{"id":70483,"date":"1994-09-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1994-09-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pankaj-bhargava-vs-mohinder-nath-on-2-september-1994"},"modified":"2015-08-11T17:18:48","modified_gmt":"2015-08-11T11:48:48","slug":"pankaj-bhargava-vs-mohinder-nath-on-2-september-1994","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pankaj-bhargava-vs-mohinder-nath-on-2-september-1994","title":{"rendered":"Pankaj Bhargava vs Mohinder Nath on 2 September, 1994"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Pankaj Bhargava vs Mohinder Nath on 2 September, 1994<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1994 SCC  (6)\t 4, \t  JT 1994 (5)\t468<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: B Jeevan Reddy<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Jeevan Reddy, B.P. (J)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nPANKAJ BHARGAVA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMOHINDER NATH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT02\/09\/1994\n\nBENCH:\nJEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)\nBENCH:\nJEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)\nSEN, S.C. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1994 SCC  (6)\t 4\t  JT 1994 (5)\t468\n 1994 SCALE  (3)946\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nB.P JEEVAN REDDY, J.- This contempt petition is filed by the<br \/>\nappellant-landlords  in\t <a href=\"\/doc\/84188\/\">Pankaj Bhargava v.  Mohinder  Nath1<\/a><br \/>\ncomplaining that the respondents, Shri Ram Prakash and\tShri<br \/>\nMohinder Nath have violated the undertaking given by them to<br \/>\nthis Court by not vacating the house as undertaken by them.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.   The petitioners (landlords) applied under Section 21 of<br \/>\nthe  Delhi Rent Control Act on 5-4-1978\t seeking  permission<br \/>\nfor  creating  tenancy for a limited period  of\t five  years<br \/>\nwhich was allowed on 6-4-1978.\tSince the tenants failed  to<br \/>\nvacate\tat  the\t end of five years&#8217;  period,  the  landlords<br \/>\napplied\t  to  the  Rent\t Controller  for  putting  them\t  in<br \/>\npossession   of\t  the  premises.    The\t  respondent-tenants<br \/>\ncontested the said application inter alia on the ground that<br \/>\na  new\ttenancy\t was  created  with  effect  from   6-4-1983<br \/>\nimmediately  upon  the expiry of the  original\tfive  years&#8217;<br \/>\nperiod.\t The Rent Controller rejected all the defences taken<br \/>\nby  the\t respondent-tenants  and  allowed  the\tpetitioners&#8217;<br \/>\napplication which was affirmed by the Rent Control  Tribunal<br \/>\non  appeal.   However,\ton second  appeal,  the\t High  Court<br \/>\nreversed the orders of the Rent Controller and the Appellate<br \/>\nAuthority  holding  that the very creation of  the  original<br \/>\ntenancy\t was an illegal one.  Accordingly, it dismissed\t the<br \/>\nlandlords&#8217;  application\t for  possession.   The\t petitioner-<br \/>\nlandlords approached this Court by<br \/>\n1 (1991) 1 SCC 556<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">6<\/span><br \/>\nway  of\t the aforesaid civil appeal which was allowed  by  a<br \/>\nDivision Bench of this Court by its judgment and order dated<br \/>\n11  12-1990.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.   On 17-12-1990, the respondent-tenants applied for\ttime<br \/>\nto vacate the premises.\t They were permitted to continue  to<br \/>\noccupy\tthe  premises till 30-4-1991 subject  to  the  usual<br \/>\nundertaking  to be filed within two weeks.  The\t respondent,<br \/>\nRam  Prakash executed and furnished an undertaking  to\tthis<br \/>\nCourt  to vacate the premises and to hand over the  same  to<br \/>\nthe landlords on or before 30-4-1991.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.   On\t 3-5-1991, the landlords filed the present  contempt<br \/>\npetition complaining that the tenants have failed to  vacate<br \/>\nand  hand  over\t the .premises by  30-4-1991  as  per  their<br \/>\nundertaking.   Notices\twere  issued  and  served  upon\t the<br \/>\nrespondents.   Mohinder\t Nath took up the plea that  he\t had<br \/>\nvacated\t the premises as far back as 1982 and was no  longer<br \/>\nconcerned with the premises since then.\t The respondent, Ram<br \/>\nPrakash\t took  up the plea that a new  tenancy\twas  created<br \/>\nbetween\t the parties by mutual agreement on 15-4-1991  where<br \/>\nunder  not  only the rent was enhanced but  certain  amounts<br \/>\nwere  also  paid to the landlords by him.   The\t petitioners<br \/>\ndenied\tany such agreement and the receipt of monies.\tThey<br \/>\ncharacterised it as a forgery and fabrication.\tInasmuch  as<br \/>\nthe  respondent,  Ram Prakash filed  certain  affidavits  in<br \/>\nsupport of his plea, this Court by its order dated 20-8-1991<br \/>\ndirected the District Judge to enquire into the truth of the<br \/>\nclaim put forward by respondent, Ram Prakash, and to  record<br \/>\nand submit a firm finding in that behalf.  Accordingly,\t the<br \/>\nlearned District Judge took up the enquiry.  The respondent,<br \/>\nRam  Prakash  examined as many as 19  witnesses\t before\t the<br \/>\nlearned District Judge and filed a good number of documents.<br \/>\nThe  petitioner land lords also examined  several  witnesses<br \/>\nand  produced  certain documents in support of\ttheir  case.<br \/>\nAfter  an elaborate consideration of the said material,\t the<br \/>\nlearned\t District Judge submitted his findings.\t His  report<br \/>\nruns into as many as 71 pages.\tHe found that the claim\t set<br \/>\nup by respondent, Ram Prakash, was false, that no such fresh<br \/>\ntenancy was created on 15-4-1991 nor any amount paid by\t him<br \/>\nto the landlords as alleged by him.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.   Respondent,  Ram Prakash filed objections to  the\tsaid<br \/>\nreport.\t   We  have  heard  the\t learned  counsel  for\t the<br \/>\npetitioner-landlords  and  Shri Ram  Prakash,  appearing  in<br \/>\nperson.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.   It\t may be noticed that this is not the first  occasion<br \/>\nthat  the tenant has set up a new tenancy.  A  similar\tplea<br \/>\nwas set up by him in the Rent Control proceedings, as stated<br \/>\nhereinbefore, which was rejected by both the Rent Controller<br \/>\nand  the Appellate Authority.  The High Court no doubt\theld<br \/>\nin  favour  of\tthe  tenants  but  on  a  different   ground<br \/>\naltogether.   It did not uphold the plea of  fresh  tenancy.<br \/>\nThe  judgment of this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/84188\/\">Pankaj Bhargava\tv.  Mohinder<br \/>\nNath1<\/a> shows that the said plea of new tenancy (said to\thave<br \/>\nbeen  created  with  effect from  6-4-1983)  was  not  ever,<br \/>\npressed or argued.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.   After  failing in this Court in the said civil  appeal,<br \/>\nthe respondent, Ram Prakash applied for extension of time to<br \/>\nvacate\tthe premises which was granted, as  aforesaid,\ttill<br \/>\n30-4-1991 subject to filing of usual undertaking,<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">7<\/span><br \/>\nwhich he did, whereunder he undertook to vacate and  deliver<br \/>\npossession  to\tthe landlords on or  before  30-4-1991.\t  If<br \/>\nindeed a fresh tenancy agreement was arrived at between\t the<br \/>\nparties\t on 15-4-1991, as alleged by him, the  most  natural<br \/>\nthing would have been to report the said fact to this  Court<br \/>\nand to request that he may be discharged from the obligation<br \/>\nundertaken by him in the undertaking furnished by him.\t Ram<br \/>\nPrakash\t did nothing to this sort.  Only after the  contempt<br \/>\npetition  was  filed  and notice was served  upon  him\t(the<br \/>\nnotice\twas admittedly served upon him on 4-6-1991) he\tcame<br \/>\nforward\t with  the  plea  on 1-7-1991  that  a\tnew  tenancy<br \/>\nagreement  was\tarrived\t at between  the  parties  and\tthat<br \/>\ncertain\t payments  were made by him to the  landlords.\t The<br \/>\nlandlords  have\t denied\t the same;  they  say  that  certain<br \/>\namounts\t were credited in their bank account  without  their<br \/>\nknowledge and consent.After an\t   elaborate  enquiry,\t the<br \/>\nlearned District Judge has recorded the following findings:,<br \/>\n\t      &#8220;(1)  Petitioners\t or O.P Bhargava  had  never<br \/>\n\t      given any advertisement on or about  17-3-1991<br \/>\n\t      for reletting the premises;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t      (2)   The petitioners or O.P. Bhargava had not<br \/>\n\t      entered  into any agreement for reletting\t the<br \/>\n\t      premises to respondent Ram Prakash on or about<br \/>\n\t      11-4-1991 or on 15-4-1991;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t      (3)   Pankaj Bhargava or O.P. Bhargava has not<br \/>\n\t      executed lease deed dated 15-4-1991  photostat<br \/>\n\t      copy  of\twhich  is marked D  or\tcarbon\tcopy<br \/>\n\t      marked E on 15-4-1991 and these are not signed<br \/>\n\t      by  him at any of the places purported  to  be<br \/>\n\t      signed by them;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t      (4)   They  had not received any\tpayments  by<br \/>\n\t      cash  or by cheque from Ram Prakash  on  15-4-<br \/>\n\t      1991;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t      (5)   Receipts Exts.  R-5 to R-8 had not\tbeen<br \/>\n\t      signed  either by Pankaj Bhargava or  by\tO.P.<br \/>\n\t      Bhargava.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t      (6)   Affidavit  Ext.  R- 12 is not signed  by<br \/>\n\t      O.P.  Bhargava at points PA- 1, PA-2 and\tPA-3<br \/>\n\t      and was not sworn by him before the  Executive<br \/>\n\t      Magistrate.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t      (7)   O.P.  Bhargava  had\t not  purchased\t the<br \/>\n\t      stamp  papers used in lease deed marked D\t and<br \/>\n\t      marked  E\t and had not signed  either  in\t the<br \/>\n\t      stamp vendor&#8217;s register or on the back of\t the<br \/>\n\t      stamps;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t      (8)   Documents  marked  D and marked  E\thave<br \/>\n\t      been  fabricated by Ram Prakash  in  collusion<br \/>\n\t      with RW-11 Sukhdev Raj and they also had filed<br \/>\n\t      false  affidavits\t in support thereof  in\t the<br \/>\n\t      Supreme Court of India.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>The respondent, Ram Prakash has filed his objections to\t the<br \/>\nsaid report and has reiterated the same before us.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.   It\t must  be remembered that contempt  proceedings\t are<br \/>\nsummary proceedings.  We have gone through the report of the<br \/>\nlearned\t District  Judge  which is  an\telaborate  and\twell<br \/>\nconsidered   one.   He\thas  given  elaborate  reasons\t for<br \/>\nrejecting  the case set up by respondent, Ram  Prakash.\t  No<br \/>\nacceptable  objections or reasons have been assigned by\t the<br \/>\nrespondent not to<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">8<\/span><br \/>\naccept\tthe  report  of the  learned  District\tJudge.\t The<br \/>\nrespondent merely reiterated that his own evidence and\tthat<br \/>\nof  his\t witnesses should be believed in preference  to\t the<br \/>\nevidence  of the petitioner-landlords, their father, Dr\t O.P<br \/>\nBhargava or their witnesses.  We are not prepared to  agree.<br \/>\nThe  findings  recorded by the learned District\t Judge\tshow<br \/>\nthat  not only the respondent has fabricated  the  so-called<br \/>\nagreement  but\thas also tried to support  it  by  producing<br \/>\nother  false  documents and witnesses.\tEven  the  affidavit<br \/>\nsaid to have been sworn to by Dr O.P Bhargava (father of the<br \/>\nlandlords)   before  the  Executive  Magistrate\t  has\tbeen<br \/>\ndisbelieved  by the learned District Judge.   The  Advocate,<br \/>\nShri  J.P  Singh  who is said to  have\tidentified  Dr\tO.P.<br \/>\nBhargava before the Executive Magistrate was examined as RW-<br \/>\n3 before the learned District Judge but his evidence too has<br \/>\nnot been accepted.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.   The several submissions made by Shri Ram Prakash before<br \/>\nus  were  also urged before the learned District  Judge\t and<br \/>\nhave been rejected and, in our opinion, rightly.  It is\t not<br \/>\nwithout significance that none of the advocates who appeared<br \/>\nfor the parties in the original or appellate court or in the<br \/>\nHigh Court and Supreme Court have been apprised of the\tsaid<br \/>\ntenancy\t agreement.   The agreement is put forward  for\t the<br \/>\nfirst  time  on 1-7-199 1. The whole story appears to  be  a<br \/>\nmade-up one and is unacceptable.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.  It may be noticed that by the aforesaid order dated 20-<br \/>\n8-1991\tmade in these proceedings, this Court  had  directed<br \/>\nthe respondent, Ram Prakash to vacate the suit premises\t and<br \/>\nto hand over the vacant possession of the tenanted  premises<br \/>\nto the landlord within three weeks from the date of the said<br \/>\norder.\tIt was, however, directed that the landlords  shall,<br \/>\nafter  getting vacant possession of the premises,  keep\t the<br \/>\nsame  vacant and shall not let out or transfer or part\twith<br \/>\nthe possession of the suit premises in any manner whatsoever<br \/>\nuntil further orders of this Court.  It is stated before  us<br \/>\nthat the respondent vacated the premises accordingly and the<br \/>\nlandlords   have   taken   possession\tthereof.    In\t the<br \/>\ncircumstances,\tno directions are necessary with respect  to<br \/>\nthe delivery of the possession.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.  Inasmuch  as the respondent, Ram Prakash  has  violated<br \/>\nthe  order of this Court dated 17-12-1990 and  came  forward<br \/>\nwith a false case and tried to support the same by producing<br \/>\nfabricated  documents,\the  is held guilty  of\tcontempt  of<br \/>\ncourt.\tHaving regard to all the facts and circumstances  of<br \/>\nthe  case, the respondent, Ram Prakash is sentenced  to\t two<br \/>\nweeks&#8217;\timprisonment in addition to a fine of Rs  2000.\t  In<br \/>\ncase,  the  fine is not paid within 15 days from  today,  he<br \/>\nshall suffer further imprisonment for another two weeks.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.  Contempt Petition is ordered accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">10<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Pankaj Bhargava vs Mohinder Nath on 2 September, 1994 Equivalent citations: 1994 SCC (6) 4, JT 1994 (5) 468 Author: B Jeevan Reddy Bench: Jeevan Reddy, B.P. (J) PETITIONER: PANKAJ BHARGAVA Vs. RESPONDENT: MOHINDER NATH DATE OF JUDGMENT02\/09\/1994 BENCH: JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) BENCH: JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) SEN, S.C. (J) [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-70483","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Pankaj Bhargava vs Mohinder Nath on 2 September, 1994 - 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\/pankaj-bhargava-vs-mohinder-nath-on-2-september-1994\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pankaj Bhargava vs Mohinder Nath on 2 September, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pankaj-bhargava-vs-mohinder-nath-on-2-september-1994\" \/>\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=\"1994-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-11T11:48:48+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\\\/pankaj-bhargava-vs-mohinder-nath-on-2-september-1994#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pankaj-bhargava-vs-mohinder-nath-on-2-september-1994\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pankaj Bhargava vs Mohinder Nath on 2 September, 1994\",\"datePublished\":\"1994-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-11T11:48:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pankaj-bhargava-vs-mohinder-nath-on-2-september-1994\"},\"wordCount\":1729,\"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\\\/pankaj-bhargava-vs-mohinder-nath-on-2-september-1994#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pankaj-bhargava-vs-mohinder-nath-on-2-september-1994\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pankaj-bhargava-vs-mohinder-nath-on-2-september-1994\",\"name\":\"Pankaj Bhargava vs Mohinder Nath on 2 September, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1994-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-11T11:48:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pankaj-bhargava-vs-mohinder-nath-on-2-september-1994#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pankaj-bhargava-vs-mohinder-nath-on-2-september-1994\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pankaj-bhargava-vs-mohinder-nath-on-2-september-1994#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pankaj Bhargava vs Mohinder Nath on 2 September, 1994\"}]},{\"@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":"Pankaj Bhargava vs Mohinder Nath on 2 September, 1994 - 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\/pankaj-bhargava-vs-mohinder-nath-on-2-september-1994","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pankaj Bhargava vs Mohinder Nath on 2 September, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pankaj-bhargava-vs-mohinder-nath-on-2-september-1994","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1994-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-11T11:48:48+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\/pankaj-bhargava-vs-mohinder-nath-on-2-september-1994#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pankaj-bhargava-vs-mohinder-nath-on-2-september-1994"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pankaj Bhargava vs Mohinder Nath on 2 September, 1994","datePublished":"1994-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-11T11:48:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pankaj-bhargava-vs-mohinder-nath-on-2-september-1994"},"wordCount":1729,"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\/pankaj-bhargava-vs-mohinder-nath-on-2-september-1994#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pankaj-bhargava-vs-mohinder-nath-on-2-september-1994","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pankaj-bhargava-vs-mohinder-nath-on-2-september-1994","name":"Pankaj Bhargava vs Mohinder Nath on 2 September, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1994-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-11T11:48:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pankaj-bhargava-vs-mohinder-nath-on-2-september-1994#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pankaj-bhargava-vs-mohinder-nath-on-2-september-1994"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pankaj-bhargava-vs-mohinder-nath-on-2-september-1994#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pankaj Bhargava vs Mohinder Nath on 2 September, 1994"}]},{"@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\/70483","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=70483"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70483\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=70483"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=70483"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=70483"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}