{"id":57356,"date":"1989-08-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1989-08-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bajaj-auto-limited-vs-behari-lal-kohli-on-8-august-1989"},"modified":"2016-10-19T22:23:49","modified_gmt":"2016-10-19T16:53:49","slug":"bajaj-auto-limited-vs-behari-lal-kohli-on-8-august-1989","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bajaj-auto-limited-vs-behari-lal-kohli-on-8-august-1989","title":{"rendered":"Bajaj Auto Limited vs Behari Lal Kohli on 8 August, 1989"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Bajaj Auto Limited vs Behari Lal Kohli on 8 August, 1989<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1989 AIR 1806, \t\t 1989 SCR (3) 730<\/div>\n
Author: L Sharma<\/div>\n
Bench: Sharma, L.M. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nBAJAJ AUTO LIMITED\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nBEHARI LAL KOHLI\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT08\/08\/1989\n\nBENCH:\nSHARMA, L.M. (J)\nBENCH:\nSHARMA, L.M. (J)\nOJHA, N.D. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1989 AIR 1806\t\t  1989 SCR  (3) 730\n 1989 SCC  (4)\t39\t  JT 1989 (3)\t324\n 1989 SCALE  (2)285\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1991 SC2053\t (16)\n\n\nACT:\n    Delhi  Rent\t Control Act,  1958: Section  14(1)  Proviso\n(b)Eviction  of\t tenant on  ground  of\tsub-letting--Whether\nlessee entitled to create sub-lease--Lease deed inadmissible\nfor non-registration--Term of the lease deed regarding\tsub-\nlease--Whether could be relied upon.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The respondent let out his premises to the appellant  by\nway  of an unregistered lease deed which inter\talia  stated\nthat  without  the permission of the landlord  the  premises\nshould not he sub-let except to associate concerns, and\t the\nlessee\twas  liable for payment of rent. Alleging  that\t the\nappellant, a manufacturing company of automobiles, had\tsub-\nlet  the  premises  to M\/s United  Automobiles\twithout\t his\nconsent, the respondent initiated eviction proceedings.\n    The\t appellant  contended that M\/s\tUnited\tAutomobiles,\nbeing the authorised dealer and distributor of the  products\nmanufactured  by it, has been in occupation of the  premises\nin  that  capacity and cannot therefore he  described  as  a\nsub-tenant.  Alternatively, in view of the specific term  in\nthe  lease deed, the arrangement with the associate  concern\nwas  not a sub-lease without the consent of the\t respondent,\nit  was\t contended. The respondent took the stand  that\t the\nterm  cannot be looked into, as the document was not  regis-\ntered  and that M\/s United Automobiles cannot be assumed  to\nhe  an 'associate concern' within the meaning of  the  term.\nBoth  the Rent Controller and the appellate  authority\theld\nthat the term of the lease was not inadmissible, but ordered\neviction  on  the  ground that M\/s  United  Automobiles\t was\ninducted in the premises as a sub-lessee.\n    The\t appellant  filed a second appeal  before  the\tHigh\nCourt  which  dismissed it in limine. Hence this  appeal  by\nspecial leave.\nDismissing the appeal,\n    HELD: 1. The appellant has created a sub-lease in favour\nof  its\t dealer,  and has thus parted  with  the  possession\nwithin the meaning of s. 14(1) Proviso (b) of the Delhi Rent\nControl Act. The appellant-Com-\n730\n731\npany has a separate legal entity and has nothing to do\twith\nM\/s  United  Automobiles  except  that\tthe  latter  is\t the\ndealer-distributor of some of its manufactured articles. M\/s\nUnited\tAutomobiles is not a licensee and is not in  posses-\nsion  of the premises on behalf of the appellant. The  mone-\ntary  benefit  available to the dealer is  confined  to\t the\ncommission  it\treceives on the sale of every  vehicle;\t and\ndoes not include the right of enjoyment of the premises. The\ndealer\tpays  a fixed sum as rent to the appellant  and\t the\nrent is not related or dependant on the sale of any vehicle.\nThe  fact  that this amount is same as what is paid  by\t the\nappellant to the respondent does not appear to be  material.\n[733E-G]\n    2. The question whether a lessee is entitled to create a\nsub-lease or not is undoubtedly a term of the transaction of\nlease,\tand if it is incorporated in the document it  cannot\nbe disassociated from the lease and considered separately in\nisolation.  If a document is inadmissible for  non-registra-\ntion,  all  its\t terms are inadmissible\t including  the\t one\ndealing with landlord's permission to his tenant to sub-let.\nThe  appellant\tcannot,\t in the\t present  circumstances,  be\nallowed\t to rely upon the clause in the\t unregistered  lease\ndeed. [734C-D]\n    Sachindra  Mohan Ghose v. Ramesh Agarwalla, A.I.R.\t1932\nPatna 97; referred to.\n    3.\tIn the instant case, a perusal of the clause  relied\non by the appellant would show that it contains the respond-\nent's  consent\tin general terms without  reference  to\t M\/s\nUnited\tAutomobiles. As a matter of fact M\/s United  Automo-\nbiles came to be inducted as a sub-tenant much later. Such a\ngeneral\t permission cannot be treated to be the\t consent  as\nrequired  by s. 14(1) Proviso (b) of the Act. Since  consent\nof the respondent was not obtained specifically with  refer-\nence to the sub-letting in favour of M\/s United Automobiles,\nthe clause in the lease deed cannot save the appellant, even\nif it be assumed in its favour that the clause is admissible\nand the sub-lessee is appellant's associate concern.  [734E-\nG]\n    M\/s\t Shalimar Tar Products v. S.C. Sharma,<\/a> [1988] 1\t SCC\n70; relied on.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2443  of
\n1980.\n<\/p>\n
    From  the Judgment and Order dated 8.9.80 of  the  Delhi
\nHigh Court in S.A.O. No. 339 of 1980.\n<\/p>\n
732<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      Mukul Mudgal for the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
\t      Rajinder\tSachhar\t and  Mrs. J.  Wad  for\t the
\n\t      Respondent.\n<\/p>\n
\t      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n    SHARMA, J. This is a tenant’s appeal against the  decree
\nfor  his eviction from certain disputed premises  passed  by
\nthe  Rent  Controller,\tDelhi and confirmed  in\t appeal\t and
\nsecond appeal.\n<\/p>\n
    2. The respondent, the owner of the premises, let it out
\nto  the appellant in 1961 as a monthly tenant.\tAn  unregis-
\ntered deed of lease was executed on that occasion containing
\nthe following statement as one of the clauses:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “That they will not assign or underlet or part
\n\t      with  the premises hereby demised without\t the
\n\t      permission in writing of the landlord  subject
\n\t      however  to  this proviso that they  shall  be
\n\t      entitled to assign or otherwise part with\t the
\n\t      possession  of the said premises or  any\tpart
\n\t      thereof  to their associate  concerns  without
\n\t      such  consent  but in any\t event\tthe  lessees
\n\t      shall  be liable for the payment of  the\trent
\n\t      during the term hereby granted.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    3. The appellant is a manufacturing company of Scooters,
\nPickup\tVans  and  Auto-Three-Wheelers.\t Alleging  that\t the
\nappellant  had sub-let the premises to M\/s.  United  Automo-
\nbiles without his consent, the respondent contended that the
\nground mentioned in S. 14 (1) Proviso (b) of the Delhi\tRent
\nControl Act, 1958 was made out and the appellant was  liable
\nto be evicted.\n<\/p>\n
    4. The eviction proceeding was defended by the appellant
\non  the\t ground\t that the M\/s. United  Automobiles  are\t the
\nauthorised  dealer and distributor of the  product  manufac-
\ntured  by  the appellant and has been in occupation  of\t the
\npremises  in  that capacity and can not, therefore,  be\t de-
\nscribed as a sub-tenant. It was alternatively argued that in
\nview  of the term of the lease as quoted above the  arrange-
\nment  with the M\/s. United Automobiles can not be  condemned
\nas  a  sublease without the consent of the  respondent.\t The
\nstand  of the respondent has been that\tthe  above-mentioned
\nterm,  of the lease can not be looked into as  document\t was
\nnot  registered and further the M\/s. United Automobiles\t can
\nnot  be\t assumed to be an ‘associate a concern’\t within\t the
\nmeaning of the term. The Rent Controller, as well as, the
\n733<\/span>
\nappellate  authority held that the afore-mentioned  term  of
\nthe  lease was not inadmissible and the appellant was  enti-
\ntled  to  rely upon the same, but ordered  eviction  on\t the
\nground\tthat  M\/s. United Automobiles was  inducted  in\t the
\npremises  as  a\t sub-lessee. The High  Court  dismissed\t the
\nappellant’s  second appeal in limine, and in this  situation
\nthe present appeal by special leave has been filed.\n<\/p>\n
    5.\tIt  has been strenuously contended  by\tthe  learned
\ncounsel\t for the appellant that as, (i) the  United  Automo-
\nbiles  is a distributor of the product manufactured  by\t the
\nappellant on the basis of commission, (ii) it pays the\tsame
\namount to the appellant as the rent of the premises  payable
\nby the appellant to the respondent, and (iii) is entitled to
\nbe  in possession only as long as it continues to be a\tdis-
\ntributor,  it  should be held to be an\t‘associate  concern’
\nwithin the meaning of the aforementioned term of the  lease.
\nIn  reply of the respondent’s contention that the  term\t can
\nnot be taken into consideration as the deed is not a  regis-
\ntered  one, it was urged that the appellant, in view of\t the
\nprovisions of S. 49 of the Registration Act, is entitled  to
\nrely upon the term for ‘collateral purpose’. The argument is
\nthat  the document may not be admissible for the purpose  of
\nproving\t the existence of a lease or the terms thereof,\t but
\nas  the\t afore-mentioned clause does not  come\twithin\tthat
\ncategory,  in  as much as, it merely amounts  to  a  written
\npermission  to the appellant to create a sub-lease,  it\t can
\nnot  be\t excluded from consideration on the ground  of\tnon-
\nregistration.\n<\/p>\n
    6.\tThere is no dispute that the appellant has put\tM\/s.
\nUnited\tAutomobiles  in possession of the premises  and\t has
\nthus  parted  with the possession within the meaning  of  S.
\n14(1)  Proviso (b) of the Act. The appellant-Company  has  a
\nseparate legal entity and has nothing to do with M\/s. United
\nAutomobiles ‘except that the latter is the dealer  distribu-
\ntor of some of its manufactured articles. M\/s. United  Auto-
\nmobiles\t is not a licensee and is not in possession  of\t the
\npremises  on behalf of the appellant. The  monetary  benefit
\navailable  to  the dealer is confined to the  commission  it
\nreceives on the sale of every vehicles; and does not include
\nthe  right of enjoyment of the premises. The dealer  pays  a
\nfixed  sum  as\trent to the appellant and the  rent  is\t not
\nrelated\t or dependant on the sale of any vehicle. ‘The\tfact
\nthat this amount is same as what is paid by the appellant to
\nthe respondent does not appear to be material. The irresist-
\nible  conclusion  is that the appellant has created  a\tsub-
\nlease  in favour of its dealer. The question now is  whether
\nthe  clause  in\t the lease mentioned above  amounts  to\t the
\nrespondent’s consent in writing.\n<\/p>\n
7. The contention of the learned counsel for the  respondent
\nthat
\n734<\/span>
\nthe  aforesaid\tclause can not be looked into  for  want  of
\nregistration of the lease deed appears to be correct.  Reli-
\nance has been placed on the observations of Fazal Ali, J. in
\nSachindra  Mohan  Ghose v. Ramjash  Agarwalla,\tA.I.R.\t1932
\nPatna  97 that if a decree purporting to create a  lease  is
\ninadmissible  in evidence for want of registration, none  of
\nthe terms of the lease can be admitted in evidence and\tthat
\nto  use a document for the purpose of proving  an  important
\nclause in the lease is not using it as a collateral purpose.\n<\/p>\n
    8.\tThe learned counsel for the appellant  attempted  to
\nmeet  the  point by saying that so far the  consent  of\t the
\nlandlord  permitting sub-letting is concerned, it  does\t not
\nrequire\t registration  and the clause,\ttherefore,  must  be
\nexcepted from the requirement of registration and consequent
\nexclusion  from\t evidence. We do not see any force  in\tthis
\nargument.  The\tquestion  whether a lessee  is\tentitled  to
\ncreate\ta  sub-lease, or not is undoubtedly a  term  of\t the
\ntransaction  of\t lease,\t and if it is  incorporated  in\t the
\ndocument  it  can not be disassociated from  the  lease\t and
\nconsidered  separately in isolation. If a document is  inad-
\nmissible for non-registration, all its terms are  inadmissi-
\nble including the one dealing with landlord’s permission  to
\nhis  tenant  to sub-let. It follows that the  appellant\t can
\nnot,  in the present circumstances, be allowed to rely\tupon
\nthe clause in his unregistered lease deed.\n<\/p>\n
    9. There is still another reason to hold that the afore-
\nsaid  clause  can not come to the aid of  the  appellant.  A
\nperusal\t of  its language would show that  it  contains\t the
\nrespondent’s  consent in general terms without reference  to
\nM\/s.  United  Automobiles. As a matter of fact\tM\/s.  United
\nAutomobiles came to be inducted as a sub-tenant much  later.
\nCan  such a general permission be treated to be the  consent
\nas required by S. 14 (1) Proviso (b) of the Act? It was held
\nby this Court In M\/s. Shalimar Tar Products v. S.C.  Sharma,<\/a>
\n[1988]\t1 SCC 70; that Ss. 14(1) Proviso (b) and  16(2)\t and
\n(3) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 enjoin the tenant to
\nobtain\tconsent of the landlord in writing to  the  specific
\nsub-letting  and any other interpretation of the  provisions
\nwill  defeat  the object of the statute and  is,  therefore,
\ninpermissible. Since it is not suggested that the consent of
\nthe  respondent was obtained specifically with reference  to
\nthe  Sub-letting in favour of M\/s. United  Automobiles,\t the
\nclause\tin the lease deed, which has been relied on can\t not
\nsave  the  appellant, even if it be assumed  in\t its  favour
\nthat  the clause is admissible and the sUb-lessee is  appel-
\nlant’s\tassociate concern. The appeal, therefore, fails\t and
\nis dismissed with Costs.\n<\/p>\n
G.N.\t\t\t\t\t\tAppeal\tdis-\nmissed.'\n735<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Bajaj Auto Limited vs Behari Lal Kohli on 8 August, 1989 Equivalent citations: 1989 AIR 1806, 1989 SCR (3) 730 Author: L Sharma Bench: Sharma, L.M. (J) PETITIONER: BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED Vs. RESPONDENT: BEHARI LAL KOHLI DATE OF JUDGMENT08\/08\/1989 BENCH: SHARMA, L.M. (J) BENCH: SHARMA, L.M. (J) OJHA, N.D. (J) CITATION: […]<\/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-57356","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nBajaj Auto Limited vs Behari Lal Kohli on 8 August, 1989 - 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\/bajaj-auto-limited-vs-behari-lal-kohli-on-8-august-1989\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bajaj Auto Limited vs Behari Lal Kohli on 8 August, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bajaj-auto-limited-vs-behari-lal-kohli-on-8-august-1989\" \/>\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=\"1989-08-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-19T16:53:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bajaj-auto-limited-vs-behari-lal-kohli-on-8-august-1989#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bajaj-auto-limited-vs-behari-lal-kohli-on-8-august-1989\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bajaj Auto Limited vs Behari Lal Kohli on 8 August, 1989\",\"datePublished\":\"1989-08-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-19T16:53:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bajaj-auto-limited-vs-behari-lal-kohli-on-8-august-1989\"},\"wordCount\":1384,\"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\\\/bajaj-auto-limited-vs-behari-lal-kohli-on-8-august-1989#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bajaj-auto-limited-vs-behari-lal-kohli-on-8-august-1989\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bajaj-auto-limited-vs-behari-lal-kohli-on-8-august-1989\",\"name\":\"Bajaj Auto Limited vs Behari Lal Kohli on 8 August, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1989-08-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-19T16:53:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bajaj-auto-limited-vs-behari-lal-kohli-on-8-august-1989#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bajaj-auto-limited-vs-behari-lal-kohli-on-8-august-1989\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bajaj-auto-limited-vs-behari-lal-kohli-on-8-august-1989#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bajaj Auto Limited vs Behari Lal Kohli on 8 August, 1989\"}]},{\"@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":"Bajaj Auto Limited vs Behari Lal Kohli on 8 August, 1989 - 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\/bajaj-auto-limited-vs-behari-lal-kohli-on-8-august-1989","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bajaj Auto Limited vs Behari Lal Kohli on 8 August, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bajaj-auto-limited-vs-behari-lal-kohli-on-8-august-1989","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1989-08-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-19T16:53:49+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bajaj-auto-limited-vs-behari-lal-kohli-on-8-august-1989#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bajaj-auto-limited-vs-behari-lal-kohli-on-8-august-1989"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bajaj Auto Limited vs Behari Lal Kohli on 8 August, 1989","datePublished":"1989-08-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-19T16:53:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bajaj-auto-limited-vs-behari-lal-kohli-on-8-august-1989"},"wordCount":1384,"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\/bajaj-auto-limited-vs-behari-lal-kohli-on-8-august-1989#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bajaj-auto-limited-vs-behari-lal-kohli-on-8-august-1989","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bajaj-auto-limited-vs-behari-lal-kohli-on-8-august-1989","name":"Bajaj Auto Limited vs Behari Lal Kohli on 8 August, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1989-08-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-19T16:53:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bajaj-auto-limited-vs-behari-lal-kohli-on-8-august-1989#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bajaj-auto-limited-vs-behari-lal-kohli-on-8-august-1989"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bajaj-auto-limited-vs-behari-lal-kohli-on-8-august-1989#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bajaj Auto Limited vs Behari Lal Kohli on 8 August, 1989"}]},{"@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\/57356","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=57356"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/57356\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=57356"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=57356"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=57356"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}