand is made without<br \/>\nspecifying what was due under the dishonored cheque, notice might well fail<br \/>\nto meet the legal requirement and may be regarded as bad.\n<\/p>\n<p>This Court had occasion to deal with Section 138 of the Act in <a href=\"\/doc\/1105371\/\">Central Bank<br \/>\nof India &amp; Anr. v. M\/s. Saxons Farms &amp; Ors., JT<\/a> (1999) 8 SC 58 and held<br \/>\nthat the object of the notice is to give a chance to the drawer of the<br \/>\ncheque to rectify his omission. Though in the notice demand for<br \/>\ncompensation, interest, cost etc. is also made drawer will be absolved from<br \/>\nhis liability under Section 138 if he makes the payment of the amount<br \/>\ncovered by the cheque of which he was aware within 15 days from the date of<br \/>\nreceipt of the notice or before complaint is filed.\n<\/p>\n<p>In Section 138 legislature clearly stated that for the dishonored cheque<br \/>\nthe drawer shall be liable for conviction if the demand is not met within<br \/>\n15 days of the receipt of notice but this is without prejudice to any other<br \/>\nprovision of the Act. If the cheque amount is paid within the above period<br \/>\nor before the complaint is filed the legal liability under Section 138 will<br \/>\ncease and for recovery of other demands as compensation, costs, interest<br \/>\netc., a civil proceeding will lie. Therefore, if in a notice any other sum<br \/>\nis indicated in addition to the &#8220;said amount&#8221; the notice cannot be faulted,<br \/>\nas stated above.\n<\/p>\n<p>Drawing our attention to Section 139 of the Act, Mr. Dhawan has urged that<br \/>\nif in the notice in addition to &#8221;said amount&#8221; other demands are made the<br \/>\npresumption as contemplated under Section 138 would operate. We are unable<br \/>\nto accept the submission of the learned senior counsel as Section 139 has<br \/>\nto be read with Section 138 and reading both the Sections together it would<br \/>\nappear that presumption would arise only in respect of the &#8220;said amount&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>We extract below the relevant portion of notice :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;I, therefore, by means of this notice call upon you to pay the amount of<br \/>\nRs. 20,00,000 along with the incidental charges of Rs. 1,500 spent on the<br \/>\ncheque on its presentation and also Rs. 340 as notice charges within a<br \/>\nperiod of 15 days from the date of receipt thereof, failing which my<br \/>\nclients shall take necessary legal steps against you holding you liable for<br \/>\nall costs and consequences thereof, which please note.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>In the notice in question the &#8220;said amount&#8221; i.e. the cheque amount has been<br \/>\ndearly stated. Respondent No. 1 had claimed in additional to the cheque<br \/>\namount, incidental charges and notice charge. These two amounts are<br \/>\nseverable. In the notice it was clearly stated that on failure to comply<br \/>\nwith the demand necessary legal steps will be taken up. If respondent No. 1<br \/>\nhad paid the cheque amount he would have been absolved from the criminal<br \/>\nliability under Section 138. Regarding other claims, a civil suit would be<br \/>\nnecessary<\/p>\n<p>We, therefore, do not Find any merit in the present appeal and accordingly<br \/>\nit is dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Suman Sethi vs Ajay K, Churiwal on 2 February, 2000 Bench: G.T. Nanavati, S.N. Phukan CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 113 of 2000 PETITIONER: SUMAN SETHI RESPONDENT: AJAY K, CHURIWAL DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02\/02\/2000 BENCH: G.T. NANAVATI &amp; S.N. PHUKAN JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT 2000 (1) SCR 601 The Judgment of the Court was [&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-52815","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Suman Sethi vs Ajay K, Churiwal on 2 February, 2000 - 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\/suman-sethi-vs-ajay-k-churiwal-on-2-february-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Suman Sethi vs Ajay K, Churiwal on 2 February, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suman-sethi-vs-ajay-k-churiwal-on-2-february-2000\" \/>\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=\"2000-02-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-07T10:02:40+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suman-sethi-vs-ajay-k-churiwal-on-2-february-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suman-sethi-vs-ajay-k-churiwal-on-2-february-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Suman Sethi vs Ajay K, Churiwal on 2 February, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-02-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-07T10:02:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suman-sethi-vs-ajay-k-churiwal-on-2-february-2000\"},\"wordCount\":1712,\"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\\\/suman-sethi-vs-ajay-k-churiwal-on-2-february-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suman-sethi-vs-ajay-k-churiwal-on-2-february-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suman-sethi-vs-ajay-k-churiwal-on-2-february-2000\",\"name\":\"Suman Sethi vs Ajay K, Churiwal on 2 February, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-02-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-07T10:02:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suman-sethi-vs-ajay-k-churiwal-on-2-february-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suman-sethi-vs-ajay-k-churiwal-on-2-february-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suman-sethi-vs-ajay-k-churiwal-on-2-february-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Suman Sethi vs Ajay K, Churiwal on 2 February, 2000\"}]},{\"@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":"Suman Sethi vs Ajay K, Churiwal on 2 February, 2000 - 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\/suman-sethi-vs-ajay-k-churiwal-on-2-february-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Suman Sethi vs Ajay K, Churiwal on 2 February, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suman-sethi-vs-ajay-k-churiwal-on-2-february-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-02-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-07T10:02:40+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suman-sethi-vs-ajay-k-churiwal-on-2-february-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suman-sethi-vs-ajay-k-churiwal-on-2-february-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Suman Sethi vs Ajay K, Churiwal on 2 February, 2000","datePublished":"2000-02-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-07T10:02:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suman-sethi-vs-ajay-k-churiwal-on-2-february-2000"},"wordCount":1712,"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\/suman-sethi-vs-ajay-k-churiwal-on-2-february-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suman-sethi-vs-ajay-k-churiwal-on-2-february-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suman-sethi-vs-ajay-k-churiwal-on-2-february-2000","name":"Suman Sethi vs Ajay K, Churiwal on 2 February, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-02-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-07T10:02:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suman-sethi-vs-ajay-k-churiwal-on-2-february-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suman-sethi-vs-ajay-k-churiwal-on-2-february-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suman-sethi-vs-ajay-k-churiwal-on-2-february-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Suman Sethi vs Ajay K, Churiwal on 2 February, 2000"}]},{"@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\/52815","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=52815"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52815\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=52815"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=52815"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=52815"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}