{"id":111601,"date":"2007-07-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-07-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-srikanth-singh-vs-north-east-securities-ltd-and-anr-on-20-july-2007"},"modified":"2015-03-27T16:05:59","modified_gmt":"2015-03-27T10:35:59","slug":"k-srikanth-singh-vs-north-east-securities-ltd-and-anr-on-20-july-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-srikanth-singh-vs-north-east-securities-ltd-and-anr-on-20-july-2007","title":{"rendered":"K. Srikanth Singh vs North East Securities Ltd. And Anr on 20 July, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">K. Srikanth Singh vs North East Securities Ltd. And Anr on 20 July, 2007<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S Sinha.<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S.B. Sinha, H.S. Bedi<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  919 of 2007\n\nPETITIONER:\nK. Srikanth Singh\n\nRESPONDENT:\nNorth East Securities Ltd. and Anr.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 20\/07\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nS.B. Sinha &amp; H.S. Bedi\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>S.B. Sinha. J.\n<\/p>\n<p>1. Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. Appellant has been proceeded against for alleged commission of an<br \/>\noffence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. First<br \/>\nrespondent filed a complaint in the Court of 3rd Additional Chief<br \/>\nMetropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. In regard to the liability of the<br \/>\nappellant, which is vicarious in nature, the following statement has been<br \/>\nmade in paragraph 2 of the complaint petition which reads as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;2. That the accused is a company doing their business in the name<br \/>\n\tand style of M\/s. Rishab Alchem India Ltd., having its Registered<br \/>\n\toffice at E2, Shantinivas Apartments, Mettuguda, Secunderabad and<br \/>\n\trepresented by Accused No. 2 in the capacity of Managing Director<br \/>\n\tof the first accused company and accused no. 3 to 6 are the<br \/>\n\tdirectors of the company. All the accused persons after negotiation<br \/>\n\twith the Complainant firm had agreed to take financial assistance<br \/>\n\tfrom the Complainant firm. After executing comprehensive loan<br \/>\n\tdocumenrtation they have taken financial assistance to the tune of<br \/>\n\tRs. 10 lakhs from the Complainant firm. At the time of taking the<br \/>\n\tloan amount accused persons also agreed to pay interest for the<br \/>\n\tprinciple amount of Rs. 10 lakhs.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>3. The appellant herein contends that at the relevant point of time, he was<br \/>\nnot the Director of the Company. Inter alia, on the ground that no<br \/>\ncognizance could be taken on the basis of the allegations made in the<br \/>\ncomplaint petition as the same do not satisfy the requirement of the<br \/>\nprovisions of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the appellant<br \/>\nfiled a petition before the High Court of Judicature at Andhra Pradesh at<br \/>\nHyderabad under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for<br \/>\nquashing of the proceedings initiated against him. The High Court by reason<br \/>\nof the impugned judgment stated as under:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;3.\tThe learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even if the<br \/>\nentire allegations in the complaint are taken as true, they do not make out<br \/>\na prima facie case against the present Petitioner, that before issuance of<br \/>\nthe Cheques, the Petitioner herein resigned as Director of A.1 Company,<br \/>\nhence, continuation of the proceedings against him is nothing but abuse of<br \/>\nprocess of court and so he prayed to quash the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tThe allegation in the complaint is that the present Petitioner is<br \/>\none of the directors of A.1 Company. Simply because he is a Director, he<br \/>\ncannot be prosecuted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable<br \/>\nInstruments Act, 1881 unless his case falls under the provisions of section<br \/>\n141 of the Act. under Section 141 of the Act, it must be shown that every<br \/>\nperson, who at the time of the offence, is responsible to the company for<br \/>\nconduct of its business and day-to-day affairs. It is alleged that all the<br \/>\naccused persons after negotiations with the Complainant firm agreed to take<br \/>\nfinancial assistance from the Complainant and after executing comprehensive<br \/>\nloan documentation, they have taken financial assistance to a tune of Rs.<br \/>\n10, 00 lakhs from the Complainant firm. Since it is alleged that all the<br \/>\nDirectors-accused participated in the negotiations with regard to the<br \/>\nfinancial help to be taken by the A.1 company from the Complainant firm, it<br \/>\ncan be inferred that all the Directors were responsible for day-to-day<br \/>\ntransactions of A.1 Company. Therefore, the allegations in the complaint<br \/>\nmake out a prima facie case that all the directors are in-charge of, and<br \/>\nresponsible for, day-to-day affairs of the company.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tThe second contention is that the Petitioner was not a Director of<br \/>\nthe Company at the time of issuance of the Cheque. It is a question of fact<br \/>\nthat has to be established before the trial court. Exercising the powers<br \/>\nunder section 482 Cr. P.C., a question of fact cannot be decided and<br \/>\ndetermined. Hence, there are no grounds to quash the impugned proceedings.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>4. It is not in dispute that for showing a vicarious liability of a<br \/>\nDirector of a Company, upon the complaint it is incumbent to plead that the<br \/>\naccused was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of<br \/>\nthe Company. No such allegation having been made in the complaint petition,<br \/>\nin our opinion, the High Court was not correct in passing the impugned<br \/>\njudgment. The allegation contained in the complaint petition was that all<br \/>\nthe accused Directors participated in the negotiations for obtaining<br \/>\nfinancial help for the accused No. 1, which in our opinion, would not give<br \/>\nrise to an inference that the appellant was responsible for day-to-day<br \/>\naffairs of the Company. An offence envisaged under Section 138 of the<br \/>\nNegotiable Instruments Act contains several ingredients as has been held by<br \/>\na Three-Judge Bench of this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1302578\/\">S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta<br \/>\nBhalla and Anr.,<\/a> [2005] 8 SCC 89, in the following terms:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;What is required is that the persons who are sought to be made criminally<br \/>\nliable under Section 141 should be, at the time the offence was committed,<br \/>\nin charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business<br \/>\nof the company. Every person connected with the company shall not fall<br \/>\nwithin the ambit of the provision. It is only those persons who were in<br \/>\ncharge of and responsible for the conduct of business of the company at the<br \/>\ntime of commission of an offence. who will be liable for criminal action.<br \/>\nIt follows from this that if a director of a company who was not in charge<br \/>\nof and was not responsible for the conduct of the business of the company<br \/>\nat the relevant time, will not be liable under the provision. The liability<br \/>\narises from being in charge of and responsible for the conduct of business<br \/>\nof the company at the relevant time when the offence was committed and not<br \/>\non the basis of merely holding a designation or office in a company.<br \/>\nConversely, a person not holding any office or designation in a company may<br \/>\nbe liable if he satisfies the main requirement of being in charge of and<br \/>\nresponsible for the conduct of business of a company at the relevant time.<br \/>\nLiability depends on the role one plays in the affairs of a company and not<br \/>\non designation or status. If being a director or manager or secretary was<br \/>\nenough to cast criminal liability, the section would have said so. Instead<br \/>\nof &#8220;every person&#8221; the section would have said &#8220;every director, manager or<br \/>\nsecretary in a company is liable&#8221;&#8230;.., etc. The legislature is aware that<br \/>\nit is a case of criminal liability which means serious consequences so far<br \/>\nas the person sought to be made liable is concerned. Therefore, only<br \/>\npersons who can  be said to be connected with the commission of a crime at<br \/>\nthe relevant time have been subjected to action.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>5. Negotiation for obtaining financial assistance on behalf of the Company<br \/>\nby its Directors itself is not an ingredient for the purpose of<br \/>\nconstituting an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments<br \/>\nAct. Furthermore, a vicarious liability on the part of a person must be<br \/>\npleaded and proved. It cannot be a subject matter of mere inference.\n<\/p>\n<p>6. <a href=\"\/doc\/1343681\/\">In Sabitha Ramamurthy and Anr. v. R.S.S. Channabasavaradhya,<\/a> reported in<br \/>\n[2006] 10 SCC 581, this Court opined:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;7. A bare perusal of the complaint petitions demonstrates that the<br \/>\n\tstatutory requirements contained in Section 141 of the Negotiable<br \/>\n\tInstrument Act had not been complied with. It may be true that it<br \/>\n\tis not necessary for the complainant to specifically reproduce the<br \/>\n\twordings of the section but what is required is a clear statement<br \/>\n\tof fact so as to enable the court to arrive at a prima facie<br \/>\n\topinion that the accused are vicariously liable. Section 141 raises<br \/>\n\ta legal fiction. By reason of the said provision, a person although<br \/>\n\tis not personally liable for commission of such an offence would be<br \/>\n\tvicariously liable therefor. Such vicarious liability can be<br \/>\n\tinferred so far as a company registered or incorporated under the<br \/>\n\tCompanies Act, 1956 is concerned only if the requisite statements,<br \/>\n\twhich are required to be averred in the complaint petition, are<br \/>\n\tmade so as to make the accused therein vicariously liable for the<br \/>\n\toffence committed by the company. Before a person can be made<br \/>\n\tvicariously liable, strict compliance with the statutory<br \/>\n\trequirements would be insisted. Not only the averments made in para<br \/>\n\t7 of the complaint petitions do not meet the said statutory<br \/>\n\trequirements, the sworn statement of the witness made by the son of<br \/>\n\tthe respondent herein, does not contain any statement that the<br \/>\n\tappellants were in. charge of the business of the Company. In a<br \/>\n\tcase where the court is required to issue summons which would put<br \/>\n\tthe accused to some sort of harassment, the court should insist<br \/>\n\tstrict compliance with the statutory requirements. In terms of<br \/>\n\tSection 200 of the Code of Criminal procedure, the complainant is<br \/>\n\tbound to make statements on oath as to how the offence has been<br \/>\n\tcommitted and how the accused persons are responsible therefor. In<br \/>\n\tthe event, ultimately, the prosecution is found to be frivolous or<br \/>\n\totherwise mala fide, the court may direct registration of case<br \/>\n\tagainst the complainant for male fide prosecution of the accused.<br \/>\n\tThe accused would also be entitled to file a suit for damages. The<br \/>\n\trelevant provisions of the code of Criminal Procedure are required<br \/>\n\tto be construed from the aforementioned point of view.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>(See also: <a href=\"\/doc\/1451831\/\">Everest Advertising Pvt. Ltd. v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi &amp;<br \/>\nOrs.,<\/a> reported in JT (2007) 5 SC 529 and <a href=\"\/doc\/579039\/\">Raghu Lakshminarayanan v. M\/S.<br \/>\nFines Tubes<\/a> reported in JT (2007) 5 SC 552.\n<\/p>\n<p>7. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be<br \/>\nsustained and the same is accordingly set aside. The order taking<br \/>\ncognizance is quashed. The appeal is allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>No costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India K. Srikanth Singh vs North East Securities Ltd. And Anr on 20 July, 2007 Author: S Sinha. Bench: S.B. Sinha, H.S. Bedi CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 919 of 2007 PETITIONER: K. Srikanth Singh RESPONDENT: North East Securities Ltd. and Anr. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20\/07\/2007 BENCH: S.B. Sinha &amp; H.S. Bedi JUDGMENT: [&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-111601","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>K. Srikanth Singh vs North East Securities Ltd. And Anr on 20 July, 2007 - 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\/k-srikanth-singh-vs-north-east-securities-ltd-and-anr-on-20-july-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K. Srikanth Singh vs North East Securities Ltd. And Anr on 20 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-srikanth-singh-vs-north-east-securities-ltd-and-anr-on-20-july-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-07-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-27T10:35:59+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-srikanth-singh-vs-north-east-securities-ltd-and-anr-on-20-july-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-srikanth-singh-vs-north-east-securities-ltd-and-anr-on-20-july-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K. Srikanth Singh vs North East Securities Ltd. And Anr on 20 July, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-07-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-27T10:35:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-srikanth-singh-vs-north-east-securities-ltd-and-anr-on-20-july-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1630,\"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\\\/k-srikanth-singh-vs-north-east-securities-ltd-and-anr-on-20-july-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-srikanth-singh-vs-north-east-securities-ltd-and-anr-on-20-july-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-srikanth-singh-vs-north-east-securities-ltd-and-anr-on-20-july-2007\",\"name\":\"K. Srikanth Singh vs North East Securities Ltd. And Anr on 20 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-07-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-27T10:35:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-srikanth-singh-vs-north-east-securities-ltd-and-anr-on-20-july-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-srikanth-singh-vs-north-east-securities-ltd-and-anr-on-20-july-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-srikanth-singh-vs-north-east-securities-ltd-and-anr-on-20-july-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K. Srikanth Singh vs North East Securities Ltd. And Anr on 20 July, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"K. Srikanth Singh vs North East Securities Ltd. And Anr on 20 July, 2007 - 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\/k-srikanth-singh-vs-north-east-securities-ltd-and-anr-on-20-july-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K. Srikanth Singh vs North East Securities Ltd. And Anr on 20 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-srikanth-singh-vs-north-east-securities-ltd-and-anr-on-20-july-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-07-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-27T10:35:59+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-srikanth-singh-vs-north-east-securities-ltd-and-anr-on-20-july-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-srikanth-singh-vs-north-east-securities-ltd-and-anr-on-20-july-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K. Srikanth Singh vs North East Securities Ltd. And Anr on 20 July, 2007","datePublished":"2007-07-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-27T10:35:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-srikanth-singh-vs-north-east-securities-ltd-and-anr-on-20-july-2007"},"wordCount":1630,"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\/k-srikanth-singh-vs-north-east-securities-ltd-and-anr-on-20-july-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-srikanth-singh-vs-north-east-securities-ltd-and-anr-on-20-july-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-srikanth-singh-vs-north-east-securities-ltd-and-anr-on-20-july-2007","name":"K. Srikanth Singh vs North East Securities Ltd. And Anr on 20 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-07-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-27T10:35:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-srikanth-singh-vs-north-east-securities-ltd-and-anr-on-20-july-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-srikanth-singh-vs-north-east-securities-ltd-and-anr-on-20-july-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-srikanth-singh-vs-north-east-securities-ltd-and-anr-on-20-july-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K. Srikanth Singh vs North East Securities Ltd. And Anr on 20 July, 2007"}]},{"@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\/111601","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=111601"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/111601\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=111601"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=111601"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=111601"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}