{"id":101315,"date":"2005-05-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-05-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arvind-mohan-johari-and-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-and-anr-on-4-may-2005"},"modified":"2019-02-23T03:45:55","modified_gmt":"2019-02-22T22:15:55","slug":"arvind-mohan-johari-and-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-and-anr-on-4-may-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arvind-mohan-johari-and-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-and-anr-on-4-may-2005","title":{"rendered":"Arvind Mohan Johari And Anr vs State Of U.P. And Anr on 4 May, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Arvind Mohan Johari And Anr vs State Of U.P. And Anr on 4 May, 2005<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: N. Santosh Hegde, D.M. Dharmadhikari, S.B. Sinha<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  1265-66 of 2004\n\nPETITIONER:\nArvind Mohan Johari and Anr.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of U.P. and Anr.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 04\/05\/2005\n\nBENCH:\nN. Santosh Hegde &amp; D.M. Dharmadhikari &amp; S.B. Sinha\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>ORDER<\/p>\n<p>IN<\/p>\n<p>(Criminal Misc. Petition Nos. 47-48 of 2005. )<\/p>\n<p>These applications have been filed for clarification and\/or recalling an<br \/>\norder dated 3.11.2004 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.1265-66<br \/>\nof 2004 whereby and whereunder the respective applicants were directed to<br \/>\ndeposit the money lying in the credit of the Appellants herein.\n<\/p>\n<p>The said applications have been filed in the following circumstances. The<br \/>\nAppellants floated various groups of companies including one known as `M\/s<br \/>\nCentury Consultants Ltd.&#8217; Two criminal cases were initiated against them<br \/>\narising out FIR No. R.C. No. 8(S)\/2001 to R.C. No. 12(S) of 2001\/CBI,<br \/>\nLucknow dated 6.7.2001 and R.C. No. 15(S)\/2001 to R.C. No. 18(S)\/2001\/CBI,<br \/>\nLucknow dated 6.7.2001; one relating to transactions in respect of M\/s<br \/>\nCountry Inform Tech Pvt. Ltd. and another in relation to M\/s Century<br \/>\nConsultants Ltd.. M\/s Century Consultants Ltd. has since been directed to<br \/>\nbe wound up in a winding up proceeding by the learned Company Judge.\n<\/p>\n<p>In the aforementioned criminal proceedings, the Appellants prayed for grant<br \/>\nof bail which was rejected whereagainst these appeals were preferred. The<br \/>\nAppellants before us had contended that they would have no objection if the<br \/>\nassets held and possessed by them are sold for payment to the depositors of<br \/>\nM\/s Century Consultants and M\/s City Cooperative Bank Ltd. It was contended<br \/>\nthat the amounts of Rs. 17 Crores and Rs. 13 Crores were lying with the<br \/>\nBombay Stock Exchange and National Stock Exchange respectively. It was<br \/>\nfurther urged that the amounts lying with the Stock Exchanges stand<br \/>\nadmitted in their written statements filed in Civil Suit No. 312 of 2002.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Bombay Stock Exchange now contends that the aforementioned two<br \/>\ncontentions raised on behalf of the Appellants herein were not correct. In<br \/>\nthis behalf, our attention has been drawn by Mr. Dushyant A. Dave, learned<br \/>\nsenior counsel appearing on behalf of Bombay Stock Exchange, to the<br \/>\nfollowing statements: :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;(ii) That in the instant case, the Century Consultant Ltd., during the<br \/>\nperiod from 15th March 2001 to 23rd March 2001 had failed to make payments<br \/>\nto the Exchange towards their settlement obligations in respect of the<br \/>\nRolling as well as Weekly settlement on the respective pay-in dates. The<br \/>\nsaid member initially failed to pay its pay-in obligation pertaining to the<br \/>\nRolling Settlement No. 241\/00-01 (Pay-in date was 16th March 2001) and<br \/>\nthereafter had committed defaults in paying its obligations in subsequent<br \/>\nRolling Settlements as well as Weekly Settlements on the respective Pay-in<br \/>\ndates as under :\n<\/p>\n<p>Settlement\tTrading\tPay-in\tAmount (Rs. )<br \/>\nNo. \tdate\tdates<\/p>\n<p>DR-241\/00-01\t09.03.01\t16.03.01\t3,70,26,753.00<br \/>\nDR-242\/00-01\t12.03.01\t19.03.01\t2,53,13,535.00<br \/>\nDR-243\/00-01\t13.03.01\t20.03.01\t2.02,24,601.00<br \/>\nDR.244\/00-01\t14.03.01\t21.03.01\t2,67,24,553.00<br \/>\nDR-245\/00-01\t15.03.01\t22.03.01\t  27,45,540.00<br \/>\nDR-246\/00-01\t16.03.01\t23.03.01\t3,03,01,237.00<br \/>\nDR-51\/00-01\t12.03.01\t22.03.01\t4,27,89,326.00<br \/>\n(Weekly) \tto<br \/>\n16.03.01<br \/>\nDR-52\/00-01\t19.03.01\t29.03.01\t13,31,602.00<br \/>\n(Weekly) \tto<br \/>\n23.03.01<\/p>\n<p>\t     xxx            xxx           xxx<\/p>\n<p>\t(vi)\t Though the Century Consultants Ltd. failed to meet its<br \/>\n\tobligations in the aforesaid settlements, the Exchange being bound<br \/>\n\tto ensure timely completion of the bona fide transaction of the<br \/>\n\tmembers of the Exchange inter se in the aforesaid settlements as<br \/>\n\tper its Rules, Bye-laws and Regulations of the Exchange. As at the<br \/>\n\trelevant time, the securities and margin deposits furnished by<br \/>\n\tCentury Consultants Ltd., to avail the trading facility, was<br \/>\n\tsufficient to meet their liabilities in the aforesaid settlements,<br \/>\n\tthe Exchange completed the Pay-out in the aforesaid Settlements by<br \/>\n\tutilizing same as provided in its Rules, Bye-laws and Regulations.<br \/>\n\tAs these aforesaid Pay-out was to be made\/completed on their<br \/>\n\trespective Pay-out dates and as the realization\/liquidation of the<br \/>\n\tcollateral Securities\/guarantees would take some time to receive<br \/>\n\tthe payment, the Exchange fulfilled the above obligations of the<br \/>\n\tCentury Consultants Ltd. initially from the funds of the Exchange.<br \/>\n\tThereafter the collateral securities\/guarantees provided by the<br \/>\n\tCentury Consultants Ltd. were liquidated in accordance with the<br \/>\n\tRules, Bye-laws and regulations of the Exchange and recouped the<br \/>\n\tsame. Accordingly, the Exchange fulfill the Pay-in obligations of<br \/>\n\tthe Century Consultant Ltd., in the aforesaid Settlements amounting<br \/>\n\tto Rs. 21,06,72,837.00 including the value of short delivery of<br \/>\n\tshares by the Century Consultants Ltd., in the above Settlements<br \/>\n\tout of the collateral securities\/guarantees provided by the Century<br \/>\n\tConsultants Ltd. As such, there are no assets of the Century<br \/>\n\tConsultant Ltd., lying with the Applicant Exchange by way of bank<br \/>\n\tguarantee, security margin money etc. amounting to Rs. 17 crores as<br \/>\n\talleged before this Hon&#8217;ble Court. The Exchange respectfully says<br \/>\n\tand submits that on the other hand Century Consultant Ltd., are<br \/>\n\trequired to pay to the Exchange an amount of approximately Rs.<br \/>\n\t18.14 crores towards their liabilities on account of non-payment of<br \/>\n\tarbitration awards obtained by other members\/clients, arbitration<br \/>\n\tfees, debit balance with Clearing House, Transaction Guarantee Fund<br \/>\n\t(TGF) etc. as per Rules, Bye-laws and Regulations of the Exchange.<br \/>\n\tThe Exchange has also from time to time apprised SEBI about default<br \/>\n\tof Century Consultants Ltd. in making Pay-in obligations in the<br \/>\n\taforesaid settlements and completion of settlements as stated<br \/>\n\therein above.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>It is urged that the Appellants herein were aware of the said proceedings<br \/>\nas in relation thereto show cause notices had been served upon M\/s Century<br \/>\nConsultants Ltd. Mr. Dave would further contend that in the said suit even<br \/>\nno written statement was filed by the Bombay Stock Exchange, as alleged by<br \/>\nthe Appellants.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr. J.L. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the National<br \/>\nStock Exchange, would submit that although written statement had been filed<br \/>\nby the National Stock Exchange in the aforementioned suit but it had<br \/>\ncategorically been contended therein :\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;The Defendant No. 1 traded on the Defendant No. 3 and had cleared<br \/>\n\tall its settlement dues up to Settlement No. W 2001045 (pay in date<br \/>\n\tMarch 13, 2001). It is submitted that the Defendant No. 1 did not<br \/>\n\tpay subsequent settlement and other obligations to Defendant No. 3<br \/>\n\tand National Securities Clearing Corporation of India Ltd. (NSCCL),<br \/>\n\ta subsidiary company of Defendant No. 3 amounting Rs.<br \/>\n\t18,94,80,836.52. Out of the said sum, an amount of Rs.<br \/>\n\t10,80,74,719.54 was adjusted against from the security deposits,<br \/>\n\tbank guarantee invocation amounts, sale of securities and release<br \/>\n\tof margins and other amounts lying to the credit of Defendant No. 1<br \/>\n\tstill leaving a balance liability of Rs. 8,14,06,116.98 due from<br \/>\n\tDefendant No. 1 to Defendant No. 3 and NSCCL. Therefore, it is<br \/>\n\tclear from the above that the claim of the Plaintiff in para 8 of<br \/>\n\tthe plaint that the Defendant No. 1 paid Rs. 30 crores towards<br \/>\n\tpurchase of shares and that Rs. 30 crores is lying with the<br \/>\n\tDefendant No. 3 is completely false. Thus, the very basis of the<br \/>\n\tclaim of the Plaintiff is false and there is no cause of action in<br \/>\n\tfavour of the Plaintiff.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>In the counter affidavit filed by the Appellants to the said applications,<br \/>\nthe said contentions raised in the said applications were denied and<br \/>\ndisputed, Mr. Swaraj Kaushal and Mr. D.K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing<br \/>\non behalf of the Appellants would contend that the question as to whether<br \/>\nthe respective Stock Exchanges were entitled to debit the amounts of Rs. 21<br \/>\nCrores and 17 Crores respectively towards their purported claim should be<br \/>\ndirected to be scrutinized by us by a Chartered Accountant. According to<br \/>\nthe learned counsel, the Bombay Stock Exchange and National Stock Exchange<br \/>\nhave raised frivolous pleas in support of the applications and in that view<br \/>\nof the matter, it would be proper to determine the dispute between the<br \/>\nparties.\n<\/p>\n<p>It is not in dispute that this Court passed the aforementioned order dated<br \/>\n3.11.2004 granting bail to the Appellants herein relying on or on the basis<br \/>\nof the representation made by them that all endeavours would be made to<br \/>\ndisburse to the claimants realise as much amount as possible from the<br \/>\npersonal and other assets of the Appellants by putting them on sale or<br \/>\notherwise. It was with that end in view, this Court directed :\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;The National Stock Exchange and the Bombay Stock Exchange are<br \/>\n\tdirected to deposit the money lying in the credit of the<br \/>\n\tCompany\/Appellants as early as possible subject to the<br \/>\n\tdetermination of the pending enquiry by SEBI. If any enquiry is<br \/>\n\tpending, SEBI shall dispose of the same as expeditiously as<br \/>\n\tpossible.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>This Court directed release of the Appellants herein on bail on the<br \/>\nconditions mentioned therein and issued several directives in exercise of<br \/>\nits jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do<br \/>\ncomplete justice to all the parties. While considering application for<br \/>\ngrant of bail in a criminal case, this Court ordinarily cannot determine a<br \/>\ndispute between the parties wherefor forums have been created under the<br \/>\nstatutes.\n<\/p>\n<p>It appears that the recoveries have been directed to be made by the Stock<br \/>\nExchanges in exercise of their power conferred upon them under the bye-laws<br \/>\ngoverning the parties. Furthermore, several arbitration awards are said to<br \/>\nhave been passed in favour of the clients\/investors and the members of the<br \/>\nStock Exchanges. The parties, therefore, must get their disputes determined<br \/>\nin an appropriate forum.\n<\/p>\n<p>The fact, however, remains that no amount as such is admittedly payable by<br \/>\nthe applicants Stock Exchanges. In their respective applications, as<br \/>\nindicated hereinbefore, the Applicants had stated that they, in fact, would<br \/>\nbe entitled to realize a huge amount from the Appellants. In that view of<br \/>\nthe matter, we are of the opinion that the Appellants misled this Court in<br \/>\npassing the said order dated 3.11.2004 by raising contention to the effect<br \/>\nthat a sum of Rs. 17 Crores and 13 Crores are admittedly lying with the<br \/>\nBombay Stock Exchange and National Stock Exchange in the shape of bank<br \/>\nguarantee money and securities margin money etc.<\/p>\n<p>It is true that the prayers made by the Applicants herein in their<br \/>\napplications are confined to the directions issued against them but we are<br \/>\nof the opinion, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of<br \/>\nthis case, that if a substantial sum lying with them are not available for<br \/>\ndisbursement to the claimants, the very purpose for enlarging the<br \/>\nAppellants herein on bail would not be subserved and in that view of the<br \/>\nmatter the order dated 3.4.2004 granting bail to the Appellants herein<br \/>\nshould be recalled. Accordingly, the Appellants, Arvind Mohan Johari and<br \/>\nAnand Krishna Johari are hereby directed to surrender before the Trial<br \/>\nCourt within one week from date whereupon they may be taken into custody.<br \/>\nIf and when the disputes between the Stock Exchanges and the Appellants are<br \/>\nadjudicated upon by a competent forum and\/or court of law, as a result<br \/>\nwhereof the Appellants would be in a position to repay the outstanding dues<br \/>\nof the claimants, namely, M\/s City Cooperative Bank Ltd. and M\/s Century<br \/>\nConsultants Ltd., they may apply for grant of bail afresh.\n<\/p>\n<p>These applications are disposed of with the aforementioned observations and<br \/>\ndirections.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Arvind Mohan Johari And Anr vs State Of U.P. And Anr on 4 May, 2005 Bench: N. Santosh Hegde, D.M. Dharmadhikari, S.B. Sinha CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 1265-66 of 2004 PETITIONER: Arvind Mohan Johari and Anr. RESPONDENT: State of U.P. and Anr. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04\/05\/2005 BENCH: N. Santosh Hegde &amp; [&hellip;]<\/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-101315","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Arvind Mohan Johari And Anr vs State Of U.P. And Anr on 4 May, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/arvind-mohan-johari-and-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-and-anr-on-4-may-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Arvind Mohan Johari And Anr vs State Of U.P. And Anr on 4 May, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arvind-mohan-johari-and-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-and-anr-on-4-may-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2005-05-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-22T22:15:55+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\\\/arvind-mohan-johari-and-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-and-anr-on-4-may-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arvind-mohan-johari-and-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-and-anr-on-4-may-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Arvind Mohan Johari And Anr vs State Of U.P. And Anr on 4 May, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-05-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-22T22:15:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arvind-mohan-johari-and-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-and-anr-on-4-may-2005\"},\"wordCount\":1789,\"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\\\/arvind-mohan-johari-and-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-and-anr-on-4-may-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arvind-mohan-johari-and-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-and-anr-on-4-may-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arvind-mohan-johari-and-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-and-anr-on-4-may-2005\",\"name\":\"Arvind Mohan Johari And Anr vs State Of U.P. And Anr on 4 May, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-05-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-22T22:15:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arvind-mohan-johari-and-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-and-anr-on-4-may-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arvind-mohan-johari-and-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-and-anr-on-4-may-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arvind-mohan-johari-and-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-and-anr-on-4-may-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Arvind Mohan Johari And Anr vs State Of U.P. And Anr on 4 May, 2005\"}]},{\"@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":"Arvind Mohan Johari And Anr vs State Of U.P. And Anr on 4 May, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/arvind-mohan-johari-and-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-and-anr-on-4-may-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Arvind Mohan Johari And Anr vs State Of U.P. And Anr on 4 May, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arvind-mohan-johari-and-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-and-anr-on-4-may-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-05-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-22T22:15:55+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\/arvind-mohan-johari-and-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-and-anr-on-4-may-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arvind-mohan-johari-and-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-and-anr-on-4-may-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Arvind Mohan Johari And Anr vs State Of U.P. And Anr on 4 May, 2005","datePublished":"2005-05-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-22T22:15:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arvind-mohan-johari-and-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-and-anr-on-4-may-2005"},"wordCount":1789,"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\/arvind-mohan-johari-and-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-and-anr-on-4-may-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arvind-mohan-johari-and-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-and-anr-on-4-may-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arvind-mohan-johari-and-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-and-anr-on-4-may-2005","name":"Arvind Mohan Johari And Anr vs State Of U.P. And Anr on 4 May, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-05-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-22T22:15:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arvind-mohan-johari-and-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-and-anr-on-4-may-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arvind-mohan-johari-and-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-and-anr-on-4-may-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arvind-mohan-johari-and-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-and-anr-on-4-may-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Arvind Mohan Johari And Anr vs State Of U.P. And Anr on 4 May, 2005"}]},{"@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\/101315","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=101315"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/101315\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=101315"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=101315"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=101315"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}