{"id":99969,"date":"1993-01-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1993-01-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagdish-chander-bhatia-vs-lachhman-das-bhatia-on-11-january-1993"},"modified":"2016-02-03T05:52:57","modified_gmt":"2016-02-03T00:22:57","slug":"jagdish-chander-bhatia-vs-lachhman-das-bhatia-on-11-january-1993","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagdish-chander-bhatia-vs-lachhman-das-bhatia-on-11-january-1993","title":{"rendered":"Jagdish Chander Bhatia vs Lachhman Das Bhatia on 11 January, 1993"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Jagdish Chander Bhatia vs Lachhman Das Bhatia on 11 January, 1993<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1993 SCR (1)\t51, \t 1993 SCC (1) 548<\/div>\n
Author: L Sharma<\/div>\n
Bench: Sharma, L.M. (Cj)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nJAGDISH CHANDER BHATIA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nLACHHMAN DAS BHATIA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT11\/01\/1993\n\nBENCH:\nSHARMA, L.M. (CJ)\nBENCH:\nSHARMA, L.M. (CJ)\nAHMADI, A.M. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1993 SCR  (1)\t51\t  1993 SCC  (1) 548\n JT 1993 (1)   232\t  1993 SCALE  (1)66\n\n\nACT:\nArbitration Act, 1940:\nSections   14,\t17,  30\t and  33--Award--When  can  be\t set\naside--Non-consideration by the Arbitrator of all  documents\nsubmitted\tby\tparty--Whether\t    amounts\t  to\nmisconduct--Interference by Court--Whether called for--Court\nnot to sit in appeal or re-assess evidence.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  dispute  between the appellant and\t the  respondent  in\nrespect\t of  their  Interests  In  certain  properties,\t was\nreferred  to arbitration by this Court and a  retired  Chief\nJustice of a High Court was appointed as the sole Arbitrator\nwith direction to make a speaking award, and the  Arbitrator\nsubmitted  his\tAward.\tAgainst this  award  the  appellant-\nobjector   filed   objections  under  Section  30   of\t the\nArbitration  Act, 1940, contending that the  Arbitrator\t had\nmisconducted   himself\tin  that  he  did  not\t take\tinto\nconsideration several documents which were placed on  record\nbefore\thim to support the objector's case and,\t hence,\t the\naward was invalid under clauses (a) and (c) of Section 30.\nDisposing of the Appeal, this Court\nHELD  : 1.1. There is no infirmity on the face of the  award\nwhich  would  entitle this Court  to  exercise\tjurisdiction\nunder Section 30 of the Arbitration Act.  The Arbitrator has\nmade  a\t speaking  award setting out  his  reasons  for\t the\nconclusions  reached by him and has thus complied  with\t the\ndirection of this Court given earlier. [56D, 55E]\n12.  The  documents in question mainly relate to the  rights\nand  interests of the parties In the properties\t situate  in\nthat  part  which now belongs to the Dominion  of  Pakistan.\nSince they were refugees they had made certain claims  under\nthe  law  governing rehabilitation of displaced\t persons  in\nrespect\t of the properties left behind by them.\t  The  claim\nwas   sanctioned  in  the  joint  same\tof  the\t  objector's\npredecessor-in-Interest and the respondent in respect of the\nproperties  left behind by the family.\tOn the\tstrength  of\nthat\n52\nclaim,\tone  of the houses was purchased in the\t said  name.\nThe  Arbitrator, however, came to the conclusion,  that\t the\nproperty   in\tquestion  was  purchased  from\t the   funds\ncontributed  by the objector's\tpredecessor-in-interest\t and\nthe  respondent.  The share of the objector was held  to  be\n1\/7th  in  the share of the  predecessor-in-interest,  since\ndeceased.   Since the contribution made for payment  of\t the\nprice was not equal, the Arbitrator allotted a larger  share\nto objector's predecessor-in- interest and consequently, the\nobjector  has  got  a  share  on  the  basis  thereof,\twhen\ninheritance  opened  on\t the  death  of\t the  predecessor-in\ninterest. [55B-D.H, 56A]\n1.3. It is clear from the award that the Arbitrator did\t not\ngo  into the rights and interests of the  parties  including\nthe HUF in the properties left behind in     the Dominion of\nPakistan.  That was not necessary because the fact that the\nclaim  was  sanctioned in the joint name of  the  Objector's\npredecessor-in-interest\t and  the respondent  was  never  in\ndispute.   The\tshort  question, which\tthe  Arbitrator\t was\nrequired  to  consider,\t was as regards\t the  title  of\t the\nproperties, which were the subject matter of the  reference,\nwhich  included\t a house purchased on the strength  of\tthat\nclaim.\t It  is not necessary for the Court to go  into\t the\nquestion  of the rights and interests of the parties in\t the\nproperties left behind in the Dominion of Pakistan since the\nArbitrator  was right that he was called upon to decide\t the\ninterest  of  the parties in respect of\t two  houses  alone,\nwhich were the subject matter of the reference.\t  Therefore,\nthe  Arbitrator had not misconducted himself by refusing  to\nenumerate  all\tthose  documents in question  in  his  award\nbecause he was bound by the scope of the reference which was\nlimited to the two houses and not the properties left behind\nin the Dominion of Pakistan by the parties. [55F, 56B-C]\n2.   In\t order\tto interfere with an award, the\t Court\tmust\nrind out whether the Arbitrator has misconducted himself  or\nthere  was  any\t infirmity in the procedure,  such  as,\t the\nArbitrator   having  travelled\tbeyond\tthe  terms  of\t the\nreference  or there being an error apparent on the  face  of\nthe  award.   It  is  not  misconduct  on  the\tpart  of  an\nArbitrator to come to an erroneous conclusion on a  disputed\nissue.\t The  Court  does not sit in  appeal  and  does\t not\nreassess the evidence.\tEven if the Court feels that had  it\nbeen  left  to\tit,  it would  have  assessed  the  evidence\ndifferently  that  would not be a valid ground\tfor  setting\naside the award. [56E, G]\n3.   Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the  case,\nthere  is  no reason to interfere with the award,  which  is\nmade the rule of the\n53\nCourt. [56H, 57A-B]\nFood Corporation of India v.Joginder pal Mohinderpal & Anr.,\n[1989]2\t S.C.C.\t 347 and Hind Builders v.  Union  of  India,\n[1990] 3 S.C.C. 338, relied on.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 32  of
\n1982.\n<\/p>\n
From  the  Judgment and Order dated 1.10.1981 of  the  Delhi
\nHigh Court in Criminal Misc. (Main) No. 304 of 1980.
\nS.L. Chowdhary and Pradeep Misra for the Appellant.
\nRakesh K. Khanna and R.P. Singh for the Respondent.
\nThe following order of the Court is delivered:
\nEven  though  the dispute between the parties came  to\tthis
\nCourt from an initial order passed under Section 145 of\t the
\nCode  of Criminal Procedure, this Court realising  that\t the
\ndispute\t was  between close relatives in  respect  of  their
\ninterests in certain properties which were also the  subject
\nmatter\tin a Civil Suit No. 434\/78 (Remand) of the Court  of
\nSub-Judge,  First Class, Delhi, advised the parties to\thave
\nthe  same  resolved through an Arbitrator.  On\tthe  parties
\nagreeing,  this Court passed an order on September  5,\t1986
\nrecording the agreement to refer the dispute to\t arbitration
\nand appointed Mr. Justice V.D. Misra, retired Chief  Justice
\nof  the\t High  Court  of  Himachal  Pradesh,  as  the\tSole
\nArbitrator.  The parties had agreed to deposit a sum of\t Rs.
\n3,000 each with the Arbitrator to meet with his expenses and
\nremuneration subject to further directions that may be\tmade
\nin  that behalf.  It was further directed that\tthe  learned
\nArbitrator will render a speaking award within four  months.
\nIn  view of the said agreement, the appeal was\tallowed\t and
\nthe  High Court’s impugned order was set aside.\t It  appears
\nthat thereafter one of the parties, namely, Jagdish  Chander
\nBhatia, did not deposit the expenses with the Arbitrator and
\nraised objection in regard to the arbitration proceedings on
\nthe  plea  that the property in dispute was proposed  to  be
\nresumed by the Union of India.\tIn the meantime, it  appears
\nthat  the sole Arbitrator passed away and in his  place\t Mr.
\nJustice M.S. Gujral retired Chief Justice of the High  Court
\nof  Sikkim, was appointed the Sole Arbitrator.\t This  Court
\ndid not approve of the conduct of Jagdish Chander Bhatia  in
\nnot   depositing  the  amount  and  ‘in\t trying\t  to   avoid
\nadjudication of the dispute through arbitration.  After this
\n54<\/span>
\norder was passed on October 12, 1990 by which a further\t sum
\nof  Rs.\t 8,000\twas  directed  to  be  deposited  with\t the
\nArbitrator,  subject to the Arbitrator deciding\t who  should
\nbear  the cost, the newly appointed Arbitrator entered\tupon
\nthe reference and submitted his award on November 14,  1991.
\nThis concluding part of his Award reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “House   No.  17\twould  entirely\t belong\t  to
\n\t      Lachhman Das Bhatia whereas House No.18  would
\n\t      be  jointly owned by Lachhman Das and  Jagdish
\n\t      Chander.\tLachhman Das would have 76.50% share
\n\t      whereas  Jagdish\tChander\t would\thave  23.50%
\n\t      share  in\t House\tNo.18. As  House  No.17\t has
\n\t      entirely been given to Lachhman Das Bhatia  in
\n\t      all  fairness, Jagdish Chander  Bhatia  should
\n\t      give  vacant  possession\tof  House  No.17  to
\n\t      Lachhman Das Bhatia.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  parties  were directed to bear their own costs  of\t the
\narbitration  proceedings except that Jagdish Chander  Bhatia
\nhad to pay Rs. 4,000 to Lachhman Das Bhatia as his share  of
\nthe  Arbitrator’s  fees\t which he had  initially  failed  to
\ndeposit.    Against  this  award,  Jagdish  Chander   Bhatia
\n(hereinafter  called  ‘the objector’) has  filed  objections
\nunder  Section\t30  of\tthe  Arbitration  Act,\t1940   which
\nprovision reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “An award shall not be set aside except on one
\n\t      or more of the following grounds, namely\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)   that   an  arbitrator  or\tumpire\t has
\n\t      misconducted himself or the    proceedings;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   that  an award has been made  after\t the
\n\t      issue of an order by the\tCourt\t superseding
\n\t      the   arbitration\t proceedings   have   become
\n\t      invalid under Section 35;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (c)   that   an  award  has  been\t  improperly
\n\t      procured or is otherwise invalid.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It was conceded by the learned counsel for the Objector that
\nclause (b) would not be attracted.  His main submission\t was
\nthat  the Arbitrator had misconducted himself, in  that,  he
\ndid not take into consideration several documents which were
\nplaced\ton  record before him which support  the  Objector’s
\ncase and hence the Award was invalid.  He, therefore, partly
\nrelied on clauses (a) and (c) for setting aside the Award.\n<\/p>\n
55<\/span><\/p>\n
The documents to which the learned counsel for the  objector
\ninvited our attention, are to be found in Vol.2 of the paper
\nbook placed before us.\tThese documents are 31 in number and
\nthey  mainly  relate  to the rights  and  interests  of\t the
\nparties in properties situate in that part which now belongs
\nto the Dominion of Pakistan.  Since they were refugees\tthey
\nhad   made   certain   claims  under   the   law   governing
\nrehabilitation\tof  displaced  persons\tin  respect  of\t the
\nproperties  left behind by them.  These documents show\tthat
\nthe  claim was sanctioned in the name of Punnu Ram  Lachhman
\nDas in respect of the properties left behind by the  family.
\nOn the strength of that claim, House No.18 was purchased  in
\nthe  said  name.   The\tArbitrator,  however,  came  to\t the
\nconclusion, as is evident from the discussion from paragraph
\n26  and onwards of the Award, that the property in  question
\nwas  purchased for Rs. 12,850 from the funds contributed  by
\nPunnu Ram and Lachhman Das, the former paying Rs. 9,233\t and
\nthe latter Rs. 3,617.  This is the conclusion reached by the
\nArbitrator  as\tis evident from paragraph 37 of\t the  Award.
\nThe share of the Objector was held to be 1\/7th in the  share
\nof  Punnu  Ram,\t since deceased.  It  was  on  this  finding
\nrecorded by the Arbitrator that he passed the ultimate order
\nextracted above.\n<\/p>\n
The  arbitrator\t has made a speaking award setting  out\t his
\nreasons\t for  the conclusions reached by him.  He  has\tthus
\ncomplied with the direction of this Court given earlier.  On
\na perusal of the award, it becomes clear that the Arbitrator
\ndid  not  go into the rights and interests  of\tthe  parties
\nincluding  the\tHUF  in the properties left  behind  in\t the
\nDominion  of  Pakistan.\t  That\twas,  in  our  opinion,\t not
\nnecessary because the fact that the claim was sanctioned  in
\nthe name to the Punnu Ram Lachhman Das was never in dispute.
\nThe  short  question, which the Arbitrator was\trequired  to
\nconsider,  was as regards the title of the properties  which
\nwere the subject matter of the reference which included\t the
\nproperty  purchased for Rs. 12,850 on the strength  of\tthat
\nclaim.\tIn dealing with that question the Arbitrator came to
\nthe   conclusion  that\tPunnu  Ram  and\t Lachhman  Das\t had
\ncontributed the entire consideration of Rs. 12,850 and hence
\nthey  were  the owners of the property and on the  death  of
\nPunnu  Ram  inheritance opened insofar as his share  in\t the
\nproperty  was  concerned  and the  Arbitrator  came  to\t the
\nconclusion  that the Objector was entitled to 1\/7th  out  of
\nthe share of the deceased.  Since the contribution made\t for
\npayment of the price was not equal, the Arbitrator  allotted
\na  larger share to Punnu Ram and consequently  the  Objector
\nhas got a share on the basis thereof.  Practically, all\t the
\ndocuments included in Vol.2 relate to the interest of the
\n56<\/span>
\nparties\t and their HUF in the properties left behind in\t the
\nDominion of Pakistan.  The learned counsel for the  Objector
\nthen  tried to take us into the rights and interests of\t the
\nparties in those properties, but we declined to go into\t the
\nsame as we thought that the Arbitrator was right that he was
\ncalled upon to decide the interest of the parties in  Houses
\nNos.  17 and 18 alone which were the subject matter  of\t the
\nreference.   We\t are,  therefore, of the  opinion  that\t the
\nArbitrator  had\t not  misconducted himself  by\trefusing  to
\nenumerate  those documents in Vol.2 in his award because  he
\nwas bound by the scope of the reference which was limited to
\nHouses Nos. 17 and 18 and not the properties left behind  in
\nthe  Dominion of Pakistan by the parties.  For this  reason,
\nwe are of the opinion that there is no infirmity on the face
\nof the award which would entitle us to exercise jurisdiction
\nunder Section 30 of the Arbitration Act.\n<\/p>\n
This  Court  pointed  out in Food Corporation  of  India  v.
\nJoginderpal  Mohinderpal  & Anr.,<\/a> [1989] 2 SCC 347  that  an
\naward  of an Arbitrator can only be interfered with  or\t set
\naside  or modified within the four comers of  the  procedure
\nprovided  by the statute.  The Court must find\tout  whether
\nthe  Arbitrator\t has misconducted himself or there  was\t any
\ninfirmity  in the procedure, such as, the Arbitrator  having
\ntravelled  beyond the terms of the reference or there  being
\nan  error  apparent  on the face of the award.\t It  is\t not
\nmisconduct  on\tthe  part of an Arbitrator  to\tcome  to  an
\nerroneous conclusion on a disputed issue.  In case of  error
\napparent  on  the face of the award, the award\tcan  be\t set
\naside  only if there is any proposition of law on which\t the
\naward  is based which is in conflict with law.\tIt  must  be
\ndemonstrated  to  the Court that the reasons  given  by\t the
\nArbitrator  are so palpably erroneous in law that they\thave
\nresulted  in  the Arbitrator taking a view which  cannot  be
\nsustained in law.  To put it differently the Court does\t not
\nsit in appeal and does not re-assess the evidence.  Even  if
\nthe  Court feels that had it been left to it, it would\thave
\nassessed the evidence differently that would not be a  valid
\nground\tfor  setting aside the award.  In Hind\tBuilders  v.
\nUnion  of  India, [1990] 3 SCC 338, this Court\tpointed\t out
\nthat where on an interpretation of any contract or document,
\ntwo  views are possible and the Arbitrator accepts one\tview
\nwhile the other view is more appealing it would not be\topen
\nto the Court to interfere with the Award.  We, therefore, in
\nthe  facts and circumstances of this case, see so reason  to
\ninterfere with the award of the Arbitrator.
\nThe  Suit No. 434\/78 pending in the Court of the  Sub-Judge,
\nDelhi
\n57<\/span>
\nwas  disposed of by that Court, and an appeal,\tbeing  Civil
\nAppeal\tNo. 211 of 1979 (Jagdish Chander Bhatia v.  Lachhman
\nDas Bhatia)<\/a> preferred on April 23, 1979 against that decree,
\nis  pending in the Court of the District Judge,\t Delhi.\t  We
\ntransfer  that appeal to our file and make the\tArbitrator’s
\naward the rule of the Court.  The decree of the trial  court
\nis  set\t aside and a decree in terms of the  award  will  be
\ndrawn  up in the appeal proceedings arising out of Suit\t No.
\n434\/78.\t We, however, do not make any order as to
\ncosts in the present proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
N.P.V.\t\t\t     Appeal disposed of.\n58<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Jagdish Chander Bhatia vs Lachhman Das Bhatia on 11 January, 1993 Equivalent citations: 1993 SCR (1) 51, 1993 SCC (1) 548 Author: L Sharma Bench: Sharma, L.M. (Cj) PETITIONER: JAGDISH CHANDER BHATIA Vs. RESPONDENT: LACHHMAN DAS BHATIA DATE OF JUDGMENT11\/01\/1993 BENCH: SHARMA, L.M. (CJ) BENCH: SHARMA, L.M. (CJ) AHMADI, A.M. (J) […]<\/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-99969","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nJagdish Chander Bhatia vs Lachhman Das Bhatia on 11 January, 1993 - 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\/jagdish-chander-bhatia-vs-lachhman-das-bhatia-on-11-january-1993\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jagdish Chander Bhatia vs Lachhman Das Bhatia on 11 January, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagdish-chander-bhatia-vs-lachhman-das-bhatia-on-11-january-1993\" \/>\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=\"1993-01-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-03T00:22:57+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagdish-chander-bhatia-vs-lachhman-das-bhatia-on-11-january-1993#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagdish-chander-bhatia-vs-lachhman-das-bhatia-on-11-january-1993\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jagdish Chander Bhatia vs Lachhman Das Bhatia on 11 January, 1993\",\"datePublished\":\"1993-01-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-03T00:22:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagdish-chander-bhatia-vs-lachhman-das-bhatia-on-11-january-1993\"},\"wordCount\":1740,\"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\\\/jagdish-chander-bhatia-vs-lachhman-das-bhatia-on-11-january-1993#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagdish-chander-bhatia-vs-lachhman-das-bhatia-on-11-january-1993\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagdish-chander-bhatia-vs-lachhman-das-bhatia-on-11-january-1993\",\"name\":\"Jagdish Chander Bhatia vs Lachhman Das Bhatia on 11 January, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1993-01-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-03T00:22:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagdish-chander-bhatia-vs-lachhman-das-bhatia-on-11-january-1993#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagdish-chander-bhatia-vs-lachhman-das-bhatia-on-11-january-1993\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagdish-chander-bhatia-vs-lachhman-das-bhatia-on-11-january-1993#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jagdish Chander Bhatia vs Lachhman Das Bhatia on 11 January, 1993\"}]},{\"@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":"Jagdish Chander Bhatia vs Lachhman Das Bhatia on 11 January, 1993 - 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\/jagdish-chander-bhatia-vs-lachhman-das-bhatia-on-11-january-1993","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jagdish Chander Bhatia vs Lachhman Das Bhatia on 11 January, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagdish-chander-bhatia-vs-lachhman-das-bhatia-on-11-january-1993","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1993-01-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-03T00:22:57+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagdish-chander-bhatia-vs-lachhman-das-bhatia-on-11-january-1993#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagdish-chander-bhatia-vs-lachhman-das-bhatia-on-11-january-1993"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jagdish Chander Bhatia vs Lachhman Das Bhatia on 11 January, 1993","datePublished":"1993-01-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-03T00:22:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagdish-chander-bhatia-vs-lachhman-das-bhatia-on-11-january-1993"},"wordCount":1740,"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\/jagdish-chander-bhatia-vs-lachhman-das-bhatia-on-11-january-1993#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagdish-chander-bhatia-vs-lachhman-das-bhatia-on-11-january-1993","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagdish-chander-bhatia-vs-lachhman-das-bhatia-on-11-january-1993","name":"Jagdish Chander Bhatia vs Lachhman Das Bhatia on 11 January, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1993-01-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-03T00:22:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagdish-chander-bhatia-vs-lachhman-das-bhatia-on-11-january-1993#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagdish-chander-bhatia-vs-lachhman-das-bhatia-on-11-january-1993"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagdish-chander-bhatia-vs-lachhman-das-bhatia-on-11-january-1993#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jagdish Chander Bhatia vs Lachhman Das Bhatia on 11 January, 1993"}]},{"@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\/99969","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=99969"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/99969\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=99969"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=99969"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=99969"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}