{"id":64367,"date":"2011-05-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-05-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bholasingh-vs-the-on-10-may-2011"},"modified":"2016-04-08T09:13:24","modified_gmt":"2016-04-08T03:43:24","slug":"bholasingh-vs-the-on-10-may-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bholasingh-vs-the-on-10-may-2011","title":{"rendered":"Bholasingh vs The on 10 May, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Bholasingh vs The on 10 May, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: S.R.Brahmbhatt,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.MA\/2927\/2005\t 12\/ 12\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nMISC.APPLICATION No. 2927 of 2005\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT\n \n \n=================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=================================================\n\n\n \n\nBHOLASINGH\nJAIPRAKASH CONSTRUCTION LTD. THRO' R.C.SO & 8 - Applicants\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nTHE\nSTATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondents\n \n\n=================================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nBS PATEL for Applicants: 1 - 9.MRS RANJAN B PATEL for Applicants : 1\n- 9. \nMR. K.P. RAVAL, LD. APP for Respondent : 1, \nMR HP\nMOTIRAMANI for Respondent : 2, \nMR YH MOTIRAMANI for Respondent :\n2, \n================================================= \n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 10\/05\/2011 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
Learned
\n\tadvocate for the petitioners has stated at the Bar that petitioner
\n\tno.3, who happened to be the chairman of petitioner nos. 1 & 2
\n\tcompany has expired on 22\/1\/2008 and xerox copy of the death
\n\tcertificate is produced on record. Hence this petition would not
\n\tsurvive qua petitioner no.3, who is named as accused no.2 in the
\n\tcomplaint. This petition is therefore now confined to the rest of
\n\tthe petitioners, namely petitioner company, who has been named
\n\ttwice, namely petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2  and petitioner
\n\tnos. 4 to 9.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tpetitioners who have been named as accused in criminal complaint no.
\n\t955 of 2002 filed by respondent no.2 alleging commission of offence
\n\tunder section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (herein after
\n\treferred to as ‘N.I. Act’ for brevity) have approached this Court
\n\tunder section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashment of
\n\tthe said complaint for the reasons stated in the memo of the
\n\tpetition.\n<\/p>\n
This
\n\tCourt (Coram: K.A. Puj, J {as he then was}) vide order dated
\n\t14\/9\/2005 issued rule in this  matter which was made returnable on
\n\t5\/10\/2005, and granted interim relief in terms of para 9(B) of the
\n\tpetition staying further proceedings of Criminal Complaint No. 955
\n\tof 2002 pending in the Court of Learned Chief Metropolitan
\n\tMagistrate, Ahmedabad. This matter is listed in the final hearing
\n\tboard and is taken up for hearing.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\trespondent no.2 has filed the complaint in question invoking section
\n\t138 & 141 of N.I. Act, alleging that the complainant was
\n\tsupplying iron & steel material to accused no.1 company. Accused
\n\tno.1 company issued cheque bearing No. 223307 dated 30\/6\/2002 for a
\n\tsum of Rs.70,00,000\/- drawn on Janata Cooperative Bank Ltd, Nadiad
\n\tbranch, came to be issued on behalf of the company signed by
\n\tpetitioner no.4 for goods supplied at Modhera and Patan sites of the
\n\tcompany. Another cheque  bearing no.647224 dated 30\/6\/2002 for
\n\tRs.69,670\/- was also issued drawn on Anand Mercantile Cooperative
\n\tBank, Anand, for the goods supplied at Kapadwanj site. On receiving
\n\ttelephonic instructions after receiving the same the complainant
\n\tdeposited two cheques in its account, after informing the accused
\n\tthat the cheques were to be deposited vide their communication dated
\n\t13\/8\/2002 and the cheques were deposited on 26\/8\/2002. The cheque in
\n\tquestion being cheque no. 223307 dated 30\/6\/2002 for sum of Rs.70.00
\n\tlakhs was returned back with remarks “refer to drawer”.
\n\tThe complainant was therefore constrained to issue legal notice on
\n\t2\/9\/2002 sent by registered post acknowledgment due to accused no.1
\n\tcompany and its registered office at Lucknow as well as its branches
\n\tat Kapadwanj, Baroda, Bahuchraji district Mehsana. Notices were duly
\n\tserved and acknowledgment due slips have been produced on record.
\n\tThe company and directors failed in complying with the requirement
\n\tof making payment of cheque amount after expiry of the statutory
\n\tperiod, the complaint came to be filed which came to be registered
\n\tas Criminal Complaint No. 955 of 2002 in the Court of Chief
\n\tMetropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, whereon the Court issued
\n\tprocess.  Petitioners appears to have filed one petition being
\n\tCriminal Misc. Application No. 8717 of 2002 challenging issuance of
\n\tprocess and complaint which came to be termed to be evidenced by
\n\tthis Court vide order dated 24\/3\/2002 passed in said Criminal Misc.
\n\tApplication No. 8717 of 2002. Said order read as under.\n<\/p>\n
  ” Heard
\nLearned Counsel for the respective parties.\n<\/p>\n
 At
\nthe end of argument Learned Counsel for the petitioners seek
\npermission to withdraw this petition with a liberty to file
\napplication for discharge and also for exemption before the court
\nbelow.\n<\/p>\n
 Permission
\nis granted as prayed for. This petition stand disposed of as
\nwithdrawn. Notice is discharged. In the event of filing applications
\nfor discharge as also exemption same shall be disposed of on merits
\nwithout being influenced by the order of withdrawal.”\n<\/p>\n
\tSaid
\n\tpetition was sought to be withdrawn with a view to approach the
\n\tCourt concerned for seeking discharge. The discharge application was
\n\tfiled which came to be rejected by concerned Court vide order dated
\n\t19\/2\/2005 in light of the decision in case of Adalat Prasad Vs. Roop
\n\tJindal & Anr, that once having taken cognizance of order process
\n\tcannot be recalled and discharge cannot be granted.\n<\/p>\n
Thereafter
\n\tpetitioners, as per their say, who left with no choice but to
\n\tapproach this Court once again invoking section 482 of Cr.P.C. and
\n\tas it is stated herein above, this Court on 14\/9\/2005 issued rule
\n\tand granted interim relief staying further proceedings of the
\n\tcomplaint in question.\n<\/p>\n
Learned
\n\tadvocate appearing for the petitioners invited this Court’s
\n\tattention to the documents annexed to the petition to support his
\n\tcontention that the complaint is required to be quashed as the
\n\toffence cannot be said to have been committed on account of the fact
\n\tas they emerge from reading of documents annexed to this petition.
\n\tThe documents pressed into service for seeking support to the
\n\tcontention for quashment are listed as under, namely :-\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\n\treply to the notice issued by original complainant dated 16\/9\/2002.\n<\/p>\n
\tRelying
\nupon this document a contention was canvassed on behalf of the
\npetitioners that the petitioners have paid up the amount of liability
\nand therefore complaint is nothing but sheer abuse of process of law
\nand hence required to  be quashed in exercise of power conferred upon
\nthis Court under section 482 Cr.P.C.  Leaned advocate for the
\npetitioners invited this Court’s attention to para-3, 4, and 7 to
\nsupport his contention that the adding of figures mentioned there
\nunder coupled with narration in respect of dispatching demand drafts
\nand act of respondent no.2 in encashing those demand drafts without
\ndisclosing the contents of the notice either in the memo of the
\ncomplaint or producing the same before the Court amount to mala fide
\nexercise of misuse of provisions of law for harassing the
\npetitioners. Therefore the complaint is required to be quashed.\n<\/p>\n
\tLearned
\n\tadvocate appearing for the petitioners relied upon the documents
\n\tproduced on page-23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28 to indicate that these
\n\tare the books of accounts extracts maintained by complainant forming
\n\tof relevant entries made there under, which  would conclusively show
\n\tthat the liability existed on the date of issuance of cheque namely
\n\tcheque no. 8341843 came to be fulfilled and discharged on or before
\n\t10\/10\/2002 and the complaint thereafter came to be filed on next day
\n\ti.e. on 11\/10\/2002, after having deposited the demand drafts as
\n\tnarrated in the reply to the notice and as it is reflected in the
\n\textract of books of accounts of the complainant  which have been
\n\tproduced by complainant himself. Therefore the  Court can accept
\n\tthat the petitioners accused have aptly rebutted the presumption
\n\tavailable against them by virtue of provision of section 139 N.I.
\n\tAct. The petitioners have thus successfully rebutted the presumption
\n\tby traversing those documents and therefore in light of this entries
\n\tproduced by the complainant himself the Court may come to the
\n\tconclusion that the petitioners are not liable to be proceeded
\n\tagainst and hence the complaint be quashed.\n<\/p>\n
\tShri
\n\tPatel, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners relying upon
\n\tthe aforesaid documents and statements produced by respondent no.2
\n\tcontended that the liability existed on the date of issuance of the
\n\tcheque  dated 30\/6\/2002 had been discharged in its totality and
\n\thence filing of the complaint on 11\/10\/2002 was sheer abuse of
\n\tprocess of law.\n<\/p>\n
\tShri
\n\tPatel has further submitted that learned advocate for the respondent
\n\tno.2 would not be justified in  arguing that the amount was not sent
\n\tin time as the amount was remitted by demand drafts and the demand
\n\tdrafts delivered should amount to discharging liability in is
\n\ttotality as the demand drafts are acceptable mode of payment in the
\n\tcommercial transaction.\n<\/p>\n
\tShri
\n\tPatel, learned advocate for the petitioners relying upon a decision
\n\tof his Court in case of BHRATBHAI K. PATEL Vs. C.L. VERMA (SINCE
\n\tDECD) THORUGH P.O.A. SURJIT SINGH MACKER & ANR, reported in 2002
\n\t(2) GLR pg. 1713, contended that, the Court while exercising
\n\tdiscretion under section 482 Cr.P.C. has to appreciate the attempt
\n\tto rebut legal presumptions and if rebuttal is found to be
\n\tacceptable, then, the accused petitioners may not be unnecessarily
\n\tsubjected to rigors of criminal trial. The petition therefore may be
\n\tallowed qua all the surviving petitioners and the complaint in
\n\tquestion be quashed.\n<\/p>\n
\tShri
\n\tPatel, learned advocate for the petitioner relying upon a decision
\n\tin case of S.M.S PHARMACEUTICALS LTD Vs. NEETA BHALLA AND ANR.,
\n\treported in 2005 (3) G.L.H. pg. 513 contended that in case if
\n\tthe Court is not inclined to quash the complaint qua all, atleast
\n\tthe complaint in question is required to be quashed qua petitioner
\n\tnos. 5 to 9 as the complainant has made no averments indicating
\n\tattributes which would render them vicariously liable  under section
\n\t141 of N.I. Act.\n<\/p>\n
Learned
\n\tadvocate Shri Motiramani appearing for  respondent no.2 submitted
\n\tthat the proposition of law laid down in case of S.M.S.
\n\tPharmaceuticals Ltd  (supra) by the Apex Court cannot be disputed
\n\tand the Court, if inclined to quash the complaint qua the petitioner
\n\tnos. 5 to 9, may pass appropriate order, but for the rest of the
\n\tpetitioners, namely the company as well as the signatory namely
\n\taccused no.1 and accused no.3 the complaint may not be quashed.\n<\/p>\n
Relying
\n\tupon the decision of the Apex Court in case of M\/s M.M.T.C. Ltd,
\n\t& ANR Vs. M\/S MEDCHL CHEMICALS AND PHARMA (P) LTD & ANR,
\n\treported in 2001 AIR SCW 4793, Shri Motiramani  submitted that
\n\tthe  the complainant is not required to indicate in terms that their
\n\tsubsists liability on the date of filing of the complaint. Learned
\n\tadvocate for the respondent no.2 while answering the contention with
\n\tregard to discharge or not existing of liability on the part of the
\n\tpetitioners, relying upon aforesaid Supreme Court decision contended
\n\tthat the Court while exercising power under section 482 may not
\n\tundertake appreciation of evidence and therefore, on established
\n\tprinciple of law petition is required to be dismissed qua atleast
\n\tthose accused who are signatory and responsible for issuance of
\n\tcheques.\n<\/p>\n
\tLearned
\n\tadvocate for respondent no.2 invited this Court’s attention to page
\n\t100 of the compilation and submitted that as per item no.10 dated
\n\t10\/11\/2002 outstanding liability  is indicated and amount is
\n\tRs.13,61,069\/-. Learned advocate for respondent no.2 submitted that
\n\tthe affidavit in reply is filed and in that affidavit in reply
\n\trespondent no.2 has not accepted the say of the petitioners that
\n\tthere existed any liability when the complaint came to be filed. The
\n\tdenial on the part of respondent no.2 therefore act as  sufficient
\n\tground for non-suiting the petitioners so far as this petition is
\n\tconcerned, as under section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court would not
\n\tundertake appreciation of evidence and adjudicate upon rival
\n\tcontentions of the complainant as well as accused petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
\tThis
\n\tCourt has heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the
\n\tdocuments. The Court needs to be mindful of the fat that the
\n\tpetitioners have approached this Court invoking provision of section
\n\t482 Cr.P.C.  Exercise of discretion for quashment of complaint is to
\n\tbe based upon impeccable plea of sheer abuse of process of law and
\n\ttherefore, submission of learned advocate for the parties are
\n\trequired to be examined from the point as to whether there is an
\n\tabuse of process of law at the end of the complainant \/ respondent
\n\tno.2  herein above in filing this complaint.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\n\tdecision relied upon by learned advocate for respondent no.2 in case
\n\tof MMTC Ltd (supra) is containing the answer so far as the
\n\tsubmission with regard to non mentioning of payment mentioned in the
\n\treply to the notice is concerned. The Court is of the view that
\n\tpetitioners were not entitled to agitate on non disclosure of the
\n\tcontents of the reply to the notice unless & until it is
\n\timpeccably capable of indicating that filing of the complaint was
\n\tsheer abuse of process of law. The reply to the notice therefore is
\n\trequired to be examined. The Court at this stage needs to be mindful
\n\tof the fact that the Court is not to undertake any appreciation of
\n\tevidence. Therefore, the probative value of that document would not
\n\tbe pronounced upon at this stage. The document and reading of the
\n\tdocument as it is along with document in the form of entries therein
\n\thas collectively persuaded this Court to observe that the liability
\n\thad not been discharged as argued by learned advocate for the
\n\tpetitioners and in case if the said is discharged, then, it would be
\n\tfor the trial Court to appreciate the evidentiary value after
\n\trecording the evidence at length of both the sides, namely
\n\tcomplainant as well as accused. The defence of there exist no
\n\tliability would not be available while examining the plea for
\n\tquashment of the complaint based upon such a defence. The degree of
\n\timpeccability required for accepting such a plea being conspicuously
\n\tabsent, in the peculiar facts of the present case same would not
\n\tpersuade this Court for quashing of the complaint. The Court rather
\n\tis persuaded to observe that there exist or appears to be an attempt
\n\ton the part of the petitioners to avoid or evade their contractual
\n\tliability arising out of the terms of the contract for making
\n\tpayment in time and on failure of their part to pay the late payment
\n\tpenalty.  Be that as it may; the Court hasten to add here that the
\n\tCourt is not here to bind on either way as the Court is not
\n\texamining the matter for appreciating the evidence. The appreciation
\n\tof evidence being in the realm of trial Court, this Court under
\n\tsection 482 Cr.P.C. would restrain appreciating the evidence.
\n\tLearned advocate for the petitioners was not justified in relying
\n\tupon decision of this Court in case of Bharatbhai K. Patel (supra)
\n\tas the Court has in unequivocal terms observed that this rebuttal be
\n\totherwise was capable in light of impeccable defence put forward in
\n\tthe facts of this case, namely non existence of contract, lack of
\n\tprivity etc.  were the facts which weighed with the Court in
\n\taccepting submission on behalf of petitioner therein for quashment.
\n\tThis Court, therefore, is of the view that the facts  on that case
\n\tlaw is different than the facts in the present case and therefore
\n\tthe judgment relied upon by learned advocate for the petitioners
\n\twould be of no available to the petitioners. The petition, in my
\n\tview, therefore is required to be quashed qua the petitioner no.1
\n\tand petitioner no.4, i.e. the accused no.1 and accused no.3
\n\trespectively.\n<\/p>\n
\tThis
\n\tbring this Court to decide the matter qua other petitioners \/
\n\taccused.  As averred in the memo of complaint their liability for
\n\tissuance of cheques exist. But those averments in my view are not
\n\tsufficient to render them liable to be subjected to rigors of
\n\tcriminal trial and therefore in  light of the decision cited at the
\n\tBar in case of S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd (supra)  the other
\n\tpetitioners \/ directors who have not been named with their role in
\n\tthe complaint are required to be protected and accordingly the
\n\tcomplaint qua them would stand quashed. The petition is therefore
\n\tdisposed of as partly allowed. The complaint qua petitioner no.1 &
\n\t4, i.e. original accused no.1 and accused no.3 would survive and
\n\tcomplaint against rest of the petitioners \/ accused are quashed.
\n\tComplaint against petitioner no.3 \/ accused no.2 is abated. Rule
\n\tmade absolute to the said extent.\n<\/p>\n
\tShri
\n\tPatel, learned advocate for the petitioners at this stage requests
\n\tfor continuance of stay granted earlier qua petitioner nos. 1 &
\n\t4 \/ accused no.1 & 3 as the petition is not granted qua them.
\n\tThis request is strongly objected by learned advocate for the
\n\trespondent no.2. The objection is overruled.  The stay granted
\n\tearlier is therefore extended qua the petitioner nos. 1 & 4 \/
\n\taccused no.1 & 3, for a further period up to 8\/7\/2011.\n<\/p>\n
\t                                             [
\n\tS.R. BRAHMBHATT, J ]<\/p>\n
\/vgn<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Bholasingh vs The on 10 May, 2011 Author: S.R.Brahmbhatt,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.MA\/2927\/2005 12\/ 12 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 2927 of 2005 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT ================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to […]<\/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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-64367","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBholasingh vs The on 10 May, 2011 - 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\/bholasingh-vs-the-on-10-may-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bholasingh vs The on 10 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bholasingh-vs-the-on-10-may-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-05-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-08T03:43:24+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bholasingh-vs-the-on-10-may-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bholasingh-vs-the-on-10-may-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bholasingh vs The on 10 May, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-08T03:43:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bholasingh-vs-the-on-10-may-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2625,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bholasingh-vs-the-on-10-may-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bholasingh-vs-the-on-10-may-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bholasingh-vs-the-on-10-may-2011\",\"name\":\"Bholasingh vs The on 10 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-08T03:43:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bholasingh-vs-the-on-10-may-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bholasingh-vs-the-on-10-may-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bholasingh-vs-the-on-10-may-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bholasingh vs The on 10 May, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Bholasingh vs The on 10 May, 2011 - 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\/bholasingh-vs-the-on-10-may-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bholasingh vs The on 10 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bholasingh-vs-the-on-10-may-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-05-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-08T03:43:24+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bholasingh-vs-the-on-10-may-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bholasingh-vs-the-on-10-may-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bholasingh vs The on 10 May, 2011","datePublished":"2011-05-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-08T03:43:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bholasingh-vs-the-on-10-may-2011"},"wordCount":2625,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bholasingh-vs-the-on-10-may-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bholasingh-vs-the-on-10-may-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bholasingh-vs-the-on-10-may-2011","name":"Bholasingh vs The on 10 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-05-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-08T03:43:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bholasingh-vs-the-on-10-may-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bholasingh-vs-the-on-10-may-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bholasingh-vs-the-on-10-may-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bholasingh vs The on 10 May, 2011"}]},{"@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\/64367","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=64367"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64367\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=64367"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=64367"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=64367"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}