{"id":84503,"date":"1972-03-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1972-03-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sabharwal-brothers-another-vs-smt-guna-amrit-thandani-of-bombay-on-29-march-1972"},"modified":"2016-12-30T07:17:19","modified_gmt":"2016-12-30T01:47:19","slug":"sabharwal-brothers-another-vs-smt-guna-amrit-thandani-of-bombay-on-29-march-1972","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sabharwal-brothers-another-vs-smt-guna-amrit-thandani-of-bombay-on-29-march-1972","title":{"rendered":"Sabharwal Brothers & Another vs Smt. Guna Amrit Thandani Of Bombay on 29 March, 1972"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Sabharwal Brothers & Another vs Smt. Guna Amrit Thandani Of Bombay on 29 March, 1972<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1972 AIR 1893, \t\t 1973 SCR (1)\t 53<\/div>\n
Author: G Mitter<\/div>\n
Bench: Mitter, G.K.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSABHARWAL BROTHERS & ANOTHER\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSMT.  GUNA AMRIT THANDANI OF BOMBAY\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT29\/03\/1972\n\nBENCH:\nMITTER, G.K.\nBENCH:\nMITTER, G.K.\nGROVER, A.N.\n\nCITATION:\n 1972 AIR 1893\t\t  1973 SCR  (1)\t 53\n CITATOR INFO :\n D\t    1982 SC1097\t (21,22)\n D\t    1989 SC  81\t (8)\n D\t    1989 SC 122\t (11)\n\n\nACT:\nCooperative  Society  ---Flat  sold  to\t member\t by  Society\n--Member letting out flat to another member-Dispute  between\nlandlord  and  tenant  as  to  continuance  of\ttenancy-Such\ndispute\t whether touches business of society whether can  be\nreferred to Registrar for adjudication under s. 91(1)(b)  of\nMaharashtra Cooperatives Societies Act 1960 (24 of 1961).\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe respondent was the owner of the flat on the second floor\nof a Building in Bombay.  She was a member of a Co-operative\nHousing Society and had acquired the flat from that society.\nIn 1959 she had put the appellant in possession of the\tflat\nfor a period of 11 months on payment of Rs. 5101- per month.\nAccording to the written agreement the possession was  given\non  leave and licence basis.  The government was  signed  by\none  of the partners of the appellant firm who\talso  became\nmembers of the said Co-operative Society.  The agreement was\nrenewed\t until 25th October, 1962 when the first  respondent\nasked the appellants to vacate possession on the ground that\nshe required the flat for personal occupation.\tAs this\t was\nnot complied with she filed a statement of claim before\t the\nRegistrar of Co-operativc Societies on the ground that there\nwas  a\tdispute\t within\t the meaning  of  s.  91(1)  of\t the\nMaharashtra  Co-operative  Societies  Act.   The   Registrar\nreferred  the  case  to a  nominee  whose  jurisdiction\t was\nchallenged by the appellants.  Nevertheless the\t proceedings\nbefore the nominee went on for some time and on July 3, 1964\nthe nominee made an award to the effect that the  appellants\nwere  occupying the flat on leave and licencee\tbasis.\t The\nappellants,  anticipating  the award, filed a  suit  in\t the\nCourt  of  Small  Causes Bombay stating that  they  were  in\noccupation  of the flat as tenants and as such\tentitled  to\nprotection  under  the\tBombay Rent Act,  1947.\t  The  Small\nCauses\tCourt  held  that  the\tsuit  was  maintainable\t and\nanswered  the  other  preliminary issues in  favour  of\t the\nplaintiff.  In revision the bench of the Small Causes  Court\nheld  that the Registrar's nominee did have jurisdiction  to\ntry  the  dispute  between  the\t parties  and  remanded\t the\nproceedings  to\t the trial court for disposal  of  the\tsuit\nafter deciding an issue as to res judicata by reason of\t the\naward  of the nominee.\tThe High Court up-held the order  of\nthe  bench.   In  this Court the  questions  that  fell\t for\nconsideration were (1) Whether there was any dispute between\nthe  parties  touching\tthe  business  of  the\tco-operative\nsociety which could be decided by the Registrar or  referred\nby  him to a nominee for disposal and (2) Whether  the\tsuit\nfiled  in  them Small Causes Court was\tmaintainable  having\nregard to the nature of the relief sought.\nAllowing the appeal\nHELD : (i) No doubt it was a business of the society to\t let\nout  premises and a member had no unqualified right  to\t let\nout  his flat or tenement to another by virtue of  the\tbye-\nlaws and a breach of the byelaws could affect the defaulting\nmember's right to membership.  But\nHELD : (i) No doubt it was a business of the society to\t let\nOut  touch the business of the society which included  inter\nalia  the trade of buying, selling, hiring and letting\tland\nin  accordance with cooperative principles.  The letting  of\nflat by respondent No. 1 was a transaction of\n54\nthe same nature as the society it if was empowered to  enter\ninto  but  such\t letting  out itself  did  not\tconcern\t the\nbusiness  of  the society in the matter of its\tletting\t out\nflats.\t There was nothing to show that such  letting  would\neffect the business of the society once it had sold the flat\nto  the\t respondent  No. 1. The\t position  might  have\tbeen\ndifferent  if  the latter had himself been a tenant  of\t the\nflat  under, the society.  \"To touch\" means \"to\t corn--\t in\ncontact\t with\" and it did not appear that there was a  point\nof contact between a letting by the respondent No. 1 and the\nbusiness of the society when the society was not itself\t the\nland lord of the flat. [57D-G]\n(ii) As observed by this Court in an earlier case the Bombay\nRent Act and   the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act can\nbe harmonised best by\t holding that in matters covered  by\nthe  Rent Act, its provisions rather than the provisions  of\nthe Co-operative Societies Act, should apply.\n[58A]\nDeccan\tMerchants  Co-operative Bank Ltd. v.  M\/s,  Dalkhand\nJugraj Jain and others<\/a>, [1969] 1 S.C.R., 887, distinguished.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: C.A. No. 1574 of 1971.
\nAppeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nJuly  6\/7,  1971 of the Bombay High Court in  Special  Civil
\nApplication No. 619 of 1971.\n<\/p>\n
S.   V. Gupte and P. N. Tiwari, for the appellants.
\nK.   S.\t Chawla,  S.  N. Mishra and S. S.  Jauhar,  for\t the
\nrespondents.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nMitter,\t J. -This  is an appeal by special  leave  from\t a
\njudgment  and order of the Bombay High Court in a  Special
\nCivil  Application  from a decision. of the Court  of  Small
\nCauses\tBombay in exercise of its revisionary  jurisdiction.
\nThe revisional court had reversed the decision of the  trial
\ncourt  and remanded the matter for disposal ,of\t the  issues
\nother  than  issues 2 to 8 tried as preliminary\t issues\t and
\ndecided\t in  favour of the plaintiffs before  the  Court  of
\nSmall Causes.\n<\/p>\n
The facts are as follows.  Respondent No. 1 was the owner of
\na  flat\t on the second floor of Block No. 8  ‘Shyam  Niwas’,
\nWarden\tRoad, I Bombay.\t She was a member of a\tCo-operative
\nHousing\t Society  and had acquired the flat  from  the\tsaid
\nsociety.   In  1959  she had  put  the\tappellant  Sabharwal
\nBrothers  in possession\t of the flat for a  period  of\t11
\nmonths\ton  payment of Rs. 510\/ – per month.  There  was  an
\nagreement  in  writing\twhich purported\t to  show  that\t the
\npossession  was\t to  be on leave and  licence  basis.\tThis
\nagreement was signed by a partner of Sabharwal Brothers\t who
\nalso became member of the said Co-operative Society.   There
\nwere  repeated\trenewels of the said  agreement\t until\t25th
\nOctober, 1962 when the first respondent asked the appellants
\nto  vacate  possession on the ground that she  required\t the
\nflat for her personal occupation.  As this was not  complied
\nwith, she filed a statement of claim before the Registrar of
\nCo-operative Societies on the ground that there was
\n 55<\/span>
\na dispute within the meaning of s. 91(1) of the\t Maharashtra
\nCo-operative Societies Act (Thereinafter referred to as\t the
\n‘Act’) which required adjudication There was a challenge  to
\nthe jurisdiction of the nominee of the Registrar to whom  it
\nwas referred by the appellants.\t The proceedings before\t the
\nnominee went on for some time on July 3, the nominee made an
\naward to the effect the, appellants were occupying the\tflat
\non  leave  and licence basis.  Anticipating  the  award\t the
\nappellants filed a suit in the Court of Small Causes  Bombay
\nstating that they were in occupation of the flat as  tenants
\nand  as\t such entitled to protection under the\tBombay\tRent
\nAct,  1947  and the first respondent had no right  to  evict
\nthem.\tIn her written statement the defendant\tdenied\tthat
\nthe plaintiffs were tenants contending, inter alia, that the
\nplaintiffs were occupying the flat only on leave and licence
\nbasis  etc.; that the dispute between the parties  had\tbeen
\nreferred  to  the Registrar of\tCo-operative  Societies\t for
\ndisposal  and finally that the Court of Small Causes had  no
\njurisdiction  to entertain and try a suit involving  such  a
\ndispute.  The Small Causes-Court framed no less than  twelve
\nissues of which issues 2 to 8 related to the maintainability
\nof the suit and the jurisdiction of the court in view of the
\nprovisions  of s. 91 (1) (d) of the Act.  The  Small  Causes
\nCourt  held that the suit was maintainable and answered\t the
\nother  preliminary issues in favour of the  plaintiff.\t The
\nmatter\twas taken in revision to a Bench of the\t said  Small
\nCauses Court.  The Bench took a different view holding\tthat
\nthe  Registrar’s  nominee did have jurisdiction to  try\t the
\ndispute between the parties and remanded the proceedings  to
\nthe  trial court for disposal of the suit after deciding  on
\nissue  as  to  res judicata by reason of the  award  of\t the
\nnominee.\n<\/p>\n
The  High Court dismissed the Special Civil  Application  of
\nthe  plaintiffs\t holding that the revisional  court  of\t the
\nSmall Causes was justified in coming to the conclusion that-
\nit  was\t not  open to the plaintiffs  to  contend  that\t the
\nRegistrar  or his nominee had no jurisdiction  to  entertain
\nthe dispute on the two grounds on which it was challenged.
\nBefore us the main points urged on behalf of the  appellants
\nwere:  first,  whether\tthere was any  dispute\tbetween\t the
\nparties\t touching the business of the  Co-operative  Society
\nwhich  could be decided by the Registrar or referred by\t him
\nto  a nominee for disposal; and, secondly whether  the\tsuit
\nfiled  in  the Small Causes Court  was\tmaintainable  having
\nregard to the nature of the relief sought.
\nThe  central  question, therefore,.is, whether\tthe  dispute
\nbetween\t the parties is capable of reference under the\tAct.
\nThe  relevant portion of s. 91 (1 ) (b) of the Act  runs  as
\nfollows
\n(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law\t for
\nthe time being in force, any dispute touch
\n56<\/span>
\ning the constitution  ..management or business of a  society
\nshall  be referred by any of the parties to the\t dispute….
\nif  both  the  parties\tthereto are  one  or  other  of\t the
\nfollowing:–\n<\/p>\n
(a)………………………………………….\n<\/p>\n
(b)  a\tmember, past member or a person claiming  through  a
\nmember etc…”\n<\/p>\n
s.   91(3) provides :\n<\/p>\n
“Save as otherwise provided under subsection (3) of  section
\n93,  no court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any\tsuit
\nor  other proceedings in respect of any dispute referred  to
\nin sub-section (1).\n<\/p>\n
We  may also note the relevant portion of s. 163  (1)  which
\nprovides:\n<\/p>\n
I  )  Save as expressly provided in this Act, no  civil\t or
\nrevenue court shall have any jurisdiction in respect of-\n<\/p>\n
(a)\n<\/p>\n
(b)  any  dispute required to be referred to the  Registrar,
\nor his nominee\n<\/p>\n
(c)
\nBefore the Court of Small Causes reference was made to\tbye-
\nlaw  No.  2 of the Society to show that the objects  of\t the
\nsociety\t  were\tinter  alia  to\t carry\ton  the\t  trade\t  of
\nbuying,selling,\t hiring and letting land in accordance\twith
\nthe  co-operative principles and under Regulation No.  5  in
\nform ‘A’ printed at the end of the bye-laws
\n\t      “No  tenant shall assign, underlet, vacate  or
\n\t      part  with the possession of the\ttenement  or
\n\t      any  part\t thereof  without  the\tconsent\t  in
\n\t      writing of the society.”\n<\/p>\n
The Bench of the Court of Small Causes referred to the above
\nprovisions  and\t observed that the bye-laws of\tthe  society
\nconstituted an agreement between the members of the  society
\nand  a breach thereof would affect the\tdefaulting  member’s
\nright  of  membership  of the  society\tand  consequently  a
\ndispute\t relating to the letting of the flat was  a  dispute
\nwhich touched the business of the society.\n<\/p>\n
57<\/span><\/p>\n
(Mitter, J.)
\nThe  High  Court  referred  to s.  91  of  the\tCo-operative
\nSocities Act. and S. 28 of the Bombay Rent Act and observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “There   is   a\tcompetition   between\t two
\n\t      authorities,  a  court  and  the\t Registrar’s
\n\t      nominee,\t   both\t    exercising\t   exclusive
\n\t      jurisdiction  in\trespect\t of  matters  coming
\n\t      within their jurisdiction.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
and concluded that on general principles of law it would not
\nbe  proper to allow the same question to be  agitated  again
\nunder a different guise.  It also observed that the decision
\ntaken by the Assistant Registrar and the nominee could\thave
\nbeen  decided by an appeal and as no appeal had\t been  filed
\nthe provisions of law must have their effect with the result
\nthat  the  decision  of the dispute by the  nominee  of\t the
\nRegistrar had become final.\n<\/p>\n
With  all  respect to the High Court, it seems\tto  us\tthat
\nthere  was a fundamental error in the above  approach.\t No
\ndoubt it was the business of the society to let out premises
\nand a member had no unqualified right to let out his flat or
\ntenement  to another by virtue of the bye-laws and a  breach
\nof  the bye-laws could affect the defaulting member’s  right
\nto membership.\tBut we are not able to see how letting by  a
\nmember\tto another member would touch the business  of\tthe
\nsociety\t which\tincluded  inter alia the  trade\t of  buying,
\nselling, hiring and letting land in accordance with  co-ope-
\nrative principles.  The letting of flat by respondent No.  1
\nwas a transact-ion of the same nature as the society  itself
\nwas  empowered to enter into but such letting by itself\t did
\nnot concern the business of the society in the matter of its
\nletting’  out flats.  Nothing was brought to our  notice  to
\nshow  that such a letting would affect the business  of\t the
\nsociety\t once it had sold the flat to the respondent No.  1.
\nThe  position  might have been different if the\t latter\t had
\nhimself\t been a tenant of the flat under the  society.\t “To
\ntouch”\tmeans  “to  come in contact with” and  it  does\t not
\nappear that there is a point of contact between a letting by
\nthe  respondent No. 1 and the business of the  society\twhen
\nthe society was not itself the landlord of the flat.
\nReference was made at the Bar to Deccan Merchants  Co-opera-
\ntive Bank Ltd. v. M\/s Dalichand Jugraj Jain and\t others<\/a>(,’).
\nThe  facts  there  were very different\tfrom  those  of\t the
\ninstant case.\n<\/p>\n
(1) [1969] 1 S.C.R. 887.\n<\/p>\n
5-LI208 Sup C I\/72
\n58<\/span>
\nBut  the  Court had to consider the  question  of  competing
\njurisdiction under the Bombay Rent Act and the Act and it is
\npertinent  to  note the observations at p.902″that  the\t two
\nacts  can  be  harmonised best by holding  that\t in  matters
\ncovered\t by  the Rent Act, its provisions, rather  than\t the
\nprovisions of the Act, should apply.”\n<\/p>\n
In  the result we allow the appeal, set aside the  judgement
\nand order of the High Court And of the Bench of the Court of
\nSmall Causes.  The matter is now to go back to the Court  of
\nSmall Causes for disposal  according to law.  The appellants
\nwill have the costs incurred in this Court.
\nAppeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n
G.C.\n<\/p>\n
59<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Sabharwal Brothers & Another vs Smt. Guna Amrit Thandani Of Bombay on 29 March, 1972 Equivalent citations: 1972 AIR 1893, 1973 SCR (1) 53 Author: G Mitter Bench: Mitter, G.K. PETITIONER: SABHARWAL BROTHERS & ANOTHER Vs. RESPONDENT: SMT. GUNA AMRIT THANDANI OF BOMBAY DATE OF JUDGMENT29\/03\/1972 BENCH: MITTER, G.K. BENCH: MITTER, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-84503","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSabharwal Brothers & Another vs Smt. Guna Amrit Thandani Of Bombay on 29 March, 1972 - 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\/sabharwal-brothers-another-vs-smt-guna-amrit-thandani-of-bombay-on-29-march-1972\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sabharwal Brothers & Another vs Smt. Guna Amrit Thandani Of Bombay on 29 March, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sabharwal-brothers-another-vs-smt-guna-amrit-thandani-of-bombay-on-29-march-1972\" \/>\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=\"1972-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-30T01:47:19+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sabharwal-brothers-another-vs-smt-guna-amrit-thandani-of-bombay-on-29-march-1972#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sabharwal-brothers-another-vs-smt-guna-amrit-thandani-of-bombay-on-29-march-1972\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sabharwal Brothers & Another vs Smt. Guna Amrit Thandani Of Bombay on 29 March, 1972\",\"datePublished\":\"1972-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-30T01:47:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sabharwal-brothers-another-vs-smt-guna-amrit-thandani-of-bombay-on-29-march-1972\"},\"wordCount\":1640,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sabharwal-brothers-another-vs-smt-guna-amrit-thandani-of-bombay-on-29-march-1972#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sabharwal-brothers-another-vs-smt-guna-amrit-thandani-of-bombay-on-29-march-1972\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sabharwal-brothers-another-vs-smt-guna-amrit-thandani-of-bombay-on-29-march-1972\",\"name\":\"Sabharwal Brothers & Another vs Smt. Guna Amrit Thandani Of Bombay on 29 March, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1972-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-30T01:47:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sabharwal-brothers-another-vs-smt-guna-amrit-thandani-of-bombay-on-29-march-1972#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sabharwal-brothers-another-vs-smt-guna-amrit-thandani-of-bombay-on-29-march-1972\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sabharwal-brothers-another-vs-smt-guna-amrit-thandani-of-bombay-on-29-march-1972#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sabharwal Brothers & Another vs Smt. Guna Amrit Thandani Of Bombay on 29 March, 1972\"}]},{\"@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":"Sabharwal Brothers & Another vs Smt. Guna Amrit Thandani Of Bombay on 29 March, 1972 - 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\/sabharwal-brothers-another-vs-smt-guna-amrit-thandani-of-bombay-on-29-march-1972","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sabharwal Brothers & Another vs Smt. Guna Amrit Thandani Of Bombay on 29 March, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sabharwal-brothers-another-vs-smt-guna-amrit-thandani-of-bombay-on-29-march-1972","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1972-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-30T01:47:19+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sabharwal-brothers-another-vs-smt-guna-amrit-thandani-of-bombay-on-29-march-1972#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sabharwal-brothers-another-vs-smt-guna-amrit-thandani-of-bombay-on-29-march-1972"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sabharwal Brothers & Another vs Smt. Guna Amrit Thandani Of Bombay on 29 March, 1972","datePublished":"1972-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-30T01:47:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sabharwal-brothers-another-vs-smt-guna-amrit-thandani-of-bombay-on-29-march-1972"},"wordCount":1640,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sabharwal-brothers-another-vs-smt-guna-amrit-thandani-of-bombay-on-29-march-1972#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sabharwal-brothers-another-vs-smt-guna-amrit-thandani-of-bombay-on-29-march-1972","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sabharwal-brothers-another-vs-smt-guna-amrit-thandani-of-bombay-on-29-march-1972","name":"Sabharwal Brothers & Another vs Smt. Guna Amrit Thandani Of Bombay on 29 March, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1972-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-30T01:47:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sabharwal-brothers-another-vs-smt-guna-amrit-thandani-of-bombay-on-29-march-1972#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sabharwal-brothers-another-vs-smt-guna-amrit-thandani-of-bombay-on-29-march-1972"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sabharwal-brothers-another-vs-smt-guna-amrit-thandani-of-bombay-on-29-march-1972#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sabharwal Brothers & Another vs Smt. Guna Amrit Thandani Of Bombay on 29 March, 1972"}]},{"@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\/84503","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=84503"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/84503\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=84503"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=84503"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=84503"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}