{"id":83280,"date":"2008-12-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-12-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manal-vs-united-phosphorous-limited-on-19-december-2008"},"modified":"2015-10-23T09:44:21","modified_gmt":"2015-10-23T04:14:21","slug":"manal-vs-united-phosphorous-limited-on-19-december-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manal-vs-united-phosphorous-limited-on-19-december-2008","title":{"rendered":"Manal vs United Phosphorous Limited on 19 December, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Manal vs United Phosphorous Limited on 19 December, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: P. B. Majmudar, J.P. Devadhar<\/div>\n
                                 1\n\n\n\nAGK         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n              ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION\n\n                  REVIEW PETITION NO.10 OF 2007\n\n\n\n\n                                                                       \n                              ALONG WITH\n\n                 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.376 OF 2007\n\n\n\n\n                                               \n                               IN\n                      APPEAL NO.423 OF 2005\n                               IN\n                 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.429 OF 2004\n                               IN\n\n\n\n\n                                              \n                  SUMMARY SUIT NO.4600 OF 1997\n\n\n\n       Arun Kumar Kanoria,\n\n\n\n\n                                   \n       Indian Inhabitant, R\/at 1A,\n       LA-VINA Courts, 67-7th Cross\n       8th Main Road, RMV Extension,\n                     \n       Bangalore - 560 080 and having\n       his office at Bangalord\n       Pesticides Limited, 170, 10th\n       Main Road, 2nd Cross, Raj\n                    \n       Manal, Vilas Extension,\n       Bangalord - 560 080                  ....Petitioner\n\n               V\/s.\n\n       United Phosphorous Limited,\n        \n\n\n       a company incorporated under\n       the Companies Act, 1956 and\n     \n\n\n\n       having its administrative\n       office at Readymoney Terrace,\n       167, Dr.A.B. Road, Worli,\n       Mumbai - 400 018                     .....Respondent.\n \n\n\n\n\n       Mr.Sanjay Jain     i\/by   Mr.H.V.          Chande        for        the\n       petitioner.\n\n       Mr.Prakash     Shah   i\/by    M\/s.PDS        Legal       for        the\n\n\n\n\n\n       respondent.\n\n\n                                    CORAM : P.B. MAJMUDAR &\n                                            J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
                                    DATED : 19TH DECEMBER, 2008<\/p>\n
       ORAL JUDGMENT (Per P.B. Majmudar, J.)<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:10:35 :::<\/span>
\n                                     2<\/span><\/p>\n
     1.        Delay      in    filing    the review        petition         is<\/p>\n
     condoned.       The    notice      of motion     is      accordingly<\/p>\n
     disposed     of.     The review petition is taken up                   for<\/p>\n
     hearing today.\n<\/p>\n
     2.        This is an absolutely vexatious proceedings<\/p>\n
     taken out by the petitioner-judgment debtor, who is<\/p>\n
     interested      in delaying the proceedings even though<\/p>\n
     the decree is passed more than seven years ago.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                    \n     3.        The    respondent herein instituted a Suit in\n\n     November     1997\n                      ig   being Summary Suit No.4600 of                  1997\n\n     for    recovery of Rs.41,00,000\/- as principal amount\n                    \n     with   interest.          In the said Suit,        the      Plaintiff\n\n     took   out    Summons for Judgment No.200 of                  1998      in\n\n<\/pre>\n
     March 1998.      The present Appellant who was original<\/p>\n
     defendant,      thereafter      filed reply and           filed        his<\/p>\n
     affidavit       to    the    summons     for     judgment.              On<\/p>\n
     25-10-1999,      conditional        order was passed            on     the<\/p>\n
     summons      for     judgment,       directing       the        present<\/p>\n
     appellant to deposit Rs.47,00,000\/- within 14 weeks<\/p>\n
     from the date of order.\n<\/p>\n
     4.        Aforesaid        order was challenged before                 the<\/p>\n
     Division     Bench     of this Court on the            ground        that<\/p>\n
     unconditional leave should have been granted to the<\/p>\n
     defendant     to     defend    the Suit.      Said       appeal        was<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:10:35 :::<\/span>
\n                                    3<\/span><\/p>\n
     dismissed      as back as on 13-6-2000.         The said order<\/p>\n
     was    challenged      by way of Special      Leave        Petition<\/p>\n
     before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.            Said S.L.P.            was<\/p>\n
     also    dismissed      in November 2000.      Ultimately            the<\/p>\n
     Suit was decreed as back as on 12-2-2001.\n<\/p>\n
     5.        After      the suit was decreed, the           Appellant<\/p>\n
     submitted      an application under Order 37 Rule 4                  of<\/p>\n
     the    Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside                    the<\/p>\n
     decree    by filing Notice of Motion No.429 of                  2004.\n<\/p>\n
     Said    notice of motion was dismissed by this                  Court<\/p>\n
     on<\/p>\n
           10-12-2004 and the Court found that no                 special<\/p>\n
     case    is    made out by the Defendant under Order                  37<\/span><\/p>\n
     Rule    4 of the Code of Civil Procedure for                 setting<\/p>\n
     aside the decree.\n<\/p>\n
     6.        The      said order was challenged by way of an<\/p>\n
     Appeal bearing No.423 of 2005.          The said Appeal was<\/p>\n
     dismissed      by the Division Bench consisting of R.M.\n<\/p>\n
     Lodha,       (as   His    Lordship    then    was)       and      J.P.\n<\/p>\n
     Devadhar,      JJ.    on 7-6-2005.    The ingenuity of              the<\/p>\n
     petitioner      did    not   stop their.      The      petitioner<\/p>\n
     filed    present Review Petition on 2-9-2005, but did<\/p>\n
     not take steps to move the Review Petition which is<\/p>\n
     filed in the year 2005 for all these years.                   In the<\/p>\n
     meanwhile,      R.M.     Lodha, J.   (as His Lordship             then<\/p>\n
     was)    was transferred to Rajasthan High Court.                     It<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:10:35 :::<\/span>
\n                                     4<\/span><\/p>\n
     is required to be noted that no attempt was made by<\/p>\n
     the    present Petitioner to move the Review Petition<\/p>\n
     before     the    same    bench.        Not       only      that         all<\/p>\n
     throughout      the    Petitioner      has never           moved       this<\/p>\n
     Court    for taking the Review Petition on board                         and<\/p>\n
     the    execution      proceedings      are      delayed         probably<\/p>\n
     because of pendency of this Review Petition.                         It is<\/p>\n
     only    at the request of the other side, the                      Review<\/p>\n
     Petition    is circulated and that is how the                      Review<\/p>\n
     Petition has been placed before us.\n<\/p>\n
     7.        The<\/p>\n
                      learned      counsel      for     the      petitioner<\/p>\n
     vehemently      submitted that the Division Bench while<\/p>\n
     deciding    the    Appeal No.423 of 2005 has not                     taken<\/p>\n
     into    consideration      the important aspect that                     the<\/p>\n
     cheques    in    question      issued by the           company         were<\/p>\n
     blank    cheques.       The    learned        counsel         for        the<\/p>\n
     petitioner      submitted      that    so       far      as       present<\/p>\n
     petitioner       is    concerned,      he       was      one      of     the<\/p>\n
     directors    of    the    company and he           had      given        his<\/p>\n
     personal    guarantee      which was conditional one,                     to<\/p>\n
     the    effect    that    in case cheques           issued         by     the<\/p>\n
     company    are bounced back, then the petitioner                         was<\/p>\n
     to    reimburse    the    amount      to    the      respondent             –\n<\/p>\n
     original plaintiff on his own.              The learned counsel<\/p>\n
     for    the petitioner submitted that subsequently                         it<\/p>\n
     has    come to the notice of the petitioner that                         the<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:10:35 :::<\/span>
\n                                       5<\/span><\/p>\n
     company    had    merely issued blank cheques.                       It     is<\/p>\n
     submitted      that    since the company had issued                      only<\/p>\n
     blank    cheques,      the petitioner was not                 liable        to<\/p>\n
     make    any payment on return of the cheques.                        It     is<\/p>\n
     submitted      that    under      these    circumstances               under<\/p>\n
     Order 37 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the<\/p>\n
     Petitioner      can be said to have made out a                      special<\/p>\n
     case     for    setting      aside       the      decree        and        the<\/p>\n
     petitioner      should      be given an opportunity now                     to<\/p>\n
     defend    the Suit by granting unconditional leave to<\/p>\n
     defend.\n<\/p>\n
     8.        We    have heard the learned counsel for                         the<\/p>\n
     petitioner      at    length.        We have also gone              through<\/p>\n
     the    original order passed by the Division Bench on<\/p>\n
     7-6-2005.        It    is    required      to       be     noted         that<\/p>\n
     initially      conditional        leave    was granted              to     the<\/p>\n
     defendant      by asking him to deposit Rs.47,00,000\/-,<\/p>\n
     which    order    was confirmed in the appeal                     and      SLP<\/p>\n
     against    the same was also dismissed by the Hon’ble<\/p>\n
     Supreme    Court.      In spite of the same, the                    present<\/p>\n
     petitioner      failed      to    deposit any amount                and     in<\/p>\n
     these    circumstances, ultimately decree was                        passed<\/p>\n
     against    the petitioner – original defendant.                            The<\/p>\n
     aforesaid decree was passed as back as on 12-2-2001<\/p>\n
     and    subsequently      an application was                moved       under<\/p>\n
     Order    37 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure for<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:10:35 :::<\/span>
\n                                  6<\/span><\/p>\n
     setting    aside    the said decree on the ground               that<\/p>\n
     special    circumstances exists for setting aside the<\/p>\n
     decree,    as the defendant subsequently came to know<\/p>\n
     that   the cheques issued by the company were                 blank<\/p>\n
     cheques.    At this stage, it is required to be noted<\/p>\n
     that   this very point was even canvassed before the<\/p>\n
     Division    Bench    in   Appeal No.423     of      2005.         The<\/p>\n
     Division    Bench    in   para   2 and 5    of      its     order,<\/p>\n
     observed as under :\n<\/p>\n
               “2.      The    learned counsel     for  the
\n               appellant contended that the summary suit<\/p>\n
               filed by the present respondent against the
\n               appellant herein was
\n               cheques.\n<\/p>\n
                                          founded on blank
\n                            At the time of hearing of the
\n               summons for judgment, the case of the<\/p>\n
               respondent was that the cheques were blank
\n               cheques but the learned Trial Judge did not
\n               consider the said aspect at the time of
\n               hearing of summons       for judgment.   But
\n               thereafter in the       criminal proceedings
\n               there was an admission by the respondent<\/p>\n
               that the cheques were blank and even in
\n               response to the notice of motion under<\/p>\n
               Order    XXXVII Rule 4 C.P.C., there is
\n               admission     by the    respondent that the
\n               cheques were blank. In this background,
\n               the learned counsel submitted that the case
\n               indicating     special    circumstances  for<\/p>\n
               setting aside the decree under Order XXXVII
\n               Rule 4 C.P.C. was clearly made out and the
\n               learned Single Judge ought to have set
\n               aside the decree.       The learned counsel
\n               relied upon the Division Bench judgment of
\n               this court in the case of Ramchandra Dhondu<\/p>\n
               Dalvi V\/s.      Vithaldas Gokuldas (AIR 1964
\n               Bombay 251).\n<\/p>\n
               5.      In our considered view for non
\n               compliance    of    the    order   granting
\n               conditional   leave   to   defend to    the
\n               appellant, if the decree came to be passed,
\n               the same cannot be faulted.      The facts
\n               aforenarrated do not     make out special
\n               circumstances under Order XXXVII Rule 4<\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:10:35 :::<\/span>
\n                                         7<\/span><\/p>\n
                 C.P.C.   for setting aside the decree dated
\n                 February 12, 2001.”\n<\/p>\n
     9.          It is clear that this very point was argued<\/p>\n
     by    the    petitioner before the Division Bench                       that<\/p>\n
     the    cheques      in question were blank              cheques         and,<\/p>\n
     therefore,        the    decree should be set             aside       under<\/p>\n
     Order    XXXVII        Rule    4 C.P.C.      The    Division          Bench<\/p>\n
     after    considering the arguments has negatived                          the<\/p>\n
     said    contention.           In    our view,      attempt         of     the<\/p>\n
     petitioner        is nothing but to argue the said Appeal<\/p>\n
     denovo      before us.        The powers of this Court                under<\/p>\n
     Order    XXXVII
\n                       ig   of   the C.P.C.       are limited           to     the<\/p>\n
     extent      provided under the Code.             This Court is not<\/p>\n
     expected      to    verify the correctness of                the      order<\/p>\n
     passed      by    the    earlier Division          Bench.          If     the<\/p>\n
     present      petitioner        had any grievance against                  the<\/p>\n
     aforesaid        order,     his remedy was to challenge                   the<\/p>\n
     said order before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.                          It is<\/p>\n
     not the case of the petitioner that after the order<\/p>\n
     of    Division      Bench dated 7-6-2005            any      additional<\/p>\n
     material has come to his notice.                 The main argument<\/p>\n
     advanced      in this review is only on the point                       that<\/p>\n
     the    cheques      issued      by     the   company        were      blank<\/p>\n
     cheques.      The earlier Division Bench has considered<\/p>\n
     this aspect and rejected the same.                  In our view the<\/p>\n
     petitioner        is    trying to delay the proceedings                    by<\/p>\n
     not    allowing the other side to execute the                       decree<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:10:35 :::<\/span>
\n                                     8<\/span><\/p>\n
     passed      seven    years back on the pretext              that       the<\/p>\n
     review petition is pending.\n<\/p>\n
     10.         As    noted    earlier, eventhough this              review<\/p>\n
     petition      was    filed    as back as      on     2-9-2005,          no<\/p>\n
     attempt      was    made by the petitioner to             place        the<\/p>\n
     same before the Court and it is only at the request<\/p>\n
     of the other side that the review petition is taken<\/p>\n
     up    for    hearing.      No attempt was made to move                 the<\/p>\n
     review      petition before the bench which decided the<\/p>\n
     Appeal.      The learned counsel for petitioner submits<\/p>\n
     that<\/p>\n
             he has no explanation to offer for the                     delay<\/p>\n
     in this behalf.\n<\/p>\n
     11.         Be    that    as it may, we are convinced                that<\/p>\n
     the present review petition is filed with a view to<\/p>\n
     delay    the execution of decree.           The present review<\/p>\n
     petition is nothing but an abuse of process of law.\n<\/p>\n
     With    a view to see that such type of vexatious and<\/p>\n
     frivolous        litigation    should not be         filed,        while<\/p>\n
     dismissing        the    review    petition,     we      direct        the<\/p>\n
     petitioner        to pay compensatory cost of Rs.25,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
     to    the    respondent.      Such costs should be paid                 to<\/p>\n
     the    respondent        within a period of two weeks                from<\/p>\n
     today.\n<\/p>\n
     12.         The     review     petition         is       accordingly<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:10:35 :::<\/span>
\n                                     9<\/span><\/p>\n
     dismissed with costs as quantified above.\n<\/p>\n
     13.       At    this    stage,     learned counsel             for      the<\/p>\n
     petitioner      has    submitted that the           petitioner           is<\/p>\n
     willing      to deposit entire amount of Rs.47,00,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
     as    ordered    by    this Court      on    25-10-1999.              This<\/p>\n
     request is too stale to be considered by this Court<\/p>\n
     at    this   stage,     as option was        available           to     the<\/p>\n
     petitioner      to    comply    with    the      same,       when       the<\/p>\n
     Division     Bench earlier granted time to deposit the<\/p>\n
     amount    within      eight weeks.      Even otherwise,               when<\/p>\n
     the    earlier<\/p>\n
                       Division Bench has already                 dismissed<\/p>\n
     the    Appeal,    which was filed against the order                      of<\/p>\n
     granting     conditional leave, the prayer made before<\/p>\n
     us is not maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
                                              (P.B. Majmudar, J.)<\/p>\n
                                              (J.P. Devadhar, J.)<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:10:35 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Manal vs United Phosphorous Limited on 19 December, 2008 Bench: P. B. Majmudar, J.P. Devadhar 1 AGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO.10 OF 2007 ALONG WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.376 OF 2007 IN APPEAL NO.423 OF 2005 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.429 […]<\/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-83280","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nManal vs United Phosphorous Limited on 19 December, 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\/manal-vs-united-phosphorous-limited-on-19-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Manal vs United Phosphorous Limited on 19 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manal-vs-united-phosphorous-limited-on-19-december-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=\"2008-12-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-23T04:14:21+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\\\/manal-vs-united-phosphorous-limited-on-19-december-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manal-vs-united-phosphorous-limited-on-19-december-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Manal vs United Phosphorous Limited on 19 December, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-23T04:14:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manal-vs-united-phosphorous-limited-on-19-december-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1643,\"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\\\/manal-vs-united-phosphorous-limited-on-19-december-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manal-vs-united-phosphorous-limited-on-19-december-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manal-vs-united-phosphorous-limited-on-19-december-2008\",\"name\":\"Manal vs United Phosphorous Limited on 19 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-23T04:14:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manal-vs-united-phosphorous-limited-on-19-december-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manal-vs-united-phosphorous-limited-on-19-december-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manal-vs-united-phosphorous-limited-on-19-december-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Manal vs United Phosphorous Limited on 19 December, 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":"Manal vs United Phosphorous Limited on 19 December, 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\/manal-vs-united-phosphorous-limited-on-19-december-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Manal vs United Phosphorous Limited on 19 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manal-vs-united-phosphorous-limited-on-19-december-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-12-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-23T04:14:21+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\/manal-vs-united-phosphorous-limited-on-19-december-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manal-vs-united-phosphorous-limited-on-19-december-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Manal vs United Phosphorous Limited on 19 December, 2008","datePublished":"2008-12-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-23T04:14:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manal-vs-united-phosphorous-limited-on-19-december-2008"},"wordCount":1643,"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\/manal-vs-united-phosphorous-limited-on-19-december-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manal-vs-united-phosphorous-limited-on-19-december-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manal-vs-united-phosphorous-limited-on-19-december-2008","name":"Manal vs United Phosphorous Limited on 19 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-12-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-23T04:14:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manal-vs-united-phosphorous-limited-on-19-december-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manal-vs-united-phosphorous-limited-on-19-december-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manal-vs-united-phosphorous-limited-on-19-december-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Manal vs United Phosphorous Limited on 19 December, 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\/83280","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=83280"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/83280\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=83280"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=83280"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=83280"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}