{"id":87134,"date":"2009-07-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nitin-seth-anr-vs-v-ijay-lakhani-4-ors-on-24-july-2009"},"modified":"2018-04-01T08:09:20","modified_gmt":"2018-04-01T02:39:20","slug":"nitin-seth-anr-vs-v-ijay-lakhani-4-ors-on-24-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nitin-seth-anr-vs-v-ijay-lakhani-4-ors-on-24-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"Nitin Seth & Anr vs V Ijay Lakhani & 4 Ors on 24 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Nitin Seth & Anr vs V Ijay Lakhani & 4 Ors on 24 July, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: Anoop V.Mohta<\/div>\n
                                         1\n\n\n\n                   IN THE  HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                           \n                                      O.O.C.J.\n\n\n\n\n                                                   \n                          CONTEMPT PETITION NO.21 OF 2009\n                                        IN\n                               SUIT NO.36  OF  2002\n\n\n\n\n                                                  \n    Nitin Seth & anr.                                       ....   Petitioners\n           vs\n    V ijay Lakhani & 4 ors.                                 ...    Respondents\n\n\n\n\n                                         \n                                   ALONG WITH\n                          CONTEMPT PETITION NO.22 OF 2009\n                               ig       IN\n                                SUIT NO.36 OF 2002\n                             \n    Rajesh Vora & 3 ors.                                    ... Petitioners\n           vs\n    Vijay Lakhani & 4 ors.                                  ... Respondents\n        \n\n\n                                   ALONG WITH\n                          CONTEMPT PETITION NO.23 OF 2009\n     \n\n\n\n                                        IN\n                                SUIT NO.36 OF 2002\n\n    Dhanraj R. Jain & anr.                                  ... Petitioners\n\n\n\n\n\n           vs\n    Vijay Lakhani & 4 ors.                                  ... Respondents\n\n                                   ALONG WITH\n                          CONTEMPT PETITION NO.24 OF 2009\n\n\n\n\n\n                                        IN\n                                SUIT NO.36 OF 2002\n\n    Saif Ahmed Baig                                         ... Petitioners\n           vs\n    Vijay Lakhani & 4 ors.                                  ... Respondents\n\n                                   ALONG WITH\n                          CONTEMPT PETITION NO.25 OF 2009\n                                        IN\n                                SUIT NO.36 OF 2002\n\n\n\n\n                                                   ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:49:46 :::\n                                         2\n\n\n    Raj Chawla                                             ... Petitioners\n           vs\n\n\n\n\n                                                                          \n    Vijay Lakhani & 4 ors.                                 ... Respondents\n\n\n\n\n                                                  \n                                  ALONG WITH\n                         CONTEMPT PETITION NO.30 OF 2009\n                                       IN\n                               SUIT NO.36 OF 2002\n\n\n\n\n                                                 \n    Deepak Thakkar                                         ... Petitioners\n           vs\n    Vijay Lakhani & 4 ors.                                 ... Respondents\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n                                  ALONG WITH\n                         CONTEMPT PETITION NO.35 OF 2009\n                              ig       IN\n                               SUIT NO.36 OF 2002\n\n    Shivanand Mamdapur                                     ... Petitioners\n                            \n           vs\n    Vijay Lakhani & 4 ors.                                 ... Respondents\n\n                                  ALONG WITH\n        \n\n                         CONTEMPT PETITION NO.58 OF 2009\n                                       IN\n                               SUIT NO.36 OF 2002\n     \n\n\n\n    Ramkrishna A. Sabnis                                   ... Petitioners \n           vs\n    Vijay Lakhani & 4 ors.                                 ... Respondents\n\n\n\n\n\n                                  ALONG WITH\n                         CONTEMPT PETITION NO.59 OF 2009\n                                       IN\n\n\n\n\n\n                               SUIT NO.36 OF 2002\n\n    Madhu Anup Bheda                                       ... Petitioners\n           vs\n    Vijay Lakhani & 4 ors.                                 ... Respondents\n\n                                AND ALONG WITH\n                         CONTEMPT PETITION NO.60 OF 2009\n                                       IN\n                               SUIT NO.36 OF 2002\n\n\n\n\n                                                  ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:49:46 :::\n                                                  3\n\n    Devidas K. Bade                                                      ... Petitioners \n           vs\n    Vijay Lakhani & 4 ors.                                               ... Respondents\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                        \n                                                                \n    Mr. S. S. Joshi  for the petitioners.\n\n    Mr. S. A. Bhalwal i\/b. M\/s.Vyas & Bhalwal for respondents 1 and 2.\n\n    Ms.Smita Tambe with Ms.J. M. Sidhwa i\/b. Mr.Manoj Bhatt for respondents 3 to 5. \n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n                                                 CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                                                   DATE  :   24th July,  2009<\/p>\n
    ORAL JUDGMENT:\n<\/p>\n
           Heard finally by consent.\n<\/p>\n
    2      As   the   basic   consent   terms   concerned   with   the   petitioners   and   the <\/p>\n
    respondents   are   common,   which   is   the   foundation   for   filing   these   Contempt <\/p>\n
    Petitions by the petitioners, I am disposing all these contempt petitions by this <\/p>\n
    common order.  For the purposes of disposing these contempt petitions, the facts <\/p>\n
    of Contempt Petition No.21\/09 are taken.   Most of the events are common except <\/p>\n
    respective payment  and the flat numbers.\n<\/p>\n
    3      In 1994, Punit City Project, Plot No.27, Sector No.15, CBD Belapur, Navi <\/p>\n
    Mumbai 400 703, launched by respondents 3 to 5.\n<\/p>\n
    4      The petitioners paid the agreed amount  to respondents 3 to 5 for purchase <\/p>\n
    of respective Flats  in Punit City Building under a registered Agreement for Sale.\n<\/p>\n
    5      In 2002, Suit No.36 of 2002 filed by GIC Housing Finance Limited against <\/p>\n
    respondents 3 to 5 for recovery of outstanding dues in respect of mortgage of the <\/p>\n
    property.   The mortgage of the property by respondents 3 to 5 to GIC Housing <\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:49:46 :::<\/span>
\n                                                      4<\/span><\/p>\n
    Finance was not within the knowledge of and consented the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
    6       In 2005, respondents 3 to 5 unable to complete project and handed over <\/p>\n
    the project to Punit City Association.\n<\/p>\n
    7       On 20.12.2006, Development Agreement between respondents 1 and 2 and <\/p>\n
    Punit City Association and respondents 3 to 5 to take over the redevelopment <\/p>\n
    project.\n<\/p>\n
    8       During April, 2007 to July, 2007, the petitioners  contested the taking over <\/p>\n
    the   project   by   respondents   1   and   2   from   respondents   3   to   5   by   taking   out <\/p>\n
    Chamber Summons No.643 of 2007.\n<\/p>\n
    9<\/span><\/p>\n
            On 22.08.2007, the Court accepted the Undertakings by taking on record <\/p>\n
    the Minutes of Order duly signed by all the parties.\n<\/p>\n
    10      On 29.08.2007, the Petitioners and respondents 1 and 2 and respondents 3 <\/p>\n
    to 5 executed and registered Supplementary Tripartite Agreement for sale of Flats.\n<\/p>\n
    11      On   17.08.2008   a   Separate   Affidavits   of   Undertaking   executed   by   the <\/p>\n
    respondents.\n<\/p>\n
    12      On 11.09.2008, Letter of respondents 1 and 2 of expressing their inability <\/p>\n
    to hand over possession.\n<\/p>\n
    13      30.09.2008 was day of handing over possession of Shop Nos. 2, 3 and 4 by <\/p>\n
    respondents 1 and 2 to the respective petitioners as   per the undertaking.   The <\/p>\n
    flats could not be handed over.   Hence, in February, 2009 the present Contempt <\/p>\n
    Petitions.\n<\/p>\n
    14      There is no dispute about the consent terms read with the contents therein.\n<\/p>\n
    Respondents   1   and   2   are   the   main   parties   as   alleged   by   the   petitioners   who, <\/p>\n
    according to them, not complied with the order\/undertaking dated 17.08.2007.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:49:46 :::<\/span>
\n                                                      5<\/span><\/p>\n
    15      Admittedly,   as   respondents   3   to   5   could   not   complete   the   construction, <\/p>\n
    respondents 1 and 2 entered into a Tripartite Agreement for sale in respect of all <\/p>\n
    flats  with the respective parties.   This also recorded in the consent terms\/order <\/p>\n
    dated 22-08-2007 duly  signed by all the parties, read with common order dated <\/p>\n
    22-08-2007  passed in chamber summons no.643\/2007 and thereby accepted the <\/p>\n
    statements   and   undertaking   given   by   the   respondents.     Suit   No.36\/2002   was <\/p>\n
    accordingly disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
    16      In   view   of   above,   admittedly,   the   parties   have   entered   into   the   consent <\/p>\n
    terms.       The   background   of   the   litigation   and   the   default   on   earlier <\/p>\n
    builder\/parties were well within the knowledge.  The factual situation, therefore, <\/p>\n
    even otherwise, could not have been changed except that they decided to proceed <\/p>\n
    further to complete the Project\/construction.\n<\/p>\n
    17      The lacunae and the reason for such delay in completion of the project <\/p>\n
    itself   shows   that   there   are   various   formalities   and   various   stages   need   to   be <\/p>\n
    completed jointly, specially with the cooperation of all.\n<\/p>\n
    18      When we talk about the handing over of possession within the prescribed <\/p>\n
    time, it also means subject to Rules and Regulations of the Mumbai Municipal <\/p>\n
    Corporations   and   as   contemplated   under   Section   45   (1)   and   (3)   of   the <\/p>\n
    Maharashtra Regional Town & Planning Act.      The requirement is that whether <\/p>\n
    there was intentional and\/or deliberate attempt to avoid and\/or not to comply <\/p>\n
    with the undertaking given to the Court.     Therefore,   though undertaking was <\/p>\n
                                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:49:46 :::<\/span>
\n                                                       6<\/span><\/p>\n
    given   and   as   recorded,   that   itself   cannot   be   the   reason   to   held   them <\/p>\n
    responsible\/liable   for   alleged   breach   of   undertaking.       It   is   not   the   case   that <\/p>\n
    respondents  1 and 2 not proceeded with the construction.  The basic submission <\/p>\n
    is that they failed to provide the flat and so-called damages within the specified <\/p>\n
    period and, therefore, the contempt.\n<\/p>\n
    19      Admittedly, respondents 1 and 2 proceeded as per the consent orders in <\/p>\n
    question.   However, as alleged, they could not complete the same for want of <\/p>\n
    various formalities.   There are various   documents on record to show that the <\/p>\n
    dispute, with regard to some boundary portion of the land\/project in question, <\/p>\n
    which was well within the knowledge of the petitioners, could not be settled at <\/p>\n
    the earliest.  Respondents 1 and 2 themselves could not settle the same.  That was <\/p>\n
    again the requirement of joint efforts and the pursuation by all.\n<\/p>\n
    20      The   respondents   moved   an   application   on   11.03.2008   for   issuance   of <\/p>\n
    occupation certificate for the plot in question to the Municipal Corporation of Navi <\/p>\n
    Mumbai.   The said application was under process.  The concerned Department of <\/p>\n
    the Corporation enquired and asked for many details and in fact on 14.10.2008 <\/p>\n
    the said application was rejected on various grounds.   The objection about the <\/p>\n
    boundary dispute as referred above, was also there.   The respondents have no <\/p>\n
    choice   but   to   apply   afresh   on   27.05.2009   along   with   the   necessary   required <\/p>\n
    documents   for   the   purposes   of   occupation   certificate.     The   application   was <\/p>\n
    thereafter proceeded again and ultimately, now an Occupation Certificate  dated <\/p>\n
    22.06.2009 has been issued by the concerned Authority referring to application <\/p>\n
                                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:49:46 :::<\/span>
\n                                                       7<\/span><\/p>\n
    dated 11.03.2008 and 27.05.2009.\n<\/p>\n
    21      A   statement   is   made   at   the   bar   and   which   is   not   in   dispute   that   the <\/p>\n
    construction is completed.   About 22 other members have already been handed <\/p>\n
    over the possession of the flats.     The learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 <\/p>\n
    makes further statement that they are ready to hand over the possession of the <\/p>\n
    flats, subject to all other necessary formalities including the balance payment, if <\/p>\n
    any.\n<\/p>\n
    22<\/span><\/p>\n
            Even if there are some defaults or some delay, but taking note of above <\/p>\n
    circumstances and the reason  so recorded, in my view, it is difficult to accept the <\/p>\n
    case of the petitioners that there was intentional delay or deliberate attempt not <\/p>\n
    to comply with the consent terms\/orders.\n<\/p>\n
    23      The delay was also caused because of some alterations in the project by the <\/p>\n
    new developer\/respondents 1 and 2, even if we take note of, that itself in my view <\/p>\n
    is no way sufficient to accept the case of the petitioner as averred in the present <\/p>\n
    case in view of above.\n<\/p>\n
    24      Defendants 3 and 4 are admittedly though  party to the  proceedings, but <\/p>\n
    were not in-charge of the Project and the  construction in question at least since <\/p>\n
    August   2007.       Therefore,   they   are   in   no   way   responsible   firstly   for   the <\/p>\n
    project\/construction,  and lastly, the alleged delay in completing the project.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:49:46 :::<\/span>
\n                                                        8<\/span><\/p>\n
    25      So far as the damages as referred in the consent te3rms\/undertaking, that <\/p>\n
    cannot be gone and\/or considered  in this proceeding.  Whether there is a delay <\/p>\n
    or no and  what are  the  reasons for the same, that is a  mater  of trial.     Even <\/p>\n
    otherwise, contempt proceedings cannot be invoked to execute the money claim.\n<\/p>\n
    For that, remedy is elsewhere.   In the present case, there is no monetary claim <\/p>\n
    decided   yet.       Therefore,     also   there   is   no   question   of   deciding   the   issue   of <\/p>\n
    damages even, if any, in the present proceeding.\n<\/p>\n
    26      Strikingly,  the Apex Court in 2009(5) SCC 665-Food Corporation of India <\/p>\n
    vs. Sukhdeo Prasad,<\/a> has held that the contempt jurisdiction cannot be utilised to <\/p>\n
    recover or to enforce the monetary part of the order\/direction.\n<\/p>\n
    27      In view of above, keeping all points open with regard to the damages, if <\/p>\n
    any,  all these Petitions are dismissed.   No costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                                               (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)<\/p>\n
                                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:49:46 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Nitin Seth & Anr vs V Ijay Lakhani & 4 Ors on 24 July, 2009 Bench: Anoop V.Mohta 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. CONTEMPT PETITION NO.21 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.36 OF 2002 Nitin Seth & anr. …. Petitioners vs V ijay Lakhani & 4 ors. … […]<\/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-87134","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nNitin Seth & Anr vs V Ijay Lakhani & 4 Ors on 24 July, 2009 - 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\/nitin-seth-anr-vs-v-ijay-lakhani-4-ors-on-24-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Nitin Seth & Anr vs V Ijay Lakhani & 4 Ors on 24 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nitin-seth-anr-vs-v-ijay-lakhani-4-ors-on-24-july-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-07-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-01T02:39:20+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nitin-seth-anr-vs-v-ijay-lakhani-4-ors-on-24-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nitin-seth-anr-vs-v-ijay-lakhani-4-ors-on-24-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Nitin Seth & Anr vs V Ijay Lakhani & 4 Ors on 24 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-01T02:39:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nitin-seth-anr-vs-v-ijay-lakhani-4-ors-on-24-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1245,\"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\\\/nitin-seth-anr-vs-v-ijay-lakhani-4-ors-on-24-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nitin-seth-anr-vs-v-ijay-lakhani-4-ors-on-24-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nitin-seth-anr-vs-v-ijay-lakhani-4-ors-on-24-july-2009\",\"name\":\"Nitin Seth & Anr vs V Ijay Lakhani & 4 Ors on 24 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-01T02:39:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nitin-seth-anr-vs-v-ijay-lakhani-4-ors-on-24-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nitin-seth-anr-vs-v-ijay-lakhani-4-ors-on-24-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nitin-seth-anr-vs-v-ijay-lakhani-4-ors-on-24-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Nitin Seth & Anr vs V Ijay Lakhani & 4 Ors on 24 July, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Nitin Seth & Anr vs V Ijay Lakhani & 4 Ors on 24 July, 2009 - 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\/nitin-seth-anr-vs-v-ijay-lakhani-4-ors-on-24-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Nitin Seth & Anr vs V Ijay Lakhani & 4 Ors on 24 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nitin-seth-anr-vs-v-ijay-lakhani-4-ors-on-24-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-01T02:39:20+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nitin-seth-anr-vs-v-ijay-lakhani-4-ors-on-24-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nitin-seth-anr-vs-v-ijay-lakhani-4-ors-on-24-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Nitin Seth & Anr vs V Ijay Lakhani & 4 Ors on 24 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-01T02:39:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nitin-seth-anr-vs-v-ijay-lakhani-4-ors-on-24-july-2009"},"wordCount":1245,"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\/nitin-seth-anr-vs-v-ijay-lakhani-4-ors-on-24-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nitin-seth-anr-vs-v-ijay-lakhani-4-ors-on-24-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nitin-seth-anr-vs-v-ijay-lakhani-4-ors-on-24-july-2009","name":"Nitin Seth & Anr vs V Ijay Lakhani & 4 Ors on 24 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-01T02:39:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nitin-seth-anr-vs-v-ijay-lakhani-4-ors-on-24-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nitin-seth-anr-vs-v-ijay-lakhani-4-ors-on-24-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nitin-seth-anr-vs-v-ijay-lakhani-4-ors-on-24-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Nitin Seth & Anr vs V Ijay Lakhani & 4 Ors on 24 July, 2009"}]},{"@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\/87134","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=87134"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/87134\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=87134"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=87134"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=87134"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}