{"id":71820,"date":"2007-02-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-02-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-nath-agarwalla-vs-dhillon-transport-agency-on-28-february-2007"},"modified":"2015-05-27T12:57:19","modified_gmt":"2015-05-27T07:27:19","slug":"amar-nath-agarwalla-vs-dhillon-transport-agency-on-28-february-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-nath-agarwalla-vs-dhillon-transport-agency-on-28-february-2007","title":{"rendered":"Amar Nath Agarwalla vs Dhillon Transport Agency on 28 February, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Amar Nath Agarwalla vs Dhillon Transport Agency on 28 February, 2007<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: B.P. Singh, H.S. Bedi<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  1223-1224 of 2005\n\nPETITIONER:\nAmar Nath Agarwalla\n\nRESPONDENT:\nDhillon Transport Agency\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 28\/02\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nB.P. Singh &amp; H.S. Bedi\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered<\/p>\n<p>1. The appellant in these appeals by special leave is the landlord who<br \/>\nfiled a suit for eviction of the respondent tenant from the premises in<br \/>\nquestion. The tenancy was created in favour of the respondent firm which<br \/>\nconsisted of four partners.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. The eviction of the respondent was sought on the ground that the<br \/>\ndefendant had sub-let, assigned and\/or transferred possession of the said<br \/>\npremises and\/or part thereof to Dhillon Transport Quick Service and Dhillon<br \/>\nRoadways Corporation and others consent in writing of the plaintiff<br \/>\nlandlord. In its written statement the tenant denied the allegation of sub<br \/>\ntenancy and submitted that M\/s Dhillon Transport Agency, a partnership firm<br \/>\nwas originally the tenant. The partnership had four partners who carried on<br \/>\nbusiness in the name and style of Dhillon transport Agency. Since disputes<br \/>\nand differences arose amongst the partners, Title Suit No. 19 of 1991 was<br \/>\nfiled in the Court of the 1st Subordinate Judge at Patna and all matters<br \/>\nwere settled by compromise. Consequently. The firm was dissolved and one of<br \/>\nthe partners was given all the assets of the firm and he formed another<br \/>\nfirm with himself as one of the partners. It was averred that unless the<br \/>\ntenancy was transferred by such partner to a third party, it would not<br \/>\namount to sub-letting. The defendant therefore aserted that there was no<br \/>\nsub-letting since one of the partners, Ajit Singh continued to occupy the<br \/>\npremises having legal possession thereof.\n<\/p>\n<p>3. In his deposition PW-1, Ajit Singh deposed that the tenancy was<br \/>\noriginally created in favour of the firm of which he was one of the<br \/>\npartners. The firm was running a transport agency business in the suit<br \/>\npremises and had never inducted any sub tenant in the suit premises. In his<br \/>\ncorss examination it was elicited that the partnership firm originally<br \/>\nconsisting of four partners existed for about 35 to 40 years. He denied the<br \/>\nsuggestion that he was not looking after the affairs of the defendant and<br \/>\nthat it inducted other persons and\/or firm for carrying on business in the<br \/>\nsuit premises by the name of Dhillon Quick Transport Service or Dhillon<br \/>\nRoadways Corporation. He asserted that he looks after the affairs of the<br \/>\npartnership firm which is carrying on business in the premises of which he<br \/>\nis a partner.\n<\/p>\n<p>4. It appears that along with his written submission, the plaintiff filed<br \/>\ncertain documents which were not exhibited at the trial to prove sub-<br \/>\nletting. In our view those documents cannot be looked into since they were<br \/>\nnot put in evidence and the defendant had no opportunity of replying to<br \/>\nthose documents.\n<\/p>\n<p>5. The trial Court decreed the suit for eviction but its judgment and order<br \/>\nhas been set aside by the High Court. The High Court after appreciating the<br \/>\nevidence on record has found that since one of the partners of the original<br \/>\ntenant namely, the firm Dhillon Transport Agency, is still running his<br \/>\ntransport agency business in the same premises, it cannot be held that a<br \/>\nsub-tenancy has been created. The High Court, therefore, held that the<br \/>\nappellant had failed to prove sub-letting of premises by the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>6. In the Special Leave Petition filed by the appellants two questions of<br \/>\nlaw have been formulated which read as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>(a) If it is an admitted fact that the firm (with four partners) in favour<br \/>\nof which lease\/tenancy was granted as dissolved, as a result whereof the<br \/>\nthree resigning partners devolved and\/or transferred and\/or assigned their<br \/>\ninterest in the tenancy\/lease rights in favour of one of th partner who<br \/>\ncontinued as owner of the firm, whether such an<br \/>\nassignment\/devolution\/transfer of the lease rights without obtaining the<br \/>\nconsent of the landlord ipso facto amounts to sub-letting by the resigning<br \/>\npartners?\n<\/p>\n<p>(b) If dissolution of the partnership firm and devolution and\/or transfer<br \/>\nand\/or assignment of the same by the resigning partners in favour of the<br \/>\nsurviving partner is an admitted fact, whether any further evidence is<br \/>\nrequired to be submitted by the plaintiff-landlord to establish sub-<br \/>\nletting?\n<\/p>\n<p>7. As would be apparent from a mere reading of the submissions urged on<br \/>\nbehalf of the appellant, after dissolution of the firm all the rights of<br \/>\nthe tenant firm including tenancy rights had been transferred to one of the<br \/>\npartners who has continued as the owner of the firm in occupation. The<br \/>\nquestion is whether carrying on business by one of the partners of the firm<br \/>\nwhich was originally the tenant amounts to sub-letting of the premises by<br \/>\nthe original tenant.\n<\/p>\n<p>8. In Murli Dhar v. Chuni Lal and Ors., (1969) RCR 563 this Court had<br \/>\nrepelled the contention that the old firm and the new firm being two<br \/>\ndifferent legal entities, the occupation of the shop by the new firm was<br \/>\noccupation by the legal entity other than the original tenant and such<br \/>\noccupation proved sub-letting. Repelling the contention this Court held:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;This contention is entirely without substance. A firm, unless expressly<br \/>\nprovided for the purpose of any statute which is not the case here, is not<br \/>\na legal entity. The firm name is only a compendious way of describing the<br \/>\npartners of the firm. Therefore, occupation by a firm is only occupation by<br \/>\nits partners. Here the firms have a common partner. Hence the occupation<br \/>\nhas been by one of the original tenants.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>9. <a href=\"\/doc\/967669\/\">In Mohammedkasam Haji Gulambhai v. Bakerali Fatehali (Dead)<\/a> by LRs.,<br \/>\nReported in [1998] 7 SCC 608 this Court observed:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;There is absolute prohibition on the tenant from sub-letting, assigning or<br \/>\ntransferring in any other manner his interest in the tenanted premises.<br \/>\nThere appears to be no way around this subject of course if there is any<br \/>\ncontract to the contrary between the landlord and the tenant. In a<br \/>\npartnership where the tenant is a partner, he retains legal possession of<br \/>\nthe premises as a partnership is a compendium of the names of all the<br \/>\npartners. In a partnership, the tenant does not divest himself of his right<br \/>\nin the premises. On the question of sub-letting etc. the law is now very<br \/>\nexplicit. There is prohibition in absolute terms on the tenant from sub-<br \/>\nletting, assignment or disposition of his interest in the tenanted<br \/>\npremises.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>10. The same principle was reiterated by this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1911234\/\">Mahendra Saree<br \/>\nEmporium (II) v. G.V. Srinivasa Murthy,<\/a> reported in [2005] 1 SCC 481<br \/>\nwherein this Court held:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;The mere fact that another person is allowed to use the premises<br \/>\n\twhile the lesses retains the legal possession is not enough to<br \/>\n\tcreate a sub lease. Thus, the thrust is, as laid down by this<br \/>\n\tCourt, on finding out who is in legal possession of the premises.<br \/>\n\tSo long as the legal possession remains with the tenant the mere<br \/>\n\tfactum of the tenant having entered into partnership for the<br \/>\n\tpurpose of carrying on the business in the tenancy premises would<br \/>\n\tnot amount to sub-letting. <a href=\"\/doc\/1684919\/\">In Parvinder Singh v. Renu Gautam<\/a> a<br \/>\n\tthree-Judge Bench of this Court devised the test in these terms:<br \/>\n\t(SCC P. 799, Para 8)<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;If the tenant is actively associated with the partnership business<br \/>\n\tand retains the use and control over the tenancy premises with him,<br \/>\n\tmay be along with the partners, the tenant may not be said to have<br \/>\n\tparted with possession. However, if the user and control of the<br \/>\n\ttenancy premises has been parted with and deed of partnership has<br \/>\n\tbeen drawn up as an indirect method of collecting the consideration<br \/>\n\tfor creation of sub-tenancy or for providing a cloak or cover to<br \/>\n\tconceal a transaction not permitted by law, the Court is not<br \/>\n\testopped from tearing the veil of partnership and finding out the<br \/>\n\treal nature of transaction entered into between the tenant and the<br \/>\n\talleged sub-tenant.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>11. Applying these principle to the instant case, it is patent that one of<br \/>\nthe partners of the firm which was the original tenant has continued in<br \/>\nlegal possession of the premises as a partner of another firm constituted<br \/>\nafter dissolution of the original firm. Thus the legal possession is<br \/>\nretained by a partner who was one of the original tenants. In these<br \/>\ncircumstances, we find no fault with the finding of the High Court there<br \/>\nwas no sub-letting of the premises and hence the suit for eviction deserved<br \/>\nto be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>12. There is not merit in these appeals and the same are accordingly<br \/>\ndismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Amar Nath Agarwalla vs Dhillon Transport Agency on 28 February, 2007 Bench: B.P. Singh, H.S. Bedi CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1223-1224 of 2005 PETITIONER: Amar Nath Agarwalla RESPONDENT: Dhillon Transport Agency DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28\/02\/2007 BENCH: B.P. Singh &amp; H.S. Bedi JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT The Judgment of the Court was delivered 1. [&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-71820","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>Amar Nath Agarwalla vs Dhillon Transport Agency on 28 February, 2007 - 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\/amar-nath-agarwalla-vs-dhillon-transport-agency-on-28-february-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Amar Nath Agarwalla vs Dhillon Transport Agency on 28 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-nath-agarwalla-vs-dhillon-transport-agency-on-28-february-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-02-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-27T07:27:19+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amar-nath-agarwalla-vs-dhillon-transport-agency-on-28-february-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amar-nath-agarwalla-vs-dhillon-transport-agency-on-28-february-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Amar Nath Agarwalla vs Dhillon Transport Agency on 28 February, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-27T07:27:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amar-nath-agarwalla-vs-dhillon-transport-agency-on-28-february-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1414,\"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\\\/amar-nath-agarwalla-vs-dhillon-transport-agency-on-28-february-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amar-nath-agarwalla-vs-dhillon-transport-agency-on-28-february-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amar-nath-agarwalla-vs-dhillon-transport-agency-on-28-february-2007\",\"name\":\"Amar Nath Agarwalla vs Dhillon Transport Agency on 28 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-27T07:27:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amar-nath-agarwalla-vs-dhillon-transport-agency-on-28-february-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amar-nath-agarwalla-vs-dhillon-transport-agency-on-28-february-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amar-nath-agarwalla-vs-dhillon-transport-agency-on-28-february-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Amar Nath Agarwalla vs Dhillon Transport Agency on 28 February, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Amar Nath Agarwalla vs Dhillon Transport Agency on 28 February, 2007 - 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\/amar-nath-agarwalla-vs-dhillon-transport-agency-on-28-february-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Amar Nath Agarwalla vs Dhillon Transport Agency on 28 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-nath-agarwalla-vs-dhillon-transport-agency-on-28-february-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-02-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-27T07:27:19+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-nath-agarwalla-vs-dhillon-transport-agency-on-28-february-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-nath-agarwalla-vs-dhillon-transport-agency-on-28-february-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Amar Nath Agarwalla vs Dhillon Transport Agency on 28 February, 2007","datePublished":"2007-02-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-27T07:27:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-nath-agarwalla-vs-dhillon-transport-agency-on-28-february-2007"},"wordCount":1414,"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\/amar-nath-agarwalla-vs-dhillon-transport-agency-on-28-february-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-nath-agarwalla-vs-dhillon-transport-agency-on-28-february-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-nath-agarwalla-vs-dhillon-transport-agency-on-28-february-2007","name":"Amar Nath Agarwalla vs Dhillon Transport Agency on 28 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-02-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-27T07:27:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-nath-agarwalla-vs-dhillon-transport-agency-on-28-february-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-nath-agarwalla-vs-dhillon-transport-agency-on-28-february-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-nath-agarwalla-vs-dhillon-transport-agency-on-28-february-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Amar Nath Agarwalla vs Dhillon Transport Agency on 28 February, 2007"}]},{"@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\/71820","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=71820"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/71820\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=71820"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=71820"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=71820"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}