{"id":247675,"date":"2021-04-27T09:00:27","date_gmt":"2021-04-27T03:30:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=247675"},"modified":"2021-04-30T13:43:19","modified_gmt":"2021-04-30T08:13:19","slug":"will-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/27\/will-3\/","title":{"rendered":"[Will] HP HC | Where the document is written by one person and signed by another, the handwriting of the former and the signature of the later have both to be proved in view of S. 67 of the Evidence Act"},"content":{"rendered":"

Himachal Pradesh High Court: <\/strong>Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. dismissed the appeal being devoid of merits.<\/p>\n

The facts of the case are such that respondent 1 filed a suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction against the appellants alleging that the Will in question executed by the mother of appellant 1, respondents and grandmother of the appellants 2 to 4 in respect of properties owned and possessed by her in favour of the appellants 2 to 4 is illegal and wrong. The appellants contested the claim of respondent 1 with respect to the genuineness of the Will as it is the last legal and valid Will executed by late Smt. Tulsa in favour of the appellants 2 to 4 which was registered after her death and mutation of inheritance was entered and attested in favour of appellants 2 to 4. The Trial Court decreed the Will to be valid to the extent of 1\/3rd share and remaining 2\/3rd share was held to have devolved upon the legal heirs of late Smt. Tulsa. Feeling aggrieved two appeals by each party was filed wherein the appeal filed by respondent 1 was allowed and appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed in favour of the appellants to the extent that the Will is held to be legally and validly executed by Smt. Tulsa were set aside in its entirety. Assailing this order, the instant appeal was filed.<\/p>\n

Counsel for the appellants Mr Y. P. Sood submitted that the findings recorded by the learned Courts below are totally perverse as there was no requirement of law to examine the scribe of the Will, more especially, when one of the attesting witnesses i.e. Lovender Singh in this case has already been examined.<\/p>\n

Counsel for the respondents Mr Bimal Gupta and Ms Poonam Moghta submitted that the parties to the lis <\/em>are Muslims and governed by Mohammedan Law and the mode of proving the Mohammedan Will is different as a Mohammedan will is required to be proved under Section 67 of the Evidence Act, 1872.<\/p>\n

The Court thus observed that the law of Will as prescribed in Chapter-III, Rule 184 of the Mohammedan Law makes it clear that a Will may be executed in writing or oral, showing a clear intention to bequeath the property. However, a limitation is also prescribed that a valid Will by a Mohammedan will not be for more than 1\/3rd of the surplus of his\/her estate and that to a non-heir.<\/p>\n

The Court relied on judgment Miyana Hasan Abdulla v. State of Gujarat<\/em>, AIR 1962 Gujarat 214 wherein it was observed that on perusal of Section 67 of the Evidence Act, 1872 it is amply clear that where the document is written by one person and signed by another, the handwriting of the former and the signature of the later have both to be proved in view of Section 67 of the Evidence Act. What Section 67 of the Evidence Act refers to, is the signature of a witness who counter signs a document as a person who was present at the time when the document was signed by another person.<\/p>\n

The Court observed that no exception can be taken to the findings recorded by the learned first Appellate Court, whereby it drew an adverse inference against the appellants for not examining the scribe of the document Shri Shamshad Ahmed Qureshi, who was very much alive at that time and even, in case, he was suffering from ailment his statement could have conveniently been recorded on commission.<\/p>\n

The Court thus held that in the present case \u201cnon-examination of the scribe assumes importance because the witness Lovender Singh does not state to have witnessed Smt. Tulsa, the testator, putting her signatures over the Will.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

In view of the above, appeal was dismissed.[Ashiq Ali v. Yasin Mistri, 2021 SCC OnLine HP 735<\/b><\/a>, decided on 20-04-2021]<\/p>\n

\n

Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Himachal Pradesh High Court: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. dismissed the appeal being devoid of merits. The facts of the case are such <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[6252,29785,17331],"class_list":["post-247675","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-evidence-act","tag-law","tag-will"],"yoast_head":"\n[Will] HP HC | Where the document is written by one person and signed by another, the handwriting of the former and the signature of the later have both to be proved in view of S. 67 of the Evidence Act | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Will\" \/>\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.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/27\/will-3\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"[Will] HP HC | Where the document is written by one person and signed by another, the handwriting of the former and the signature of the later have both to be proved in view of S. 67 of the Evidence Act\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Will\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/27\/will-3\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-04-27T03:30:27+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2021-04-30T08:13:19+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/Himachal-HC_2.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/04\\\/27\\\/will-3\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/04\\\/27\\\/will-3\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Editor\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"headline\":\"[Will] HP HC | Where the document is written by one person and signed by another, the handwriting of the former and the signature of the later have both to be proved in view of S. 67 of the Evidence Act\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-04-27T03:30:27+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-04-30T08:13:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/04\\\/27\\\/will-3\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":669,\"commentCount\":0,\"keywords\":[\"Evidence Act\",\"law\",\"Will\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Briefs\",\"High Courts\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/04\\\/27\\\/will-3\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/04\\\/27\\\/will-3\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/04\\\/27\\\/will-3\\\/\",\"name\":\"[Will] HP HC | Where the document is written by one person and signed by another, the handwriting of the former and the signature of the later have both to be proved in view of S. 67 of the Evidence Act | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2021-04-27T03:30:27+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-04-30T08:13:19+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Will\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/04\\\/27\\\/will-3\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/04\\\/27\\\/will-3\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/04\\\/27\\\/will-3\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"[Will] HP HC | Where the document is written by one person and signed by another, the handwriting of the former and the signature of the later have both to be proved in view of S. 67 of the Evidence Act\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/editor_4\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"[Will] HP HC | Where the document is written by one person and signed by another, the handwriting of the former and the signature of the later have both to be proved in view of S. 67 of the Evidence Act | SCC Times","description":"Will","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.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/27\/will-3\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"[Will] HP HC | Where the document is written by one person and signed by another, the handwriting of the former and the signature of the later have both to be proved in view of S. 67 of the Evidence Act","og_description":"Will","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/27\/will-3\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2021-04-27T03:30:27+00:00","article_modified_time":"2021-04-30T08:13:19+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/Himachal-HC_2.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/27\/will-3\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/27\/will-3\/"},"author":{"name":"Editor","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"headline":"[Will] HP HC | Where the document is written by one person and signed by another, the handwriting of the former and the signature of the later have both to be proved in view of S. 67 of the Evidence Act","datePublished":"2021-04-27T03:30:27+00:00","dateModified":"2021-04-30T08:13:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/27\/will-3\/"},"wordCount":669,"commentCount":0,"keywords":["Evidence Act","law","Will"],"articleSection":["Case Briefs","High Courts"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/27\/will-3\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/27\/will-3\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/27\/will-3\/","name":"[Will] HP HC | Where the document is written by one person and signed by another, the handwriting of the former and the signature of the later have both to be proved in view of S. 67 of the Evidence Act | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2021-04-27T03:30:27+00:00","dateModified":"2021-04-30T08:13:19+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Will","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/27\/will-3\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/27\/will-3\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/27\/will-3\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"[Will] HP HC | Where the document is written by one person and signed by another, the handwriting of the former and the signature of the later have both to be proved in view of S. 67 of the Evidence Act"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":264123,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/23\/will-4\/","url_meta":{"origin":247675,"position":0},"title":"Testamentary disposition of property is deviation from natural line of inheritance in lesser or greater degree: Can it result in complete disposition in favour of one heir or exclusion of any other heir? Jhar HC throws light","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"March 23, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Jharkhand High Court: Expressing that the due execution of a Will is to be proved as per the provisions of law as laid down in Evidence Act as well as that if Indian Succession Act, \u00a0Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J., remarked that, a probate court being a Court of conscience, the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":245299,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/10\/self-acquired-property\/","url_meta":{"origin":247675,"position":1},"title":"Bom HC | Relinquishment of self-acquired properties of a deceased by legal heirs. Will such release enure to benefit of all other legal heirs? Court explains","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"March 10, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court: R.D. Dhanuka, J., held that relinquishment of properties held by the legal heirs of a person whose properties were self-acquired properties would enure only for those persons in whose favour such deed of relinquishment was executed. The First Appeal was filed under Section 96 of the Code\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":265383,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/13\/daughters-also-entitled-for-getting-equal-share-in-the-property-inherited-by-their-parents\/","url_meta":{"origin":247675,"position":2},"title":"Chh HC | Daughters also entitled for getting equal share in the property inherited by their parents; Court reiterates and allows appeal deciding validity of will","author":"Editor","date":"April 13, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0Chhattisgarh High Court: Narendra Kumar Vyas, J. allowed an appeal filed by the defendants setting aside the judgment and decree by the Trial Court whereby trial Court had decreed the suit filed by plaintiff\/respondent 1, dismissed the counter claim filed by appellants\/defendants 1 to 3. The appellants\/defendants are all residents\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":299312,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/14\/burden-proof-remains-unshifted-on-failure-substantiate-misrepresentation-contentions-calcutta-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":247675,"position":3},"title":"Burden of Proof remains unshifted on failure to substantiate misrepresentation contentions; Calcutta High Court dismisses partition appeal","author":"Ritu","date":"August 14, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe appellants\/plaintiffs are to prove their own case and they cannot bank upon the laches on the part of the respondent\/defendants.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"calcutta high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":243909,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/15\/is-issuance-of-blank-cheque-and-signed-blank-stamp-paper-sufficient-to-attract-presumption-under-s-139-of-ni-act-supreme-court-answers\/","url_meta":{"origin":247675,"position":4},"title":"Is issuance of blank cheque and signed blank stamp paper sufficient to attract presumption under S. 139 of NI Act? Supreme Court answers","author":"Editor","date":"February 15, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: The 3-Judge Bench comprising of N.V. Ramana, Surya Kant* and Aniruddha Bose, JJ., upheld the judgement of High Court of Judicature at Madras, whereby the order of acquittal of the Judicial Magistrate was reversed and the appellants had been convicted under Section 138 of the NIA, 1881. The\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":298389,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/03\/calcutta-hc-upholds-bpcls-decision-to-suspend-supplies-in-lpg-distributorship-amidst-partnership-dispute\/","url_meta":{"origin":247675,"position":5},"title":"Calcutta High Court upholds BPCL’s decision to suspend supplies in LPG distributorship amidst partnership dispute","author":"Ritu","date":"August 3, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The changes made in the supplementary partnership deed without the previous approval of BPCL are violative of Clause 21 of the distributorship agreement.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"calcutta high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/247675","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=247675"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/247675\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=247675"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=247675"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=247675"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}