{"id":61480,"date":"2002-04-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-04-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raman-kapoor-vs-government-of-nct-delhi-and-anr-on-22-april-2002"},"modified":"2015-04-26T13:11:00","modified_gmt":"2015-04-26T07:41:00","slug":"raman-kapoor-vs-government-of-nct-delhi-and-anr-on-22-april-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raman-kapoor-vs-government-of-nct-delhi-and-anr-on-22-april-2002","title":{"rendered":"Raman Kapoor vs Government Of Nct Delhi And Anr. on 22 April, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Delhi High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Raman Kapoor vs Government Of Nct Delhi And Anr. on 22 April, 2002<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 2002 VAD Delhi 217, 98 (2002) DLT 135, 2002 (63) DRJ 678<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: M Sarin<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: M Sarin<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p> Manmohan Sarin, J.   <\/p>\n<p> 1.  The petitioner has filed the present<br \/>\nwrit petition seeking quashing of the order dated<br \/>\n3.1.1995, recording the retirement of the petitioner<br \/>\nw.e.f. 1.4.1992 or otherwise direct the Registrar of<br \/>\nfirms of respondent No. 1 to rectify Under Section 64 of<br \/>\nthe Indian Partnership Act (hereinafter referred to as<br \/>\n&#8216;the Act&#8217;) the alleged mistake as done by him and<br \/>\nfurther to penalise the other partners of the firm for<br \/>\ntheir act of forgery and furnishing false particulars,<br \/>\nunder Section 70 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p> 2.  The factual matrix of the case may be<br \/>\nbriefly noted to the extent it is relevant. The<br \/>\npetitioner claims that he is a partner in the<br \/>\npartnership firm in the name of M\/s. Kapoor Sons and<br \/>\nCo., along with respondent No. 2 Mr. O.P. Kapoor and other<br \/>\npartners.\n<\/p>\n<p> The writ petition has its origin and genesis<br \/>\nin family acrimony. The petitioner is the son of<br \/>\nrespondent No. 2 and other partners are his brother.<br \/>\nPetitioner claims that he is also a partner in other<br \/>\nfamily concerns and firms, such as Continental Films<br \/>\nand M\/s. Rupas International, which own various other<br \/>\nassets. Petitioner claims to have been looking after<br \/>\nthe business of partnership firm in Columbia. Writ<br \/>\npetition has several averments with regard to the<br \/>\npetitioner looking after the family business and<br \/>\ninterest in Columbia. However, the same are not<br \/>\nrelevant to the issue in the present writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p> 3.  The petitioner&#8217;s grievance in the writ<br \/>\npetition is that respondent No. 2 in collusion with<br \/>\nother partners, forged  a notice of change in<br \/>\nconstitution of the registered firm by filing form V,<br \/>\nappearing at page 21 of the paper book. The said form<br \/>\nNo. V under Section 63(1) of the Act is to the effect that the<br \/>\npetitioner has retired from the partnership w.e.f.<br \/>\n31.3.1992. Petitioner denies his signature as also<br \/>\nthe execution of the dissolution deed, which is stated<br \/>\nto have been filed with the Registrar of Firms. In the<br \/>\nwrit petition, the petitioner&#8217;s claim is that the<br \/>\nRegistrar of Firms has acted on this forged document<br \/>\nand has recorded the changes under Section 63 of the<br \/>\nIndian Partnership Act. The petitioner therefore seeks<br \/>\nthe quashing of the changes as recorded by the<br \/>\nRegistrar and seeks quashing of entries in Form-A as<br \/>\nrecorded by the Registrar of Firms.\n<\/p>\n<p> 4.  Learned counsel for the petitioner<br \/>\nsubmits that the Registrar is obliged to carry out the<br \/>\nrectification of mistakes under Section 64 of the Act<br \/>\nand such a direction can be given by the Court under<br \/>\nSection 65 of the Act. Learned counsel for the<br \/>\npetitioner submits that the Registrar has not taken any<br \/>\nprecaution or acted to verify the signatures in Form-V<br \/>\nand compare it with the original partnership deed. He<br \/>\nsubmits that there is a CFSL report to the effect that<br \/>\nthe signatures of the petitioner have been forged.\n<\/p>\n<p> 5.  Respondents have filed the counter<br \/>\naffidavit. It has been brought out in the counter<br \/>\naffidavit that there are number of civil and criminal<br \/>\nproceedings, which have been initiated by the<br \/>\npetitioner against respondent No. 2 and other family<br \/>\nmembers. Mr. Harish Malhotra, counsel for respondent<br \/>\nNo. 2 submits that petitioner had even filed a civil<br \/>\nsuit, wherein he had sought a declaration that the<br \/>\npetitioner had not retired and continued to be a<br \/>\npartner of the firm in question. During the course of<br \/>\nthe Court proceedings all the civil disputes relating<br \/>\nto the partnership firm in question and other<br \/>\npartnership firms and businesses were referred to the<br \/>\narbitration of Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice P.K. Bahri, a<br \/>\nretired judge of this court. It is submitted that the<br \/>\nproceedings before the Arbitrator are going on and<br \/>\nevidence is being led. In the proceedings before the<br \/>\nArbitrator, the petitioner has raised the same<br \/>\ncontention that he did not resign from the partnership<br \/>\nfirm and his signatures have been forged on the form<br \/>\nand Dissolution Deed. Evidence has been partly led and<br \/>\narguments are to go on. The very issue i.e. whether<br \/>\nthe petitioner resigned from the partnership or not is<br \/>\nthe subject matter of adjudication before the<br \/>\narbitrator. Respondent No. 2 in the counter affidavit<br \/>\nclaims that the Dissolution Deed was duly singed by the<br \/>\npetitioner and in fact, the petitioner also wrote<br \/>\nletter dated 15.2.1992, wherein he expressed the desire<br \/>\nnot to continue as a partner in the firm and requested<br \/>\nfor its dissolution. Further, by another letter dated<br \/>\n24.4.1992, the petitioner had sent the Dissolution Deed<br \/>\ndated 21.3.1992 and other documents and Deeds. The<br \/>\nrespondent No. 2 claims that the petitioner has admitted<br \/>\nbefore the Arbitrator his signatures on these letter<br \/>\nbut alleges them to be manipulated, as blank papers<br \/>\nwere provided by the petitioner himself to respondent<br \/>\nNo. 2.\n<\/p>\n<p> 6.  The position that emerges, therefore, is<br \/>\nthat the petitioner claims that respondent No. 2 along<br \/>\nwith other family members have forged his signatures on<br \/>\nthe Form V as well as the Dissolution Deed and filed<br \/>\nthe same before the Registrar. The petitioner also<br \/>\nrelies on police investigation as well as CFSL report<br \/>\nto claim that the signatures are forged while<br \/>\nrespondent No. 2 claims that the petitioner has admitted<br \/>\nhis signatures on the letters dated 15.2.1992 and<br \/>\n24.4.1992, by which he had also expressed is desire to<br \/>\nretire from the partnership firm and had subsequently<br \/>\nforwarded the Dissolution Deed. It is thus clear that<br \/>\nthese are disputed questions of fact.\n<\/p>\n<p> 7.  The petitioner in support of his<br \/>\ncontention submitted that the Registrar should not have<br \/>\nacted mechanically and accepted Form V in respect of<br \/>\nthe retirement of the petitioner along with Dissolution<br \/>\nDeed and passed the entry dated 3.1.1995, recording the<br \/>\npetitioner&#8217;s retirement. He relies on  Durga Prosad<br \/>\nSarawagi and Ors. v. Registrar of Firms, West Bengal<br \/>\nand Anr.   to urge that the writ<br \/>\npetition as filed was maintainable and the Registrar<br \/>\ncould be directed to rectify the record by issuance of<br \/>\na writ.\n<\/p>\n<p> 8.  Learned counsel for respondent No. 2, on<br \/>\nthe other hand, has relied on  Dr. V.S. Bahal v.\n<\/p>\n<p>S.L. Kapur and Co.    and  Kesrimal and<br \/>\nAnr. v. Dalichand and Ors.   . The aforesaid authorities have been cited by<br \/>\nlearned counsel for respondents to support his<br \/>\ncontention that the Registrar on receipt of a notice in<br \/>\nterms of Section 63 of the Act is simply required to<br \/>\nmake a note of the change notified and after making an<br \/>\nentry, file the same on record.\n<\/p>\n<p> In  Kesrimal and Anr. v. Dalichand and<br \/>\nOrs. (supra)  it was held that a change in the<br \/>\nconstitution of a registered firm owing to the coming<br \/>\nin or going out a partner or by death of a partner<br \/>\ndoes not occasion the necessity of any fresh<br \/>\nregistration but all that is required is that the<br \/>\nchange thus brought about should be notified to the<br \/>\nRegistrar and it is then for the latter to make a note<br \/>\nof it in the relevant register. The language used in<br \/>\nSection 63 of the Act, it was permissive as it uses the<br \/>\nword &#8216;may&#8217; and not &#8216;shall&#8217;. Learned counsel,<br \/>\ntherefore, urged that the Registrar has duly carried<br \/>\nout its function on receipt of the form V duly signed<br \/>\nby the partners, by nothing it and making a relevant<br \/>\nentry of the same in the record. Learned counsel for<br \/>\nrespondent No. 1 Ms. Ansuya Salwan urged that the<br \/>\nRegistrar having duly received the notice, could not be<br \/>\nfaulted with for making an entry in accordance with the<br \/>\nRules. In case, ultimately either in arbitration or by<br \/>\nadjudication by the Court of law, the said intimation<br \/>\nor dissolution deed are found to be not genuine,<br \/>\nrectification in terms of Section 64 of the Act would<br \/>\nbe carried out. However, till the matter was subjudice<br \/>\nbefore the arbitrator or under investigation, and<br \/>\npending in Courts, the Registrar was not obliged to<br \/>\nmake any rectification.\n<\/p>\n<p> 9.  Learned counsel for the petitioner<br \/>\nplaced considerable emphasis on  Durga Prosad Sarwagi<br \/>\nand Ors. v. Registrar of Firms, West Bengal and<br \/>\nAnr. (supra)   to urge that the writ court would<br \/>\ndirect the Registrar to correct the entry and a writ<br \/>\npetition would be maintainable. In the cited case, the<br \/>\nlearned single Judge had dismissed the writ petition<br \/>\nfiled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India<br \/>\nholding that whether the firm was dissolved on<br \/>\n11.4.1954 or not, appears to be a disputed question of<br \/>\nfact and that it was impossible for him to come to a<br \/>\nconclusion without more, as to what the true version<br \/>\nwas, namely, whether the firm was dissolved on<br \/>\n11.4.1954 or was still continuing. The Judge dismissed<br \/>\nthe writ petition holding that he was disinclined to<br \/>\ninterfere with the entry made by the Registrar. The<br \/>\nDivision Bench allowed the appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p> 10.  In my view, the cited case is clearly<br \/>\ndistinguishable on facts and cannot advance the<br \/>\npetitioner&#8217;s case in the present writ petition. In the<br \/>\ncited case, the Division Bench found that the notice of<br \/>\ndissolution had been given on 30.8.1961 by one Manik<br \/>\nChand Sarvagi to the effect that the firm stood<br \/>\ndissolved with effect from 11.4.1954. The Court found<br \/>\nthat as per the records of the Registrar of Firms<br \/>\nitself, the said Manik Chand had retired on 14.8.1958.<br \/>\nAccordingly, a notice could not have been given on<br \/>\n30.8.1961 by a person, who had retired on 14.8.1958.<br \/>\nFurther, if the partnership stood dissolved on<br \/>\n11.4.1954, then Manik Chand Sarvagi could not have<br \/>\ncontinued as a partner as per the Registrar&#8217;s own<br \/>\nrecord till 14.3.1958. The Division Bench, therefore,<br \/>\nfound that there were inherent contradictions in the<br \/>\nnotice as given and the record maintained by the<br \/>\nRegistrar of Firms, which were self evident. In these<br \/>\ncircumstances, the Court held that the Registrar of<br \/>\nFirms could not have acted illegally and in violation<br \/>\nof Section 63(1) by making an entry of dissolution in<br \/>\npursuance to the notice received on 30.8.1961.<br \/>\nBesides, the solicitors of the opposite side had<br \/>\nprotested and made a request for rectification to the<br \/>\nRegistrar, which he refused to take notice of. This<br \/>\nwas a case were a notice of dissolution of firm was<br \/>\nbeing sent after the alleged event by a person who<br \/>\nstood retired as per the record of the Registrar of<br \/>\nfirms. The aforesaid case of the Division Bench is,<br \/>\ntherefore, clearly distinguishable on facts.\n<\/p>\n<p> 12.  In the instant case before us, there is<br \/>\nno such apparent illegality or contradiction. The<br \/>\npresent case is simply one where the petitioner claims<br \/>\nthe notice in Form V to have been a forged one and the<br \/>\ndissolution deed not executed. The other partners<br \/>\nclaim that it was duly executed. Further, the<br \/>\npetitioner in the correspondence and letters had<br \/>\nexpressed is desire to retire and forwarded the<br \/>\nDissolution Deed. Petitioner, it is claimed, has<br \/>\nadmitted his signature before the Arbitrator in the<br \/>\nletter. This controversy, as noted above, was earlier<br \/>\nthe subject matter of a suit for declaration resulting<br \/>\nfinally in reference of the disputes to the arbitrator,<br \/>\na retired Judge of this Court, Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice<br \/>\nP.K. Bahri, before whom the issue of petitioner&#8217;s<br \/>\nretirement from the said partnership is also pending.<br \/>\nIn these circumstances, the petition raised highly<br \/>\ndisputed questions of fact, which are under<br \/>\nadjudication and the petitioner is not entitled to the<br \/>\nissuance of a writ, as prayed for.\n<\/p>\n<p> 13. The writ petition is dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court Raman Kapoor vs Government Of Nct Delhi And Anr. on 22 April, 2002 Equivalent citations: 2002 VAD Delhi 217, 98 (2002) DLT 135, 2002 (63) DRJ 678 Author: M Sarin Bench: M Sarin JUDGMENT Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of the order dated [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-61480","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Raman Kapoor vs Government Of Nct Delhi And Anr. on 22 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raman-kapoor-vs-government-of-nct-delhi-and-anr-on-22-april-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Raman Kapoor vs Government Of Nct Delhi And Anr. on 22 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raman-kapoor-vs-government-of-nct-delhi-and-anr-on-22-april-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-04-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-26T07:41:00+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\\\/raman-kapoor-vs-government-of-nct-delhi-and-anr-on-22-april-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raman-kapoor-vs-government-of-nct-delhi-and-anr-on-22-april-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Raman Kapoor vs Government Of Nct Delhi And Anr. on 22 April, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-04-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-26T07:41:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raman-kapoor-vs-government-of-nct-delhi-and-anr-on-22-april-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1876,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raman-kapoor-vs-government-of-nct-delhi-and-anr-on-22-april-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raman-kapoor-vs-government-of-nct-delhi-and-anr-on-22-april-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raman-kapoor-vs-government-of-nct-delhi-and-anr-on-22-april-2002\",\"name\":\"Raman Kapoor vs Government Of Nct Delhi And Anr. on 22 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-04-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-26T07:41:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raman-kapoor-vs-government-of-nct-delhi-and-anr-on-22-april-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raman-kapoor-vs-government-of-nct-delhi-and-anr-on-22-april-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raman-kapoor-vs-government-of-nct-delhi-and-anr-on-22-april-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Raman Kapoor vs Government Of Nct Delhi And Anr. on 22 April, 2002\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Raman Kapoor vs Government Of Nct Delhi And Anr. on 22 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raman-kapoor-vs-government-of-nct-delhi-and-anr-on-22-april-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Raman Kapoor vs Government Of Nct Delhi And Anr. on 22 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raman-kapoor-vs-government-of-nct-delhi-and-anr-on-22-april-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-04-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-26T07:41:00+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\/raman-kapoor-vs-government-of-nct-delhi-and-anr-on-22-april-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raman-kapoor-vs-government-of-nct-delhi-and-anr-on-22-april-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Raman Kapoor vs Government Of Nct Delhi And Anr. on 22 April, 2002","datePublished":"2002-04-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-26T07:41:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raman-kapoor-vs-government-of-nct-delhi-and-anr-on-22-april-2002"},"wordCount":1876,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raman-kapoor-vs-government-of-nct-delhi-and-anr-on-22-april-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raman-kapoor-vs-government-of-nct-delhi-and-anr-on-22-april-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raman-kapoor-vs-government-of-nct-delhi-and-anr-on-22-april-2002","name":"Raman Kapoor vs Government Of Nct Delhi And Anr. on 22 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-04-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-26T07:41:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raman-kapoor-vs-government-of-nct-delhi-and-anr-on-22-april-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raman-kapoor-vs-government-of-nct-delhi-and-anr-on-22-april-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raman-kapoor-vs-government-of-nct-delhi-and-anr-on-22-april-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Raman Kapoor vs Government Of Nct Delhi And Anr. on 22 April, 2002"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/61480","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=61480"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/61480\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=61480"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=61480"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=61480"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}