{"id":80630,"date":"2010-08-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-a-p-hordiwala-co-vs-dr-rustam-j-patel-on-31-august-2010"},"modified":"2016-04-19T13:29:32","modified_gmt":"2016-04-19T07:59:32","slug":"ms-a-p-hordiwala-co-vs-dr-rustam-j-patel-on-31-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-a-p-hordiwala-co-vs-dr-rustam-j-patel-on-31-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"M\/S.A.P.Hordiwala & Co vs Dr.Rustam J. Patel on 31 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S.A.P.Hordiwala & Co vs Dr.Rustam J. Patel on 31 August, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: R. C. Chavan<\/div>\n
                                       1         CRA 336-09 JUDGMENT\n\n    Anand\n                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                                                                     \n                 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.336 OF 2009\n\n\n\n\n                                             \n            1.    M\/s.A.P.Hordiwala & Co. ..Applicants\n                  a registered Partnership Firm\n                  at No.24, 2nd Pasta Lane, Colaba,\n                  Mumbai   400 005.\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n            2.    Mrs. Viloo S. Billimoria\n\n            3.    Sorabjee N. Billimoria\n\n\n\n\n                                   \n                  (since deceased)\n\n            4.\n                          \n                  Ardeshir S. Billimoria,\n                  2, 3 and 4 being partners\n                  of Applicant No.1\n                         \n                  residing at Cumballa Crest,\n                  42-A, Pedder Road,\n                  Bombay   400 026.\n              \n\n                  presently residing at\n                  501, Neel Sagar,\n           \n\n\n\n                  28th Road, T.P.S.3\n                  Bandra (West)\n                  Mumbai    400 050.\n\n\n\n\n\n                         V\/s.\n\n            1.    Dr.Rustam J. Patel          ..Respondents\n\n            2.    Ms.Homai Nadir Mody\n\n\n\n\n\n            3.    Ms. Navaz Vahadur Mody\n\n            4.    Diniyar M. Gamadia\n\n            5.    Miss. Dilbur Rustom Patel\n\n            6.    Mrs. Feroja Adi Cooper\n\n            7.    Sam Panek Golla\n\n\n\n                                             ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 16:22:55 :::\n                                    2             CRA 336-09 JUDGMENT\n\n          All Trustees of Seth F.M.Patel\n          Agiary Charity Trust, having\n          their office at 24-26,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                     \n          Dalal Street, Fort,\n          Mumbai   400 001.\n\n\n\n\n                                             \n     Mr.Chirag Balsara i\/b.M\/s.Maneksha & Sethna,\n     Advocate, for the Applicants\n     Mr.R.A.Mirza, Advocate, for the Respondents\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n     CORAM                              :    R.C.CHAVAN, J.\n\n     JUDGMENT RESERVED ON               :    4TH AUGUST, 2010\n\n\n\n\n                                 \n     JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON             :    31ST AUGUST, 2010\n\n\n     JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
     .          This Revision Application is directed<\/p>\n
     against Judgment of the Appellate Bench of the<\/p>\n
     Court of Small Causes upholding the decree of<\/p>\n
     ejectment    of   the   Applicants           passed          by      the<\/p>\n
     learned Trial Judge in RAE Suit No.1298 of<\/p>\n
     1968.\n<\/p>\n
     2.         According    to        the   parties,            on       24th<\/p>\n
     September,     1856     one        Framjee         Nusserwanjee<\/p>\n
     leased out with effect from 1st January, 1855<\/p>\n
     to one Cammoo Yacoob a 100 x 30 yards piece of<\/p>\n
     land presumably with a godown bearing No.28 at<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:22:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                    3            CRA 336-09 JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
     Colaba, Mumbai for a period of 99 years.                            The<\/p>\n
     Lease Deed also gave an option to said Cammoo<\/p>\n
     Yacoob to seek renewal of lease for a further<\/p>\n
     period of 99 years.        It is not in dispute that<\/p>\n
     the   Plaintiff           trust     are      successors               in<\/p>\n
     interest of said Framjee Nusserwanjee and the<\/p>\n
     interest    of   Cammoo    Yacoob      fell       upon        Cammoo<\/p>\n
     Yacoob     Charitable        Trust.           The         original<\/p>\n
     Defendant Nos.1 to 7 were the trustees of the<\/p>\n
     said Cammoo Yacoob Charitable Trust.\n<\/p>\n
     3.         The Plaintiffs claimed that the lease<\/p>\n
     of Cammoo Yacoob Charitable Trust expired on<\/p>\n
     1st January, 1954.        Yet the lessees continued<\/p>\n
     to possess the property.              By notice dated 5th<\/p>\n
     October,    1960,   the      lessors       terminated               the<\/p>\n
     tenancy,    if   any,   of    the     lessees,          that        is,<\/p>\n
     Cammoo Yacoob Charitable Trust and by notice<\/p>\n
     dated 20th June, 1966 called upon the tenants<\/p>\n
     to vacate the premises.             It was also alleged<\/p>\n
     that the tenants had committed breach of terms<\/p>\n
     of the lease by replacing some doors, roofs,<\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:22:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                       4              CRA 336-09 JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
     plastering      of     walls    and     flooring            etc.           By<\/p>\n
     notice dated 23rd December, 1967 the lessors<\/p>\n
     called     upon       the     tenants        to       rectify            the<\/p>\n
     breaches.         The       lessors        also       alleged            the<\/p>\n
     tenants were in arrears of rent and permitted<\/p>\n
     increases and therefore, by the Suit filed in<\/p>\n
     the   year      1968,        sought     ejectment               of       the<\/p>\n
     tenants,       that    is,     Cammoo      Yacoob          Charitable<\/p>\n
     Trust.\n<\/p>\n
     4.         By an amendment, the landlords also<\/p>\n
     alleged    that       Cammoo    Yacoob       Charitable              Trust<\/p>\n
     had   unlawfully        sublet       the     premises            to      the<\/p>\n
     present Applicants with effect from 25th March,<\/p>\n
     1994 and therefore, sought their ejectment.\n<\/p>\n
     5.         A    similar        Suit     was       filed          against<\/p>\n
     Cammoo    Yacoob       Charitable       Trust          for       another<\/p>\n
     plot of land bearing No.27.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n     6.         By     Written       Statement,            the        present\n\n     Applicants, that is, the Defendant Nos.8 to 11<\/span>\n\n\n\n\n                                                 ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 16:22:55 :::<\/span>\n                                  5           CRA 336-09 JUDGMENT\n\n<\/pre>\n
     in the Suit, claimed to have been in exclusive<\/p>\n
     and an interrupted possession of the premises<\/p>\n
     since 1953 and therefore, claimed protection<\/p>\n
     under the Bombay Rent Act.\n<\/p>\n
     7.         The learned Trial Judge decided both<\/p>\n
     the Suits filed by the landlords by a common<\/p>\n
     Judgment.     As far as the present Applicants<\/p>\n
     are concerned, the learned Trial Judge held<\/p>\n
     that the unlawful subletting to the present<\/p>\n
     Applicants was proved and therefore, held that<\/p>\n
     the   landlords      were       entitled       to        recover<\/p>\n
     possession of the suit premises.                      Both the<\/p>\n
     Cammoo Yacoob Charitable Trust and the sub-\n<\/p>\n
     tenants,     that   is,   the     present        Applicants’<\/p>\n
     appealed and these Appeals were decided by the<\/p>\n
     Appellate Bench by a common Judgment which is<\/p>\n
     impugned in this Revision Application by the<\/p>\n
     Applicants    alone.      Cammoo    Yacoob         Charitable<\/p>\n
     Trust or its trustees, who were the original<\/p>\n
     Defendant Nos.1 to 6 have not questioned the<\/p>\n
     said Judgment.\n<\/p>\n
                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:22:56 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                     6             CRA 336-09 JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
     8.           I have heard the learned Counsel for<\/p>\n
     the parties and also have gone through their<\/p>\n
     written submissions, in order to find out if<\/p>\n
     the     Courts     below     have     erred       in     recording<\/p>\n
     findings which were untenable or perverse or<\/p>\n
     if    they     had    committed       any        illegality            by<\/p>\n
     looking into inadmissible evidence or refusing<\/p>\n
     to    look    into    admissible      evidence.              In      the<\/p>\n
     absence<\/p>\n
                  of any material to show that not the<\/p>\n
     Respondents herein, but some one else, were<\/p>\n
     the   successors       in    interest       of    the      original<\/p>\n
     lessors, the          applicants’ challenge to their<\/p>\n
     capacity      to      sue    the    applicants            and        the<\/p>\n
     original lessors was rightly repelled by the<\/p>\n
     Courts       below.         Incidently,          the       original<\/p>\n
     lessees, that is the trustees of Cammoo Yacoob<\/p>\n
     Charitable Trust, had accepted the Respondents<\/p>\n
     as    landlords       in    respect     of       the     property.\n<\/p>\n
     Though, Lease Deed dated 24th September, 1856<\/p>\n
     would    have    enabled     Cammoo     Yacoob         Charitable<\/p>\n
     Trust to seek renewal and though the trustees<\/p>\n
     claimed that there were negotiations between<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:22:56 :::<\/span>
\n                                         7               CRA 336-09 JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
     the    trustees       and    the       landlords.              There         is<\/p>\n
     nothing on record to show that the lease was<\/p>\n
     renewed for a further period of 99 years or<\/p>\n
     that    the      landlords             had     agreed             to       the<\/p>\n
     continuation of Cammoo Yacoob Charitable Trust<\/p>\n
     as tenants.         The Respondents had specifically<\/p>\n
     issued notice to the lessees on 5th October,<\/p>\n
     1960 terminating the lease and on 20th June,<\/p>\n
     1966 calling upon them to vacate the premises.\n<\/p>\n
     Thus,    it    is     clear    that          the     possession              of<\/p>\n
     lessees       after    the    expiry          of      lease          on      1st<\/p>\n
     January, 1954 was only as statutory tenants.\n<\/p>\n
     In any case, after service of notice dated 5th<\/p>\n
     October,       1960     their          status         as       statutory<\/p>\n
     tenants could not be in any doubt.\n<\/p>\n
     9.         It is the applicants’ case that the<\/p>\n
     applicants were inducted in the premises much<\/p>\n
     prior to 1954.          They seemed to take such                               a<\/p>\n
     plea as the lease expired on 1st January, 1954<\/p>\n
     but significantly they have not pleaded the<\/p>\n
     date prior to 1st January, 1954 on which they<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:22:56 :::<\/span>
\n                                     8           CRA 336-09 JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
     were inducted as sub-tenants.\n<\/p>\n
     10.          The Applicants have relied on letters<\/p>\n
     filed    at        Exhibit    H     with      the        Revision<\/p>\n
     Application.          They are letters from Advocate<\/p>\n
     of     Cammoo       Yacoob     Charitable           Trust          and<\/p>\n
     Municipal Corporation about godown No.24 over<\/p>\n
     premises Nos.24-26 in 2nd Pasta Lane, Colaba<\/p>\n
     written between 13th April, 1955 and 8th August,<\/p>\n
     1970.        As rightly submitted by the learned<\/p>\n
     Counsel for the Respondents, this may at best<\/p>\n
     show that the Applicants were using the godown<\/p>\n
     for storing wares and would not establish the<\/p>\n
     case    of     a    sub-tenancy     created         before           1st<\/p>\n
     January, 1954.         For proving such sub-tenancy,<\/p>\n
     better evidence in the form of rent notes or<\/p>\n
     receipts of payment of rent was required to be<\/p>\n
     tendered.\n<\/p>\n
     11.          Copies    of    rent   receipts         which         are<\/p>\n
     sought to be produced at Exhibit                K        with the<\/p>\n
     Revision Application are of the years 1980-81<\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:22:56 :::<\/span>
\n                                  9          CRA 336-09 JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
     that is after the suit was filed in the year<\/p>\n
     1968.    The learned Counsel for the Respondents<\/p>\n
     also submitted, and rightly in my view, that<\/p>\n
     the receipts do not show that they pertain to<\/p>\n
     the suit properties.       Thus, they can not have<\/p>\n
     any bearing on the fortunes of the parties.\n<\/p>\n
     12.       The applicants point out that in the<\/p>\n
     application made to the Sales Tax Authorities<\/p>\n
     on 23rd May, 1957 and a Certificate issued by<\/p>\n
     the authorities on 1st July, 1957, there is a<\/p>\n
     reference    to   the     warehouses       used         by      the<\/p>\n
     Applicants and it includes an entry                       Cammoo<\/p>\n
     Yacoob Charity, 2nd Pasta Lane, Colaba .                     Using<\/p>\n
     a warehousing facility or a godown cannot be<\/p>\n
     equated to taking it on rent as a tenant or<\/p>\n
     sub-tenant, unless it shows that the godown or<\/p>\n
     the warehouse was taken in its entirety on<\/p>\n
     rent.     Therefore, merely because such a go<\/p>\n
     down was included in the list of warehouses<\/p>\n
     provided to the Sales Tax Authorities, it does<\/p>\n
     not     become    a     property    leased            to        the<\/p>\n
                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:22:56 :::<\/span>
\n                                           10                              CRA 336-09
\n                                      JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
     Applicants.\n<\/p>\n
     13.          At the cost of repetition it has to be<\/p>\n
     observed      that        the    best        evidence        would         have<\/p>\n
     been some rent note or rent receipts of the<\/p>\n
     year prior to 1st January, 1954 or at least<\/p>\n
     before the suit was filed and in any case,<\/p>\n
     prior    to       1st
\n                         ig   February,          1973.        This        is      not<\/p>\n
     forthcoming.\n<\/p>\n
     14.          The learned Counsel for the applicants<\/p>\n
     may     be        right         in         contending          that          the<\/p>\n
     respondents have not proved their case that<\/p>\n
     the   applicants           came       over     the     suit        property<\/p>\n
     only on 25th March, 1994.                    The respondents seem<\/p>\n
     to have so concluded on the basis of an entry<\/p>\n
     in    the    register           of    firms     showing          that        the<\/p>\n
     applicants had indicated their new place of<\/p>\n
     business as             24 2nd Pasta Lane, Colaba                          with<\/p>\n
     effect from 25th March, 1994.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n     15.          In         fact,        the     evidence           of       P.W.1\n\n\n\n                                                     ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 16:22:56 :::<\/span>\n                                         11                            CRA 336-09\n                                    JUDGMENT\n\n<\/pre>\n
     Mr.Batliwala would show that Defendant No.7,<\/p>\n
     that    is,    Marblewala,            and   not        the       present<\/p>\n
     applicant      was       in    possession      since         1975        and<\/p>\n
     that the applicants came in possession of the<\/p>\n
     property      in     April,      1992,      contradicting                the<\/p>\n
     plea that the Applicants came to possess the<\/p>\n
     premises on 25th March, 1994.                   The applicants’<\/p>\n
     witness too had no personal knowledge about<\/p>\n
     the events prior to 1988.                    He deposed about<\/p>\n
     the    facts       in    issue     only     by      reference              to<\/p>\n
     record.       If that be so, there ought to have<\/p>\n
     been some documentary evidence to show that<\/p>\n
     the applicants were in exclusive possession of<\/p>\n
     the premises prior to 1st February, 1973, if<\/p>\n
     not prior to 1st January, 1954.                         The learned<\/p>\n
     Counsel for the Respondents pointed out that<\/p>\n
     the Applicants’ witness Ardeshir S. Billimoria<\/p>\n
     had stated in cross examination that it was<\/p>\n
     correct    that         they   were    availing          warehousing<\/p>\n
     facilities          provided          by       Cammoo              Yacoob<\/p>\n
     Charitable Trust from time to time, ruling out<\/p>\n
     the case of subletting.\n<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:22:56 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                        12                                CRA 336-09\n                                   JUDGMENT\n\n     16.         Thus,       it   can     not       be    said        that       the\n\n\n\n\n                                                                            \n     Courts      below    erred         in   concluding               that       the\n\n\n\n\n                                                    \n<\/pre>\n
     applicants had not proved subletting before 1st<\/p>\n
     February, 1973.              First, there is absolutely<\/p>\n
     nothing      to     show      that      the         Applicants            were<\/p>\n
     inducted as sub-tenants prior to 1st January,<\/p>\n
     1954, presuming that such sub-tenancy could be<\/p>\n
     created      without
\n                        ig        the     landlord’s             permission.\n<\/p>\n
     After    the      expiry      of    the      lease,         the       lessee<\/p>\n
     became      a     tenant           holding          over.               After<\/p>\n
     termination        of    tenancy        by      notice          dated         5th<\/p>\n
     October,        1960,        as     statutory             tenant,           the<\/p>\n
     lessees could not have sub-let the premises.\n<\/p>\n
     Therefore,        subletting,             if        any,       would          be<\/p>\n
     unlawful and would not attract any protection<\/p>\n
     of    the   Rent     Act.          Only      lawful         sub-tenants<\/p>\n
     inducted before 1st February, 1973, would get<\/p>\n
     the benefit of Section 14(1) of the Bombay<\/p>\n
     Rent Act, and that too, after the interest of<\/p>\n
     the    tenant      is    determined.                 It     is      settled<\/p>\n
     position of law that in respect of premises to<\/p>\n
     which Rent Act applies, the interest of the<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:22:56 :::<\/span>
\n                                      13                            CRA 336-09
\n                                 JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
     tenant in the premises is determined only when<\/p>\n
     a decree is passed and not by mere issuance of<\/p>\n
     notice to quit.             Therefore, howsoever viewed<\/p>\n
     the Applicant cannot escape ejectment on the<\/p>\n
     ground of subletting as also on the ground of<\/p>\n
     the failure of the lessee to keep the premises<\/p>\n
     in tenantable repair.             On the second ground,<\/p>\n
     apart from the fact that the lessee has not<\/p>\n
     questioned the decree, the letters of the year<\/p>\n
     1955-57,        on     which     the     applicant              places<\/p>\n
     reliance    for       showing    his     possession,              would<\/p>\n
     point      to the neglect in keeping the premises<\/p>\n
     in tenantable repair.\n<\/p>\n
     17.        In        view   of    this      Civil           Revision<\/p>\n
     Application has no merit and it is accordingly<\/p>\n
     dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                                                (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:22:56 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court M\/S.A.P.Hordiwala & Co vs Dr.Rustam J. Patel on 31 August, 2010 Bench: R. C. Chavan 1 CRA 336-09 JUDGMENT Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.336 OF 2009 1. M\/s.A.P.Hordiwala & Co. ..Applicants a registered Partnership Firm at No.24, 2nd Pasta Lane, Colaba, […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-80630","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S.A.P.Hordiwala & Co vs Dr.Rustam J. Patel on 31 August, 2010 - 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\/ms-a-p-hordiwala-co-vs-dr-rustam-j-patel-on-31-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S.A.P.Hordiwala & Co vs Dr.Rustam J. Patel on 31 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-a-p-hordiwala-co-vs-dr-rustam-j-patel-on-31-august-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-08-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-19T07:59:32+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\\\/ms-a-p-hordiwala-co-vs-dr-rustam-j-patel-on-31-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-a-p-hordiwala-co-vs-dr-rustam-j-patel-on-31-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S.A.P.Hordiwala & Co vs Dr.Rustam J. Patel on 31 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-19T07:59:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-a-p-hordiwala-co-vs-dr-rustam-j-patel-on-31-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1680,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-a-p-hordiwala-co-vs-dr-rustam-j-patel-on-31-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-a-p-hordiwala-co-vs-dr-rustam-j-patel-on-31-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-a-p-hordiwala-co-vs-dr-rustam-j-patel-on-31-august-2010\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S.A.P.Hordiwala & Co vs Dr.Rustam J. Patel on 31 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-19T07:59:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-a-p-hordiwala-co-vs-dr-rustam-j-patel-on-31-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-a-p-hordiwala-co-vs-dr-rustam-j-patel-on-31-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-a-p-hordiwala-co-vs-dr-rustam-j-patel-on-31-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S.A.P.Hordiwala & Co vs Dr.Rustam J. Patel on 31 August, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"M\/S.A.P.Hordiwala & Co vs Dr.Rustam J. Patel on 31 August, 2010 - 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\/ms-a-p-hordiwala-co-vs-dr-rustam-j-patel-on-31-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S.A.P.Hordiwala & Co vs Dr.Rustam J. Patel on 31 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-a-p-hordiwala-co-vs-dr-rustam-j-patel-on-31-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-19T07:59:32+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\/ms-a-p-hordiwala-co-vs-dr-rustam-j-patel-on-31-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-a-p-hordiwala-co-vs-dr-rustam-j-patel-on-31-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S.A.P.Hordiwala & Co vs Dr.Rustam J. Patel on 31 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-19T07:59:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-a-p-hordiwala-co-vs-dr-rustam-j-patel-on-31-august-2010"},"wordCount":1680,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-a-p-hordiwala-co-vs-dr-rustam-j-patel-on-31-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-a-p-hordiwala-co-vs-dr-rustam-j-patel-on-31-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-a-p-hordiwala-co-vs-dr-rustam-j-patel-on-31-august-2010","name":"M\/S.A.P.Hordiwala & Co vs Dr.Rustam J. Patel on 31 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-19T07:59:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-a-p-hordiwala-co-vs-dr-rustam-j-patel-on-31-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-a-p-hordiwala-co-vs-dr-rustam-j-patel-on-31-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-a-p-hordiwala-co-vs-dr-rustam-j-patel-on-31-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S.A.P.Hordiwala & Co vs Dr.Rustam J. Patel on 31 August, 2010"}]},{"@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\/80630","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=80630"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/80630\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=80630"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=80630"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=80630"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}