{"id":102234,"date":"2008-03-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-03-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-neeldeep-investments-p-ltd-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-13-march-2008"},"modified":"2016-04-13T06:41:22","modified_gmt":"2016-04-13T01:11:22","slug":"ms-neeldeep-investments-p-ltd-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-13-march-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-neeldeep-investments-p-ltd-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-13-march-2008","title":{"rendered":"M\/S Neeldeep Investments (P) Ltd vs The Custodian & Ors on 13 March, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
M\/S Neeldeep Investments (P) Ltd vs The Custodian & Ors on 13 March, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: A Kabir<\/div>\n
Bench: C.K. Thakker, Altamas Kabir<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  1528 of 2005\n\nPETITIONER:\nM\/s Neeldeep Investments (P) Ltd\n\nRESPONDENT:\nThe Custodian & Ors\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 13\/03\/2008\n\nBENCH:\nC.K. THAKKER & ALTAMAS KABIR\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T <\/p>\n
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1528 of 2005<\/p>\n
Altamas Kabir, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.\tThis appeal has been filed under Section 10 of
\nthe Special Courts (Trial of Offences Relating to
\nTransactions in Securities) Act, 1992, challenging
\nthe order passed by the learned Special Judge on
\n12.01.2005 in Show Cause Notice No.26 of 2003  in
\nMisc. Appeal No.470 of 1999 arising out of Misc.
\nPetition No.43 of 1995. By his judgment and order
\ndated 12.1.2005 the learned Special Judge came to a
\nfinding that the conduct of the appellant herein
\nthrough the noticee, Milan Dalal, son of the
\nNotified Party, Bhupen Dalal, was such as to
\nrepeatedly create difficulties in the way of the
\nCourt and the Custodian, firstly, in passing the
\ndecree, and, thereafter, in the matter of its
\nexecution. In the circumstances indicated in the
\norder, the noticee, Milan Dalal, was sentenced to
\nundergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3
\nmonths and was also directed to pay a fine of
\nRs.2,000\/-.  The said order was suspended for a
\nperiod of 12 weeks within which period the appeal
\nwas filed in this Court and on 18.3.2005 notice was
\nissued thereupon. While issuing the notice this
\nCourt directed that the stay already granted by the
\nSpecial Court would continue for a period of 4
\nweeks. On 29.4.2005 the stay granted was directed
\nto continue until further orders.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tOn 5.1.2006 when the appeal was called on for
\nhearing, this Court passed the following order.\n<\/p>\n
“We are prima facie of the opinion
\nthat having regard to the facts, the
\norder under appeal does not need to be
\ninterfered with. However, at the
\nsuggestion of the learned Solicitor
\nGeneral we adjourn the matter to
\nenable the appellant to consider
\nwhether the entire decretal due of
\nRs.1,42,56,000\/- can be paid.\n<\/p>\n
The matter is adjourned by two weeks.”\n<\/p>\n
3.\tIn order to appreciate the circumstances in
\nwhich the aforesaid order came to be passed, the
\nfacts leading to the filing of the Civil Appeal in
\nthis Court are briefly set out hereunder.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tBhupen Dalal, the father of the noticee Milan
\nDalal, was declared to be a Notified Party under
\nthe provisions of the Special Courts (Trial of
\nOffences Relating to Transactions in Securities)
\nAct, 1992, hereinafter referred to as the ‘1992
\nAct’. The Custodian under the said Act filed Misc.
\nPetition No.43 of 1995 on behalf of the Notified
\nParty, Bhupen Dalal for recovery of 1,42,65,000\/-
\nwith interest from M\/s Neeldeep Investment Company
\nPrivate Limited, the appellant herein. On 8.6.1995
\nthe Special Court passed a decree on that petition
\nand noted that the Notified Party is a majority
\nshareholder of the judgment debtor M\/s Neeldeep
\nInvestment Company Private Limited, along with
\nnoticee Milan Dalal. It was also noted that after
\nBhupen Dalal was notified under the said Act the
\nCustodian issued a public notice calling  upon the
\nparties to disclose to him if any money was owed
\nby them to the Notified Party.  Despite such
\npublic notice, the judgment debtor which was
\npractically a family concern of the Notified Party
\ndid not come forward to disclose that the judgment
\ndebtor owed huge amounts to the Notified Party. It
\nwas noted that the Custodian came to know of the
\nliability only on account of information given by
\nthe Income Tax Department.  It is on the basis of
\nsuch information that the Custodian had taken out
\nthe Misc. Petition No.45 of 1995.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tThe judgment debtor appeared in those
\nproceedings and admitted the said liability and on
\nthat basis a decree was passed against the
\njudgment debtor by the learned Special Judge.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tIn order to execute the decree the Custodian
\nfiled Misc. Application No.4 of 1999  and on that
\napplication on 24.11.1999 the Court passed an
\ninterim order restraining the judgment debtor and
\nits Director from in any manner disposing of,
\ntransferring, alienating or encumbering all of
\ntheir properties. On behalf of the judgment
\ndebtor, the noticee filed an affidavit disclosing
\nthat the judgment debtor had to recover
\nsubstantial amounts from six parties namely  1)
\nM\/s Lighthouse Investments Limited, 2) Oceanic
\nInvestments Limited, 3) Kalpvruksha Holdings and
\nInvestments Co. Pvt. Ltd., 4) Harisharan
\nDevelopers Private Limited, 5) M\/s S. Ramdas and\n<\/p>\n
6) M\/s Anmol Chemicals (Guj) Limited.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tOn the basis of the information disclosed by
\nthe noticee in his said affidavit on 15.12.1999,
\nthe Custodian took out garnishee notices.
\nPursuant to notice to the garnishees they appeared
\nand filed affidavits and the common defence taken
\nwas that  though they admittedly owed amounts to
\nthe judgment debtor, the said amounts were
\nadjusted on acceptance of shares of different
\ncompanies by the judgment debtor towards repayment
\nof the dues. At that stage the Special Court
\npassed order dated 19.9.2003 where reference was
\nmade to the earlier order dated 24.11.1999. Show
\nCause Notice was issued pursuant to the order
\ndated 19.9.2003 under Section 11-A of the said Act
\nwherein it was stated that the noticee was to be
\ntried for having disobeyed the order dated
\n24.11.1999.  Although, several defences were taken
\non behalf of the noticee, the learned Special
\nJudge held by his order dated 12.1.2005 that the
\nconduct of the noticee showed that in the instant
\ncase attempts had repeatedly been made to create
\ndifficulties in the way of the Court and the
\nCustodian, firstly, in the passing of the decree
\nand then in the matter of its execution.  The
\nlearned Special Judge accordingly felt that it
\nwould be appropriate to impose deterrent
\npunishment on the noticee and sentenced him to
\nundergo simple imprisonment for a period of three
\nmonths and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000\/- as stated
\nhereinbefore.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tIt is in this background that on 20.1.2006
\nthis Court passed the following order:\n<\/p>\n
“It is proposed by learned counsel
\nappearing on behalf of the appellant that
\nhis client will pay an amount of
\nRs.1,26,25,000\/- (Rupees one crore twenty
\nsix lakhs  and twenty five thousands)
\n(being the balance of the decretal
\namount of Rs.1,42,00,000 (Rupees one
\ncrore and forty two lakhs seventy five
\nthousands) paid by the garnishee by three
\ninstalments in the course of 2006.  The
\nfirst instalment shal be paid on 3rd
\nApril, 2006, the second on 10th July and
\nthe third by 4th December, 2006.\n<\/p>\n
The learned Solicitor General
\nappearing on behalf of the Custodian has
\nsubmitted that as far as contempt
\nproceedings are concerned, his client is
\nwilling to accept the offer of the
\nappellant but submits that this should
\nnot in any way affect the ultimate
\nliability of the appellant to pay the
\ndecreal amount.\n<\/p>\n
In this view of the matter we adjourn
\nthe passing of the order on the basis of
\nthe consent as arrived at between the
\nparties, till 3rd April, 2006  when the
\npetitioner will bring the first
\ninstalment of the amount to Court. In the
\nevent the payment of all the instalments
\nis made as aforesaid, this appeal will
\nstand allowed  and the order of the High
\nCourt will stand set aside and the
\ngarnishee notice will be discharged.\n<\/p>\n
In default of payment of any one
\ninstalment or any portion thereof, the
\nappeal will stand dismissed and the
\nimpugned order of the High Court will
\nbecome operative.\n<\/p>\n
Adjourned to 3rd April, 2006.”\n<\/p>\n
9.\tPursuant to the aforesaid order on 3.4.2006
\nthe appellant brought two cheques towards payment
\nof the first instalment. The matter was directed
\nto appear after 2 weeks to ensure  that the
\ncheques were duly encashed. Subsequently, on
\n14.7.2006 it was recorded that the second cheque
\nwhich was payable on 10.7.2006 in terms of the
\norder dated 20.1.2006 had also been paid and that
\nthe third instalment was payable by 4.12.2006.
\nThe matter was directed to be listed in the last
\nweek of December 2006, and, in the meantime, the
\nhearing of the garnishee notices before the
\nSpecial Court, Mumbai, was stayed.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tThe matter thereafter appeared on 22.1.2007
\nwhen it was adjourned for a period of 4 weeks and
\nthen again on 23.2.07 it was adjourned for a
\nfurther period of 4 weeks for filing a rejoinder
\naffidavit. A third adjournment of 4 weeks was
\ngranted on 30.3.2007 and on 27.4.07 the matter was
\ndirected to be listed for final disposal in
\nSeptember, 2007.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tThe matter thereafter appeared for hearing on
\n14.11.2007 and on the said date after hearing the
\nparties the matter was adjourned further to enable
\nthe parties to file the facts relating to the
\nexecution proceedings and the actual amount
\nalleged to be due on account of an error in the
\ndecretal amount which went unnoticed when the
\ndecree was passed.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tThereafter, an application was filed by the
\nCustodian for modification of the order passed in
\nthis appeal on 20th January, 2006.  In the said
\napplication, it was clarified that two separate
\ndecrees were passed by the Special Court against
\nthe respondent No.1, one was for recovery of a sum
\nof Rs.1,42,65,000\/- with interest at the rate of
\n24% per annum from the date of receipt of amount
\ntill payment and the other for a sum of
\nRs.32,14,500\/- with interest at the rate of 15%
\nper annum from the date of receipt of the amount
\ntill payment.  Despite the fact that two decrees
\nhad been passed for a total sum of
\nRs.1,74,79.500\/- in the decree the sum of
\nRs.1,42,65,000\/- was mentioned together with
\ninterest. It has been stated in the application
\nthat the total principal amount should be
\nmentioned as Rs.1,74,79,500\/- together with
\ninterest payable thereon instead of
\nRs.1,42,65,000\/- as indicated.  By the said
\napplication, it was, therefore, prayed that the
\norder dated 20th January, 2006, was required to be
\nmodified by correcting the principal amount
\nmentioned in the decree to be Rs.1,74,79,500\/-
\nminus Rs.15,75,000\/-, which had already been
\nrecovered, together with interest as decreed by
\nthe Special Court in its order dated 8th June,
\n1995.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tThe said application was also heard at the
\ntime of hearing of the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
14.\tThe fact that two separate decrees were passed
\nfor the sum of Rs.1,42,65,000\/- and Rs.32,14,500\/-
\nis not disputed, though, an attempt was made to
\nestablish that the two were separate and would
\nhave to be dealt with separately. On behalf of the
\nappellant it was submitted that the order dated
\n20th January, 2006, had been fully implemented as
\nthe entire decretal amount of Rs.1,42,65,000\/- had
\nbeen paid in three instalments, and it is only
\nthereafter that an attempt  was made by the
\nCustodian to claim the further sum of
\nRs.32,14,500\/- together with interest thereon.\n<\/p>\n
15.\tWe do not see any force in the said
\nsubmissions since both the decretal amounts
\nagainst the appellant have been mentioned in the
\norder dated 19th September, 2003, passed in Misc.
\nApplication No.470 of 1999 filed by the Custodian.
\nWe accordingly  allow the said application. The
\ndecretal amount shall be corrected to read as
\nRs.1,59,04,500\/- together with interest as decreed
\nby the Special Court upon credit having been given
\nfor Rs.15,75,000\/- which has already been
\nrecovered by the Custodian.\n<\/p>\n
16.\tAfter taking into account the decretal amount
\nas amended, together with interest as directed by
\nthe Special Judge in his order dated 8th June, 1995
\nin M.P. 43\/1995, the appellant is directed to pay
\nthe balance decretal amount within 30th June, 2008,
\nin three equal instalments commencing from the
\nmonth of April, 2008.  The first of such
\ninstalments shall be paid by 15th April, 2008, and
\nthe next two instalments by the 15th day of May,
\n2008 and 30th June, 2008.  The last instalment
\nshall include any broken amount left over after
\npayment of the first two instalments.  The hearing
\nof the garnishee notices before the Special Court,
\nMumbai, shall remain stayed till the said date,
\nand in case of default of such payment being made,
\nthis order will cease to be operative and the
\norder appealed against will stand revived.\n<\/p>\n
17.\tThere will be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
18.\tThe appeal is disposed of in the above terms.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India M\/S Neeldeep Investments (P) Ltd vs The Custodian & Ors on 13 March, 2008 Author: A Kabir Bench: C.K. Thakker, Altamas Kabir CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1528 of 2005 PETITIONER: M\/s Neeldeep Investments (P) Ltd RESPONDENT: The Custodian & Ors DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13\/03\/2008 BENCH: C.K. THAKKER & ALTAMAS KABIR JUDGMENT: […]<\/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-102234","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S Neeldeep Investments (P) Ltd vs The Custodian & Ors on 13 March, 2008 - 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\/ms-neeldeep-investments-p-ltd-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-13-march-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S Neeldeep Investments (P) Ltd vs The Custodian & Ors on 13 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-neeldeep-investments-p-ltd-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-13-march-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-03-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-13T01:11:22+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-neeldeep-investments-p-ltd-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-13-march-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-neeldeep-investments-p-ltd-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-13-march-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S Neeldeep Investments (P) Ltd vs The Custodian & Ors on 13 March, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-03-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-13T01:11:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-neeldeep-investments-p-ltd-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-13-march-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1959,\"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\\\/ms-neeldeep-investments-p-ltd-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-13-march-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-neeldeep-investments-p-ltd-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-13-march-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-neeldeep-investments-p-ltd-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-13-march-2008\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S Neeldeep Investments (P) Ltd vs The Custodian & Ors on 13 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-03-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-13T01:11:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-neeldeep-investments-p-ltd-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-13-march-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-neeldeep-investments-p-ltd-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-13-march-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-neeldeep-investments-p-ltd-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-13-march-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S Neeldeep Investments (P) Ltd vs The Custodian & Ors on 13 March, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"M\/S Neeldeep Investments (P) Ltd vs The Custodian & Ors on 13 March, 2008 - 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\/ms-neeldeep-investments-p-ltd-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-13-march-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S Neeldeep Investments (P) Ltd vs The Custodian & Ors on 13 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-neeldeep-investments-p-ltd-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-13-march-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-03-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-13T01:11:22+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-neeldeep-investments-p-ltd-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-13-march-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-neeldeep-investments-p-ltd-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-13-march-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S Neeldeep Investments (P) Ltd vs The Custodian & Ors on 13 March, 2008","datePublished":"2008-03-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-13T01:11:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-neeldeep-investments-p-ltd-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-13-march-2008"},"wordCount":1959,"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\/ms-neeldeep-investments-p-ltd-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-13-march-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-neeldeep-investments-p-ltd-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-13-march-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-neeldeep-investments-p-ltd-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-13-march-2008","name":"M\/S Neeldeep Investments (P) Ltd vs The Custodian & Ors on 13 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-03-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-13T01:11:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-neeldeep-investments-p-ltd-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-13-march-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-neeldeep-investments-p-ltd-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-13-march-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-neeldeep-investments-p-ltd-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-13-march-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S Neeldeep Investments (P) Ltd vs The Custodian & Ors on 13 March, 2008"}]},{"@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\/102234","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=102234"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/102234\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=102234"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=102234"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=102234"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}