{"id":94970,"date":"2009-09-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-rukmini-vishwanath-shendge-vs-shri-shriniwas-tuljaram-burudkar-on-9-september-2009"},"modified":"2018-11-10T01:30:52","modified_gmt":"2018-11-09T20:00:52","slug":"smt-rukmini-vishwanath-shendge-vs-shri-shriniwas-tuljaram-burudkar-on-9-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-rukmini-vishwanath-shendge-vs-shri-shriniwas-tuljaram-burudkar-on-9-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"Smt.Rukmini Vishwanath Shendge : vs Shri Shriniwas Tuljaram Burudkar … on 9 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Smt.Rukmini Vishwanath Shendge : vs Shri Shriniwas Tuljaram Burudkar … on 9 September, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: S.A. Bobde<\/div>\n
                                         1\n\n\n             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                              \n                             APPELLATE SIDE\n\n\n\n\n                                                      \n             CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1131 OF 2009\n\n    Smt.Rukmini Vishwanath Shendge                        : Petitioner\n                                                        (Original Accused)\n\n\n\n\n                                                     \n          V\/s.\n\n    Shri Shriniwas Tuljaram Burudkar & Anr.                : Respondents\n                            ....\n\n\n\n\n                                         \n    Mr.D.V. Gangal with Mr.Ram Singh for the petitioner.\n                           \n    Mr.Niranjan P. Shimpi for respondent no.1.\n                          \n    Mrs.P.P. Bhosale, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.\n                             ....\n\n                                        CORAM : S.A. BOBDE, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                                        DATE      : SEPTEMBER 09, 2009.\n   \n\n\n\n    ORAL ORDER:\n\n<\/pre>\n
    1.     The petitioner has challenged the process under section 138 of the<\/p>\n
    Negotiable Instruments Act on a complaint filed by the respondent no.1.\n<\/p>\n
    2.      The main contention of Mr.Gangal, the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
    petitioner, is that two of the five vital ingredients of the offence under<\/p>\n
    section 138 as laid down by the Supreme Court in Kusum Ingots & Alloys<\/p>\n
    Ltd. v. Pennar Peterson Securities Ltd.<\/a> [(2002) 2 SCC 745] have not<\/p>\n
    been followed, viz., ingredients nos.(iii) and (v). The five ingredients laid<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:59:32 :::<\/span>
\n                                            2<\/span><\/p>\n
    down by the apex Court in paragraph 10 in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd.’s<\/p>\n
    case read as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
                “(i) a person must have drawn a cheque on an<\/p>\n
                account maintained by him in a bank for payment<\/p>\n
                of a certain amount of money to another person<\/p>\n
                from out of that account for the discharge of any<\/p>\n
                debt or other liability;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  (ii) that cheque has been presented to the bank<\/p>\n
                within a period of six months from the date on<\/p>\n
                which it is drawn or within the period of its<\/p>\n
                validity, whichever is earlier;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   (iii) that cheque is returned by the bank unpaid,<\/p>\n
                either because the amount of money standing to the<\/p>\n
                credit of the account is insufficient to honour the<\/p>\n
                cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be<\/p>\n
                paid from that account by an agreement made with<\/p>\n
                the bank;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  (iv) the payee or the holder in due course of the<\/p>\n
                cheque makes a demand for the payment of the said<\/p>\n
                amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to<\/p>\n
                the drawer of the cheque, within 15 days of the<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:59:32 :::<\/span>
\n                                          3<\/span><\/p>\n
                receipt of information by him from the bank<\/p>\n
                regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    (v) the drawer of such cheque fails to make<\/p>\n
                payment of the said amount of money to the payee<\/p>\n
                or the holder in due course of the cheque within 15<\/p>\n
                days of the receipt of the said notice.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    3.       According to Mr.Gangal, the respondent no.1 did not allege<\/p>\n
    ingredient no.(iii) above by stating that the amount of money standing to<\/p>\n
    the credit of the account is sufficient to honour the cheque. On the<\/p>\n
    contrary, the respondent no.1 averred in the complaint that the petitioner-\n<\/p>\n
    accused ordered the Bank to stop payment of the cheque and that is why<\/p>\n
    the respondent-complainant did not receive the money. According to<\/p>\n
    Mr.Gangal, the averments that the accused directed the Bank to stop<\/p>\n
    payment of the cheque does not constitute an offence since what<\/p>\n
    constitutes an offence under section 138 of the Act, it is the return of a<\/p>\n
    cheque by the Bank, unpaid, because the funds of the accused are<\/p>\n
    insufficient to honour the cheque. The second contention of Mr.Gangal is<\/p>\n
    that the respondent no.1 has not averred in the complaint that the<\/p>\n
    petitioner-accused has failed to make payment of the amount of money<\/p>\n
    demanded within 15 days of receipt of the notice.\n<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:59:32 :::<\/span>
\n                                         4<\/span><\/p>\n
    4.       There is no merit in the contention that if a complainant avers in<\/p>\n
    the complaint that he did not receive payment because the accused<\/p>\n
    directed the Bank to stop payment of the cheque, no offence under<\/p>\n
    section 138 of the Act can be said to have been made out. In Modi<\/p>\n
    Cements Ltd. v. Kuchil Kumar Nandi<\/a> [(1998) 3 SCC 249], the Supreme<\/p>\n
    Court was considering an appeal from a judgment of the High Court<\/p>\n
    which had held that a complaint under section 138 is not tenable since:-\n<\/p>\n
                “(i) The appellant has not pleaded in his complaint<\/p>\n
                that the cheques were returned by the bank unpaid<\/p>\n
                “either because the amount of money standing to<\/p>\n
                the credit of that account is insufficient to honour<\/p>\n
                the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged<\/p>\n
                to be paid from that account by an agreement made<\/p>\n
                with that bank”.     The necessary ingredients of<\/p>\n
                Section 138 of the Act having not been pleaded the<\/p>\n
                Court could not have taken cognizance of the<\/p>\n
                offence.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   (i) Mere endorsement of the bank “payment<\/p>\n
                stopped” was not sufficient to entertain the<\/p>\n
                complaint as that was not an ingredient of the<\/p>\n
                offence under Section 138 of the Act.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:59:32 :::<\/span>
\n                                         5<\/span><\/p>\n
    The Supreme Court relied on its earlier judgement in Electronics Trade &<\/p>\n
    Technology Development Corpn. Ltd.            v.    Indian Technologists &<\/p>\n
    Engineers (Electronics) (P) Ltd.<\/a> [(1996) 2 SCC 739] and the judgement in<\/p>\n
    K.K. Sidharthan v. T.P. Praveena Chandran<\/a> [(1996) 6 SCC 369] in which<\/p>\n
    the Supreme Court held that section 138 gets attracted even if a cheque is<\/p>\n
    dishonoured because of stop payment instructions to the Bank. Their<\/p>\n
    Lordships concluded as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
                “11. Another two-Judge Bench while dealing with<\/p>\n
                the same question in K.K. Sidharthan             v.    T.P.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                Praveena Chandran (SCC p. 370, para 2) observed:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     “This shows that Section 138 gets attracted in<\/p>\n
                terms if cheque is dishonoured because of<\/p>\n
                insufficient funds or where the amount exceeds the<\/p>\n
                arrangement made with the bank. It has, however,<\/p>\n
                been held by a Bench of this Court in Electronics<\/p>\n
                Trade and Technology Development Corpn. Ltd.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                v.      Indian    Technologists        and     Engineers<\/p>\n
                (Electronics) (P) Ltd. that even if a cheque is<\/p>\n
                dishonoured because of `stop payment’ instruction<\/p>\n
                to the bank, Section 138 would get attracted.:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:59:32 :::<\/span>
\n                                        6<\/span><\/p>\n
                We are in complete agreement with the above legal<\/p>\n
                proposition.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    5.      Subsequently, the Supreme Court in Goaplast (P.) Ltd. v. Chico<\/p>\n
    Ursula D’Souza &<\/a> another (2003 Bom.C.R.(Cri.) 931) re-affirmed this<\/p>\n
    view in the following words:-\n<\/p>\n
               “A contrary view would render section 138 a dead<\/p>\n
               letter and will provide a handle to persons trying to<\/p>\n
               avoid payment under legal obligations undertaken<\/p>\n
               by them through their own acts which in other<\/p>\n
               words can be said to be taking advantage of one’s<\/p>\n
               own wrong.       If we hold otherwise, by giving<\/p>\n
               instructions to banks to stop payment of a cheque<\/p>\n
               after issuing the same against a debt or liability, a<\/p>\n
               drawer will easily avoid penal consequences under<\/p>\n
               section 138. Once a cheque is issued by a drawer,<\/p>\n
               a presumption under section 139 must follow and<\/p>\n
               merely because the drawer issued notice to the<\/p>\n
               drawee or to the bank for stoppage of payment it<\/p>\n
               will not preclude an action under section 138 of the<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:59:32 :::<\/span>
\n                              7<\/span><\/p>\n
     Act by the drawee or the holder of the cheque in<\/p>\n
     due course. This was the view taken by this Court<\/p>\n
     in (Modi Cements Ltd. v. Kuchil Kumar Nandi)2,<\/a><\/p>\n
     2000 DoCh. (S.C.) 720 : 1999 Bank.J. 83 (S.C.) :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     1998 (3) S.C.C. 249. On same facts is the decision<\/p>\n
     of this Court in (Ashok Yeshwant Badave               v.\n<\/p>\n
     Surendra    Madhavrao       Nighojakar)3,     2001(5)<\/p>\n
     Bom.C.R. (S.C.)456 : 2003 Do.Ch. (S.C.)181 :\n<\/p>\n
     2001 Bank.J. (S.C.)458 : 2001 (3) S.C.C. 726. The<\/p>\n
     decision in Modi case overruled an earlier decision<\/p>\n
     of this Court in (Electronics Trade & Technology<\/p>\n
     Development Corporation Ltd.           v.       Indian<\/p>\n
     Technologists & Engineers (Electronics) (P.)<\/p>\n
     Ltd.)4,<\/a> 1996(2) Bom.C.R. 150(S.C.) : 2000 DoCh.\n<\/p>\n
     (S.C.)296 : 1996 Bank.J. 408(S.C.) : 1996(2)<\/p>\n
     S.C.C. 739 : A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 2339, which had<\/p>\n
     taken a contrary view.        We are in respectful<\/p>\n
     agreement with the view taken in Modi case. The<\/p>\n
     said view is in consonance with the object of the<\/p>\n
     legislation. On the faith of payment by way of a<\/p>\n
     post-dated cheque, the payee alters his position by<\/p>\n
     accepting the cheque.       If stoppage of payment<\/p>\n
                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:59:32 :::<\/span>
\n                                          8<\/span><\/p>\n
                 before the due date of the cheque is allowed to take<\/p>\n
                 the transaction out of the purview of section 138 of<\/p>\n
                 the Act, it will shake the confidence which a<\/p>\n
                 cheque is otherwise intended to inspire regarding<\/p>\n
                 payment being available on the due date.”\n<\/p>\n
    In this view of the matter, there is no merit in this contention raised on<\/p>\n
    behalf of the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
    6.     As regards the contention that the complaint does not mention<\/p>\n
    another essential ingredient, viz., the petitioner-accused failed to make<\/p>\n
    payment within a period of 15 days on receipt of the notice, Mr.Gangal<\/p>\n
    referred to the pleadings in the case, a true translation of which reads as<\/p>\n
    follows:-\n<\/p>\n
                    “For the information and payment of amount of<\/p>\n
                 the dishonoured cheque, the Complainant sent a<\/p>\n
                 notice on the above noted address on 3.2.2006,<\/p>\n
                 through Advocate Shri P.D. Kulkarni by Registered<\/p>\n
                 post Ack\/Due and copy of that was sent by Under<\/p>\n
                 Postal Certificate on the address mentioned in the<\/p>\n
                 notice. The Accused has received the aforesaid<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:59:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                         9<\/span><\/p>\n
                notice.     After receiving the above notice, the<\/p>\n
                Accused did not pay the amount mentioned in the<\/p>\n
                notice to the Complainant. The Complainant due<\/p>\n
                to non-receipt of the amount and offence<\/p>\n
                committed by the Accused this case is filed for<\/p>\n
                enquiry.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    According to Mr.Gangal, because the notice does not mention that<\/p>\n
    payment was not made within 15 days from the receipt, the complaint is<\/p>\n
    not tenable under section 138 of the Act as it does not disclose a vital<\/p>\n
    ingredient of the offence. It is true that non-payment of the amount<\/p>\n
    demanded within 15 days of the receipt of the notice is a vital ingredient<\/p>\n
    of the offence under section 138 of the Act i.e. an ingredient, the<\/p>\n
    existence of which must be proved to the satisfaction of the Court upon<\/p>\n
    evidence at the time of the judgement. The mere non-mention of 15 days<\/p>\n
    in the complaint would not render the complaint liable to be dismissed if<\/p>\n
    the complaint otherwise discloses that payment was not made within 15<\/p>\n
    days.   In the complaint in question, the respondent-complainant has<\/p>\n
    averred that he sent a notice on 3.2.2006 which was received by the<\/p>\n
    petitioner. It is further stated that the petitioner did not pay the amount<\/p>\n
    mentioned in the notice to the complainant. This statement obviously<\/p>\n
    must be understood in the context of the date of filing of the complaint<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:59:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                            10<\/span><\/p>\n
    i.e. to say that the petitioner did not make the payment till the date the<\/p>\n
    complaint was filed i.e. on 28.3.2006. The complaint ex facie discloses<\/p>\n
    that upon service of notice, a period longer than 15 days has passed<\/p>\n
    without any payment. Such averments, in the context, are sufficient<\/p>\n
    compliance of the requirements of section 138 of the Act. There is no<\/p>\n
    merit in this contention also.     It must, however, be made clear that<\/p>\n
    dismissal of this petition under section 482 shall not foreclose any other<\/p>\n
    defence of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
    7.       Mr.Shimpi for the respondent no.1 points out that there is already<\/p>\n
    an order for time bound decision of the complaint passed by the Sessions<\/p>\n
    Court.     However, the trial could not be concluded because of the<\/p>\n
    pendency of this petition. In the circumstances, it is directed that the trial<\/p>\n
    Court shall decide the complaint within three months from the date the<\/p>\n
    parties appear before the trial Court. The parties are directed to appear<\/p>\n
    before the trial Court on 22.9.2009.\n<\/p>\n
    8.         This Criminal Writ Petition stands dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                                                     S.A. BOBDE, J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:59:33 :::<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Smt.Rukmini Vishwanath Shendge : vs Shri Shriniwas Tuljaram Burudkar … on 9 September, 2009 Bench: S.A. Bobde 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1131 OF 2009 Smt.Rukmini Vishwanath Shendge : Petitioner (Original Accused) V\/s. Shri Shriniwas Tuljaram Burudkar & Anr. : Respondents …. Mr.D.V. […]<\/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-94970","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt.Rukmini Vishwanath Shendge : vs Shri Shriniwas Tuljaram Burudkar ... on 9 September, 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\/smt-rukmini-vishwanath-shendge-vs-shri-shriniwas-tuljaram-burudkar-on-9-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt.Rukmini Vishwanath Shendge : vs Shri Shriniwas Tuljaram Burudkar ... on 9 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-rukmini-vishwanath-shendge-vs-shri-shriniwas-tuljaram-burudkar-on-9-september-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=\"2009-09-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-09T20:00:52+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\\\/smt-rukmini-vishwanath-shendge-vs-shri-shriniwas-tuljaram-burudkar-on-9-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-rukmini-vishwanath-shendge-vs-shri-shriniwas-tuljaram-burudkar-on-9-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt.Rukmini Vishwanath Shendge : vs Shri Shriniwas Tuljaram Burudkar … on 9 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-09T20:00:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-rukmini-vishwanath-shendge-vs-shri-shriniwas-tuljaram-burudkar-on-9-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1785,\"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\\\/smt-rukmini-vishwanath-shendge-vs-shri-shriniwas-tuljaram-burudkar-on-9-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-rukmini-vishwanath-shendge-vs-shri-shriniwas-tuljaram-burudkar-on-9-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-rukmini-vishwanath-shendge-vs-shri-shriniwas-tuljaram-burudkar-on-9-september-2009\",\"name\":\"Smt.Rukmini Vishwanath Shendge : vs Shri Shriniwas Tuljaram Burudkar ... on 9 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-09T20:00:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-rukmini-vishwanath-shendge-vs-shri-shriniwas-tuljaram-burudkar-on-9-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-rukmini-vishwanath-shendge-vs-shri-shriniwas-tuljaram-burudkar-on-9-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-rukmini-vishwanath-shendge-vs-shri-shriniwas-tuljaram-burudkar-on-9-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt.Rukmini Vishwanath Shendge : vs Shri Shriniwas Tuljaram Burudkar … on 9 September, 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":"Smt.Rukmini Vishwanath Shendge : vs Shri Shriniwas Tuljaram Burudkar ... on 9 September, 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\/smt-rukmini-vishwanath-shendge-vs-shri-shriniwas-tuljaram-burudkar-on-9-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt.Rukmini Vishwanath Shendge : vs Shri Shriniwas Tuljaram Burudkar ... on 9 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-rukmini-vishwanath-shendge-vs-shri-shriniwas-tuljaram-burudkar-on-9-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-09T20:00:52+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\/smt-rukmini-vishwanath-shendge-vs-shri-shriniwas-tuljaram-burudkar-on-9-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-rukmini-vishwanath-shendge-vs-shri-shriniwas-tuljaram-burudkar-on-9-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt.Rukmini Vishwanath Shendge : vs Shri Shriniwas Tuljaram Burudkar … on 9 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-09T20:00:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-rukmini-vishwanath-shendge-vs-shri-shriniwas-tuljaram-burudkar-on-9-september-2009"},"wordCount":1785,"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\/smt-rukmini-vishwanath-shendge-vs-shri-shriniwas-tuljaram-burudkar-on-9-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-rukmini-vishwanath-shendge-vs-shri-shriniwas-tuljaram-burudkar-on-9-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-rukmini-vishwanath-shendge-vs-shri-shriniwas-tuljaram-burudkar-on-9-september-2009","name":"Smt.Rukmini Vishwanath Shendge : vs Shri Shriniwas Tuljaram Burudkar ... on 9 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-09T20:00:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-rukmini-vishwanath-shendge-vs-shri-shriniwas-tuljaram-burudkar-on-9-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-rukmini-vishwanath-shendge-vs-shri-shriniwas-tuljaram-burudkar-on-9-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-rukmini-vishwanath-shendge-vs-shri-shriniwas-tuljaram-burudkar-on-9-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt.Rukmini Vishwanath Shendge : vs Shri Shriniwas Tuljaram Burudkar … on 9 September, 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\/94970","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=94970"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/94970\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=94970"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=94970"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=94970"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}