{"id":82589,"date":"2008-08-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tanaji-dinkar-wadakar-vs-veer-chaphekar-nagari-sahakari-on-26-august-2008"},"modified":"2018-06-28T07:20:57","modified_gmt":"2018-06-28T01:50:57","slug":"tanaji-dinkar-wadakar-vs-veer-chaphekar-nagari-sahakari-on-26-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tanaji-dinkar-wadakar-vs-veer-chaphekar-nagari-sahakari-on-26-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"Tanaji Dinkar Wadakar vs Veer Chaphekar Nagari Sahakari on 26 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Tanaji Dinkar Wadakar vs Veer Chaphekar Nagari Sahakari on 26 August, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: A.S. Oka<\/div>\n
                             1\n\n         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n              CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                                                                 \n               WRIT PETITION NO.1127 OF 2006\n\n\n\n\n                                         \n      Tanaji Dinkar Wadakar                 ..Petitioner\n      Age : 47 years, Occu : business\n      R\/o.S.No.18, Ingle Nagar,\n      Varje Naka,\n      Pune - 411 052\n\n\n\n\n                                        \n                   V\/s.\n    1. Veer Chaphekar Nagari Sahakari\n       Pat Sanstha Ltd., a Co-op. Society\n\n\n\n\n                                \n       Registered and functioning under\n       the provisions of Maharashtra Co-op.\n                      \n       Societies Act, 1960 and rules made\n       thereunder, having its registered\n       office at 25\/3, Satpute Bhavan,\n       Shiavji Nagar,\n                     \n       Pune - 411 005\n    2. Sudhir Ramchandra Allhat\n       Age : 35 years, Occu : business\n       R\/o.103, Narveer Tanaji Wadi,\n         \n\n\n       Shivajinagar,\n       Pune - 5\n      \n\n\n\n    3. Pandurang Rajaram Patne\n       Age : 57 years, Occu : service       ..Respondents\n       R\/o.N.C.L.Colony, Pashan,\n\n\n\n\n\n       Pune - 8\n    4. Kishorbhai Kanchanbhai Shah\n       Age : 50 years, Occu : business\n       R\/o.Bharti Apartment, Near\n       Narveer Tanaji Wadi Bus Stand,\n\n\n\n\n\n       Narveer Tanaji Wadi, Shivaji Nagar,\n       Pune - 5\n    5. Madhukar Vasantrao Kamble\n       Age : adult, Occu : service\n       R\/o.18, Narveer Tanaji Wadi,\n       Shiavji Nagar,\n\n\n\n\n                                         ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 13:46:08 :::\n                              2\n\n      Pune - 5\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n    6. Mahendra Dnyneshwar Marne\n       Age : 48 years, Occu : service\n       R\/o.215, Agricultural College,\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n       Khare Wadi, Pune University Road,\n       Shiavji Nagar,\n       Pune - 5\n    7. Anant Balwant Godambe\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n       R\/o.15, Narveer Tanaji Wadi,\n       Shiavji Nagar,\n       Pune - 5\n    8. Ramkrishna S. Kothavde\n\n\n\n\n                                 \n       Age : 50 years, Occu : service\n       R\/o.Veer Netajihouse society,\n                      \n       Veer Netajiwadi, behind Dalvi Hospital,\n       Shiavji Nagar,\n       Pune - 5\n                     \n    9. Sau.Renue Balwant Moru\n       Age : adult, Occu : service       ..Respondents\n       R\/o.Mantri Corner, Narveer Tanaji Wadi,\n       Shivaji Nagar,\n       Pune - 5\n         \n\n\n    10.Sushma Shivajirao Jadhav\n      \n\n\n\n       Age : adult, Occu : service\n       R\/o.Plot No.28, Jadhav Vasti,\n       K.B.Joshi Marg, Bhiraya Wadi,\n       Shiavji Nagar,\n       Pune - 5\n\n\n\n\n\n    11.Shashikant Motilal Bagmar\n       Age : 45 years, Occu : advocate\n       R\/o.Mantri Nagar, Narveer Tanaji Wadi,\n       Shiavji Nagar,\n\n\n\n\n\n       Pune - 5\n    12.The State of Maharashtra\n    Mr.S.P.Thorat, Advocate, for petitioner\n    Mr.Abhaykumar Apte, Advocate, for the respondent\n    Nos.1 to 8 and 11\n    Mr.Y.S.Shinde, A.P.P, for the State\n\n\n\n\n                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 13:46:08 :::\n                                          3\n\n                                      CORAM : A.S.OKA, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                                      DATE     : 26TH AUGUST, 2008\n    ORAL JUDGMENT\n\n\n\n\n                                                         \n    .      The submissions of the learned counsel for\n    the parties were fully heard on the last date.                                      It\n\n\n\n\n                                                        \n<\/pre>\n
    will be necessary to refer to the facts of the case
\n    in   brief.           The     petitioner           is        the        original<\/p>\n
    complainant          who     filed        a      complaint              alleging
\n    commission
\n    Negotiable
\n                    of
\n                    Instruments<\/p>\n
                          offence       under
\n                                             Act,
\n                                                    Section
\n                                                      1881<\/span>
\n                                                                    138       of
\n                                                                    (Hereinafter
\n                                                                                      the<\/p>\n
    referred   to    as        “the   said     Act”).        The      1st     to      11th
\n    respondents are the accused in the said complaint.\n<\/p>\n
    2.     An application was made on behalf of the<\/p>\n
    accused under Section 143 of the said Act praying
\n    that the trial may be conducted as a warrant case.\n<\/p>\n
    The said application was rejected by the learned
\n    Magistrate.          The accused          a     preferred          a    Revision
\n    Application      before       the    Sessions       Court.                By      the<\/p>\n
    impugned Judgment and Order dated 22nd March, 2006,
\n    the learned Sessions Judge has interferred and by
\n    allowing Revision Application it was directed that<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:46:08 :::<\/span>
\n                                      4<\/span><\/p>\n
    the    learned      Magistrate       will       the     conduct            the<\/p>\n
    Criminal case as a warrant triable case.                          This is
\n    the Order impugned in this petition under Article<\/p>\n
    227 of the Constitution of India read with Section
\n    482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.\n<\/p>\n
    3.       The     learned     counsel       for    the        petitioner
\n    invited my attention to Section 143 of the said<\/p>\n
    Act.     He submitted that there was no occasion to<\/p>\n
    invoke   the    second     proviso    of    sub-section             (1)      of
\n    Section 143 at a stage when even the trial was not<\/p>\n
    started.       He submitted that learned Magistrate was
\n    empowered      to   try    the   case      by    adopting          summary<\/p>\n
    procedure.\n<\/p>\n
    4.       The     learned     counsel        appearing           for        the
\n    accused supported the impugned Order by pointing<\/p>\n
    out that the stand of the accused is that accused
\n    Nos.4 to 11 resigned from the post of the Director<\/p>\n
    of the 1st accused.         He submitted that the question
\n    is whether accused Nos.1 to 3 have committed any
\n    offence especially when the said accused had shown
\n    willingness to deposit the cheque amount subject to<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:46:08 :::<\/span>
\n                                      5<\/span><\/p>\n
    the     petitioner        depositing        Term     Deposit\/Fixed<\/p>\n
    Deposit receipts with the 1st accused. He submitted
\n    that    apart     from     the     fact     that      the        learned<\/p>\n
    Magistrate was not empowered to conduct the matter
\n    summarily,        considering        the     defence           of        the<\/p>\n
    petitioner, the case ought to have been treated as
\n    a    warrant    triable    case.       He    submitted         that        no
\n    interference was called for.\n<\/p>\n
    5.<\/p>\n
             I have carefully considered the submissions.
\n    The reasons recorded by the learned Sessions Judge<\/p>\n
    for    allowing    Revision      Application       are       found         in
\n    paragraph 4 of the Order which reads thus :-\n<\/p>\n
            “Mr.Zende, the learned counsel for
\n    respondent No.1 submits, on the other hand, that<\/p>\n
    even if the learned Magistrate has not        been
\n    conferred with the powers by the      Hon’ble    High
\n    Court for holding summary     trial, the provision
\n    of Section 143 N.I.Act        which is a provision
\n    under a Special Act    will override the general<\/p>\n
    provision Uss.260      and 261 Cr.P.C.     It is not
\n    possible to agree      with Mr.Zende. Section 143
\n    N.I.Act         contemplates summary trial of cases
\n    filed U\/s.138 N.I.Act. It is only when it appears
\n            to the Magistrate that the nature of the<\/p>\n
            case is such that a sentence of imprisonment
\n            for a term exceeding one year may have to be
\n            passed or that it is, for any other reason,
\n            undesirable to try the case summarily, that
\n            he after hearing the parties, may hear the
\n            case in the manner provided under the
\n            Cr.P.C.    The conferment of powers for
\n            summary trial by the Hon’ble High Court<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:46:08 :::<\/span>
\n                              6<\/span><\/p>\n
            U\/s.261 Cr.P.C. upon J.M.F.C. is conferment
\n            of a power which is of foundational nature,<\/p>\n
            but for such     conferment of power, the
\n            Magistrate cannot try any case summarily.
\n            Had the provision U\/s.143 N.I.Act been such<\/p>\n
            that the only method of trial provided
\n            thereunder was summary trial, one probably
\n            could have accepted the argument of
\n    Mr.Zende. Since the very section      contemplates
\n    trial of such cases by other mode also, it cannot<\/p>\n
    be said that the       provision would override the
\n    general        provision under Cr.P.C.    Hence, the
\n    order.”\n<\/p>\n
    6.     It will be necessary to refer to Section 143<\/p>\n
    of the said Act which reads thus :-\n<\/p>\n
    “143. Power of Court to try cases summarily – (1)
\n    Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of
\n    Criminal Procedure, 1973(2 of 1974), all offences
\n    under this Chapter shall be tried by a Judicial
\n    Magistrate of the first class or by a Metropolitan<\/p>\n
    Magistrate and the provisions of sections 262 to
\n    265 (both inclusive) of the said Code shall, as far<\/p>\n
    as may be, apply to such trials :\n<\/p>\n
    Provided that in the case of any conviction in a
\n    summary trial under this section, it shall be
\n    lawful for the Magistrate to pass a sentence of<\/p>\n
    imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year and
\n    an amount of fine exceeding five thousand rupees.
\n    Provided further that when at the commencement of,
\n    or in the course of, a summary trial under this<\/p>\n
    section, it appears to the Magistrate that the
\n    nature of the case is such that a sentence of
\n    imprisonment for a term exceeding one year may have
\n    to be passed or that it is, for any other reason,
\n    undesirable   to  try   the  case   summarily,  the
\n    Magistrate shall after hearing the parties, record
\n    an order to that effect and thereafter recall any
\n    witness who may have been examined and proceed to<\/p>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:46:08 :::<\/span>
\n                                       7<\/span><\/p>\n
    hear or rehear the case in the manner provided by
\n    the said Code.”\n<\/p>\n
    7.        Sub-section (1) of Section 143 starts with<\/p>\n
    non-obstante clause. Sub-section (1) provides that
\n    offences under Chapter XVII of the said Act of 1881<\/p>\n
    shall   be   tried    by   a     Judicial    Magistrate              of     the
\n    first class or by a Metropolitan Magistrate.                                The
\n    said    Section      provides      that     the      provisions               of<\/p>\n
    section 262 to 265 of the said Code apply to such<\/p>\n
    trials.      Thus, a forum is created by Section 143
\n    itself which lays down the procedure to be followed<\/p>\n
    in the trial of the complaint.              Reliance was sought
\n    to be placed on Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of<\/p>\n
    Section 260 of the said Court by contending that a<\/p>\n
    Magistrate    of     the   1st    Class     cannot        try       a     case
\n    summarily unless he was specially empowered in this
\n    behalf by the High Court.                 In view of the non-\n<\/p>\n
    obstante clause used in Section (1) of Section 143
\n    of the said Act, a Judicial Magistrate of the first<\/p>\n
    class is empowered to try an offence under Section
\n    138 of the said Act though, he may not be specially
\n    empowered in that behalf as required by Clause (c)
\n    of sub-section (1) of Section 260 of the said Code.\n<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:46:08 :::<\/span>
\n                                      8<\/span><\/p>\n
    Therefore,       notwithstanding        the        fact        that          a<\/p>\n
    Magistrate      of    the   first    Class    is    not      specially
\n    empowered by this Court, by virtue of sub-section<\/p>\n
    (1) of Section 143 of the said Act, a Magistrate of
\n    the first class gets jurisdiction to try an offence<\/p>\n
    under Chapter XVII of the said Act by following the
\n    procedure laid down therein.                 Therefore, to this
\n    extent the learned Sessions Judge was not right.\n<\/p>\n
    8.<\/p>\n
            Under the second proviso of sub-section (1)
\n    of    Section        143    of   the    said       Act,         in       two<\/p>\n
    contingencies the learned Magistrate can decline to
\n    try the case by following Sections 262 to 265 of<\/p>\n
    the said Code.         The first contigency is in a case<\/p>\n
    where at the commencement of or in the course of a
\n    summary trial, it appears to the learned Magistrate
\n    that the nature of the case is such that the a<\/p>\n
    sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding one
\n    year may have to be passed.            The second contingency<\/p>\n
    is when for any other reason, it is undesirable to
\n    try   the    case     summarily.        The    second          provisio
\n    further lays down that such order can be passed by
\n    the learned Magistrate after hearing the parties<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:46:08 :::<\/span>
\n                                          9<\/span><\/p>\n
    and after recording reasons to that effect.\n<\/p>\n
    9.        In   the       present    case,    obviously        the       first<\/p>\n
    contingency had not arisen.                  There is no finding
\n    recorded by the learned Sessions Judge or learned<\/p>\n
    Magistrate that it is undesirable to try the case
\n    summarily.\n<\/p>\n
    10.       Therefore, considering the stage at which<\/p>\n
    the order was passed by the learned Magistrate, he
\n    was justified in rejecting the prayer made by the<\/p>\n
    accused      for    adopting       procedure     of     warrant         case.
\n    Therefore,         the    impugned       order   will     have        to      be<\/p>\n
    quashed and set aside.               It is, however, made clear<\/p>\n
    that if a case in that behalf is made out, it will
\n    be    open     for       the   learned       Magistrate          to       pass
\n    appropriate order at appropriate stage in terms of<\/p>\n
    second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 143 of
\n    the said Act.\n<\/p>\n
    11.       Hence, I pass the following order.\n<\/p>\n
    (i)       Subject to what is observed above, impugned
\n              Judgment and Order dated 22nd March, 2006, is
\n              quashed and set aside and Criminal Revision<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:46:08 :::<\/span>
\n                             10<\/span><\/p>\n
           Application No.528\/2005 will stand
\n    dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
    (ii)   Writ Petition is allowed in above terms with<\/p>\n
           no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                           (A.S.OKA, J.)<\/p>\n
                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:46:08 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Tanaji Dinkar Wadakar vs Veer Chaphekar Nagari Sahakari on 26 August, 2008 Bench: A.S. Oka 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1127 OF 2006 Tanaji Dinkar Wadakar ..Petitioner Age : 47 years, Occu : business R\/o.S.No.18, Ingle Nagar, Varje Naka, Pune – 411 052 […]<\/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-82589","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nTanaji Dinkar Wadakar vs Veer Chaphekar Nagari Sahakari on 26 August, 2008 - 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\/tanaji-dinkar-wadakar-vs-veer-chaphekar-nagari-sahakari-on-26-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Tanaji Dinkar Wadakar vs Veer Chaphekar Nagari Sahakari on 26 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tanaji-dinkar-wadakar-vs-veer-chaphekar-nagari-sahakari-on-26-august-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-28T01:50:57+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\\\/tanaji-dinkar-wadakar-vs-veer-chaphekar-nagari-sahakari-on-26-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tanaji-dinkar-wadakar-vs-veer-chaphekar-nagari-sahakari-on-26-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Tanaji Dinkar Wadakar vs Veer Chaphekar Nagari Sahakari on 26 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-28T01:50:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tanaji-dinkar-wadakar-vs-veer-chaphekar-nagari-sahakari-on-26-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1439,\"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\\\/tanaji-dinkar-wadakar-vs-veer-chaphekar-nagari-sahakari-on-26-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tanaji-dinkar-wadakar-vs-veer-chaphekar-nagari-sahakari-on-26-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tanaji-dinkar-wadakar-vs-veer-chaphekar-nagari-sahakari-on-26-august-2008\",\"name\":\"Tanaji Dinkar Wadakar vs Veer Chaphekar Nagari Sahakari on 26 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-28T01:50:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tanaji-dinkar-wadakar-vs-veer-chaphekar-nagari-sahakari-on-26-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tanaji-dinkar-wadakar-vs-veer-chaphekar-nagari-sahakari-on-26-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tanaji-dinkar-wadakar-vs-veer-chaphekar-nagari-sahakari-on-26-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Tanaji Dinkar Wadakar vs Veer Chaphekar Nagari Sahakari on 26 August, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Tanaji Dinkar Wadakar vs Veer Chaphekar Nagari Sahakari on 26 August, 2008 - 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\/tanaji-dinkar-wadakar-vs-veer-chaphekar-nagari-sahakari-on-26-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Tanaji Dinkar Wadakar vs Veer Chaphekar Nagari Sahakari on 26 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tanaji-dinkar-wadakar-vs-veer-chaphekar-nagari-sahakari-on-26-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-28T01:50:57+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\/tanaji-dinkar-wadakar-vs-veer-chaphekar-nagari-sahakari-on-26-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tanaji-dinkar-wadakar-vs-veer-chaphekar-nagari-sahakari-on-26-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Tanaji Dinkar Wadakar vs Veer Chaphekar Nagari Sahakari on 26 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-28T01:50:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tanaji-dinkar-wadakar-vs-veer-chaphekar-nagari-sahakari-on-26-august-2008"},"wordCount":1439,"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\/tanaji-dinkar-wadakar-vs-veer-chaphekar-nagari-sahakari-on-26-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tanaji-dinkar-wadakar-vs-veer-chaphekar-nagari-sahakari-on-26-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tanaji-dinkar-wadakar-vs-veer-chaphekar-nagari-sahakari-on-26-august-2008","name":"Tanaji Dinkar Wadakar vs Veer Chaphekar Nagari Sahakari on 26 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-28T01:50:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tanaji-dinkar-wadakar-vs-veer-chaphekar-nagari-sahakari-on-26-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tanaji-dinkar-wadakar-vs-veer-chaphekar-nagari-sahakari-on-26-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tanaji-dinkar-wadakar-vs-veer-chaphekar-nagari-sahakari-on-26-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Tanaji Dinkar Wadakar vs Veer Chaphekar Nagari Sahakari on 26 August, 2008"}]},{"@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\/82589","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=82589"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/82589\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=82589"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=82589"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=82589"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}