{"id":160942,"date":"2000-09-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-09-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/integrated-amusement-ltd-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-8-september-2000"},"modified":"2017-11-06T19:33:06","modified_gmt":"2017-11-06T14:03:06","slug":"integrated-amusement-ltd-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-8-september-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/integrated-amusement-ltd-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-8-september-2000","title":{"rendered":"Integrated Amusement Ltd. vs Securities And Exchange Board Of … on 8 September, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"
Securities Appellate Tribunal<\/div>\n
Integrated Amusement Ltd. vs Securities And Exchange Board Of … on 8 September, 2000<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
 1. Integrated Amusement Ltd., and its directors (The Appellants) are
\naggrieved by the order dated 3-2-2000 made by the Respondent, whereby
\nthe appellants have been directed to disassociate themselves in every
\nrespect from the capital market related activities for a period of 5 years.
\nThey have also been debarred from associating with any of the interme-
\ndiaries in the capital market during the said period. The present appeal is
\nagainst the said order.\n<\/p>\n
2. The appellant company was incorporated as a public limited company
\non 24-8-1994 and obtained the certificate for commencement of business
\non 31-8-1994 from the Registrar of Companies, Gujarat. The main objects
\nof the appellant company, as per its Memorandum of Association are to
\nset up, build, construct and carry on the business of an Amusement Park,
\nincluding Water Park, Theme Park etc. The appellant company raised
\nRs. 575 lakhs towards capital, by issuing 57,50,000 equity shares of Rs. 10
\neach for cash at part through a prospectus dated 20-3-1995. The main
\nobject of the public issue as per the prospectus was to part finance the cost
\nof the project and to meet the working capital requirements of the
\nappellant company.\n<\/p>\n
3. The background information leading into the issuance of the impugned
\norder has been furnished in the order itself. According to the Respondent’s
\nversion it came to their notice that the appellants has not utilised the
\nmoney raised from the public for the purposes as disclosed in the
\nprospectus. Ahmedabad Stock Exchange (ASE) had reported that the
\nappellant company had not been complying with various clauses of listing
\nagreement entered into by it with them and that on physical verification
\nof the existence of the appellant company ASE found that it had vanished
\nfrom the registered office address given in the prospectus. On the basis of
\nASE’s report the appellant company was considered as a vanishing
\ncompany and Show-Cause Notice was issued to the appellants calling
\nupon them to explain as to why action should not be initiated against them
\nunder the provisions of Sections 11 and 11B of the Securities and
\nExchange Board of India Act, 1992 (‘the Act’) including debarring them
\nfrom associating with any capital market activity and also prohibiting
\nthem from accessing the capital market for a period of 5 years. The
\nappellant company denied the charges. It has been stated in the impugned
\norder that ASE  vide    its letter to the respondent, dated 18-8-1999 had
\nreported that the appellant company “which was earlier declared as
\nvanished has claimed its existence at the changed address and the
\nexchange has confirmed the existence of the company at the changed
\naddress after physical verification”.\n<\/p>\n
4. During the course of a personal hearing granted in the inquiry, the
\nappellant company’s Managing Director and one Shri B.P. Kananai, a
\nChartered Accountant had submitted that the appellant had shifted its
\nregistered office from the address started in the prospectus to the project
\nsite and this change was duly notified to the Registrar of Companies and
\nthe stock exchanges. It has been stated in the order that the respondent
\ninformed the representatives that “from the facts and circumstances
\n prima facie    it appears that the company and its directors had misapro-
\npriated and misutilised the money raised through the public issue and
\nentrusted to them by the public and have fraudulently induced the public
\nby deceiving them to subscribe to the issue of the company”. As per the
\norder, the appellants were “advised to clarify and submit documents in
\nsupport of the utilisation of the money raised by the company from the
\npublic for the purposes as disclosed in the offer documents.”. According to
\nsubmit documents, annual accounts, and statement and end-use of funds
\nfrom the date of the public issue”, till the date of hearing, within 15 days
\nof the date of hearing (18-11-1999 was the date of hearing). It has been
\nstated that it was made clear to them that in case they fail to furnish these
\nrequisite particulars, the respondent would presume that the appellants
\nhad no explanation to give and the matter will be decided on that
\nassumption. The appellants failed to submit the information as promised
\nand in that context the respondent drew adverse inference and issued the
\nimpugned direction. The Chairman, SEBI, who had issued the order in
\nexercise of the powers of the respondent, under Section 4(3) of the Act felt
\nthat “the directors who have been entrusted with the funds have misap-
\npropriated the money for their own use in violation of the directions of law
\nand contract between the company and the investors in contravention of
\nlaw”. In this context he stated ” I observe that the State Government be
\nrequested to initiate appropriate criminal action in the matter under the
\nIndian Penal Code, 1860 or any other relevant State law through the police
\nagainst the company and its directors”. He had also viewed that Shri B.P.
\nKanani who had appeared for the appellant company during the personal
\nhearing, did not furnish the details of the account of funds despite an
\nundertaking given by him. He felt that Shri Kanani’s action may amount
\nto professional misconduct and viewed that the matter be referred to the
\nInstitute of Chartered Accountants of India to take appropriate action
\nagainst him.\n<\/p>\n
5. Shri Rajendra C Dhuru, the learned Counsel for the appellants submit-
\nted that the respondent has no power to define the criteria for declaring
\na company to be vanishing company, that the concept has been defined
\nwithout application of mind. Further the respondent lacked authority to
\nregulate the manner in which the affairs of the appellant company
\nneeded\/required to be carried on. It is for the Registrar of Companies and
\nthe shareholders to proceed against the appellants, if they felt there was
\nany oppression or mismanagement. According to the learned Counsel
\naction against vanishing company would tantamount to regulating or
\nprohibiting that company from carrying out its affairs in a particular
\nmanner. Since Registrar of Companies is empowered under the Compa-
\nnies Act, 1956 to take action against a defaulting company, the respondent
\nhad no role or authority to exercise those powers by usurping the same
\nfrom the Registrar. He submitted that the respondent had no jurisdiction
\nto issue direction in the impugned order in as much as it relates to cause
\npolice action under IPC etc. or action for professional misconduct of
\nChartered Accountant. He claimed that the requisite inquiry did not
\nprecede issuance of direction as required under the Act. The appellants
\nare not persons covered under Section 11B to whom directions can be
\nissued, as they are not persons referred to in Section 12 or person
\nassociated with the securities market. He submitted that the inquiry
\ncontemplated under the Act has to be with reference to requirements
\nunder the Act and not in relation to Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act
\nor Companies Act. The respondent’s power under Section 1191) to protect
\nthe interests of investors would essentially mean to protect the interest
\narising out of transactions relating to the securities effected through the
\nprimary market or secondary market or even off market. The generality
\ncannot go beyond that. In the instant case the question is not related to the
\ntransaction involving the appellant company or its directors with inves-
\ntors or potential investors. Since the respondent had no power to collect
\nfinancial information from listed companies, respondent cannot take
\nunbiased, just and proper decision as to violations committed by such
\ncompanies. The cut off date adopted for selecting companies for scrutiny,
\non the basis of public issues made after 1992 is arbitrary and discrimi-
\nnatory, that the list of companies published as vanishing companies is an
\nincomplete list and that it is not based on the verification made by the
\nrespondent, but based on a study and physical verification undertaken by
\nthe stock exchanges and hence not acceptable. According to the learned
\nCounsel exclusion of matters relating to deposits and loan instruments
\nfrom the purview of the task force is discriminatory.\n<\/p>\n
6. The learned counsel, submitted that the appellant company had shifted
\nits registered office to the project site for operational reasons and that the
\nchange had been notified to the Registrar of Companies, Gujarat. Copy of
\nthe fees receipt issued against filing fee for the document filed in this
\nregard in the Registrar of Companies’ office annexed to the appeal was
\nreferred to. It was also submitted that the appellant was filing returns and
\ndocuments with the stock exchange. In support of the fact that they are
\nreporting to ASE, the learned counsel relied on the copy of the
\nacknowledgements issued by ASE and also copies of receipts acknowl-
\neding payment of listing fee. He had relied on the respondent’s own
\nversion that the appellant is functioning from the notified address. He had
\nvehemently denied misappropriation of funds as alleged and pointed out
\nthat even though it was not a charge in the SCN, they had agreed to furnish
\nthe details to the respondent. Since one of the relatives of the Managing
\nDirector fell ill critically and died immediately after the personal hearing,
\nthe appellants could not furnish the details within that period and even
\nwithout giving another opportunity the impugned order was issued. He
\npointed out that the order is  ex parte,   the appellants. The finding is based
\non assumptions and presumptions and not on real facts. He submitted
\nthat before imposing such a penalty, had the respondent waited for the
\nmaterial fact, the finding would have been different. He referred to the
\naudited Annual Accounts of the company for the period ended 31-3-1995
\nthe latest one for the year ended on 31-3-1995 annexed to the appeal. He
\nhad also produced acknowledgement stated to have issued by ASE,
\nevidencing the filing of unaudited financial results on quarterly basis as
\nrequired. He submitted that since the appellant had been responding to
\neach and every query from the respondent, by no standard the appellant
\ncompany can be considered as a vanishing company. He pointed out that
\nif there had been any lapse on the part of the appellants, the shareholders
\nwould not have kept quite. The fact that there was not even a complaint
\nfrom them shows the company’s bona fides.\n<\/p>\n
7. Ms. Poonam A Bamba, learned representative of the respondent
\nexplained the back ground in which the respondent had identified compa-
\nnies as vanishing companies and the nature of action taken against them.
\nShe invited the Tribunal’s attention to the PIL filed by an Investor’s
\nAssociation in the Allahabad High Court seeking court’s intervention to
\nprotect the interest of investors who had been duped by those companies
\nwhich after raising funds from the public by issuing prospectus had
\nvanished without any trace. She submitted that many companies and
\ntheir promoters\/directors which raised funds from the public through
\npublic issues were not traceable and had disappeared without utilising the
\nfunds raised for the purposes mentioned in the offer documents. Regu-
\nlatory authorities like Department of Company Affairs, Reserve Bank of
\nIndia and the respondent were blamed for failing to take action against
\nthose unscrupulous companies and their promoters\/directors. In such a
\nscenario, Department of Company Affairs, Reserve Bank of India and the
\nrespondent decided to take whatever action was possible and to co-
\nordinate their efforts in this regard. A Central Co-ordination and Monitor-
\ning Committee was set up as a joint mechanism consisting of senior
\nofficers of the said authorities and seven task forces were also formed at
\nthe field level. To begin with 80 companies were identified by the respon-
\ndent on the basis of the following criteria evolved by the said joint
\nmechanism,<\/p>\n
“(a) Companies which did not comply with listing requirements such as
\nsubmitting various returns and reports to the stock exchange(s) for
\na period of 2 years and<\/p>\n
(b) Where no correspondence has been received by the stock exchange
\nfor a long time<\/p>\n
(c) No office of the company is located at the mentioned registered
\noffice address.”\n<\/p>\n
8. She submitted that the said criteria for identifying vanishing companies
\nhad been adopted in furtherance of the statutory objects in a just fair and
\nreasonable manner.\n<\/p>\n
9. The learned Representative submitted that the respondent has been
\ninvested with the power to protect the interest of investors in securities
\nand to promote the development of, and to regulate the securities market.
\nIn terms of Section 11 of the Act, the respondent is empowered to take
\nsuch measures as it thinks fit for achieving the objecting of the Act. She
\nreiterated that the respondent certainly has the power to regulate the
\nsecurities market which included regulation through prohibitory as well
\nas mandatory directions. It was further submitted that in order to achieve
\nthe objective of the Act and to effectively perform its duties, the respon-
\ndent also has incidental powers for taking appropriate measures for the
\nprotection of the interest of investors. She denied the appellants’ conten-
\ntion that the respondent is usurping the powers of other statutory
\nagencies and regulating the management and affairs of companies falling
\nunder the domain of the Company Law Administration. According to her
\nthe respondent is duty bound to regulate the securities market and is
\nempowered to issue directions to any person associated with the securi-
\nties market as provided under Section 11B. The impugned direction under
\nSection 11B was issued to vanishing companies identified by the task force
\nand also in tune with the direction of the Allahabad High Court.\n<\/p>\n
10. Explaining the scope of Section 11B, it was submitted that if the
\nunscrupulous companies\/their promoters who raised money and did not
\nutilise the same for the objects, stated in the offer documents, and have
\ndisappeared, it would seriously affect the confidence of the investors in
\nthe market. Therefore, for an orderly development of the market, such
\npersons have to be declared unfit for remaining in the market. Accord-
\ningly, suitable directions have been issued to such persons. She denied the
\nappellant’s contention that direction can be issued only in respect of the
\ntransactions in securities. The learned representative submitted that the
\nrespondent has power to call for information for undertaking inspection
\nand conducting inquiries. Countering the appellant’s charge, she stated
\nthat decision to refer the matter to police or the Institute of Chartered
\nAccountants referred to in the order was not in the nature of direction and
\nthe respondent had not taken any action under the SCR Act or under the
\nCompanies Act. Justifying the cut off date of 1992, for identifying vanish-
\ning companies, she submitted that it was the year in which the Act was
\nbrought into force, and as such the earliest dat to be reckoned for the
\npurpose. It was also submitted that identification of 80 companies by the
\nTask Force and issuance of press release was only the beginning. Identi-
\nfication was an on going process and that as and when any information\/
\nreport is received and if it is found that the company had vanished,
\nsuitable action will be taken against that company as well. She submitted
\nthat the list of 80 companies was not final list.\n<\/p>\n
11. She submitted that the appellant company was considered as a
\nvanishing company by the task force on the bass of the information
\nfurnished by ASE. However subsequently, ASE reported that the appel-
\nlant company, which was declared as vanished, was found existing at its
\nchanged address. Therefore, before the matter could be concluded on
\nmerits it was decided to grant an opportunity of personal hearing to the
\nappellant company and its directors. Even though the representatives of
\nthe appellants had submitted that funds collected have been utilised for
\nthe purposes mentioned in the prospectus, that the project could not be
\ncompleted because of shortage of funds, they could not produce any
\ndocument in support of the submission. According to the learned repre-
\nsentative, during the course of hearing the respondent had asked for the
\ndetails of utilisation of the funds raised through the public issue and the
\nrepresentatives at that time had submitted that the documents concern-
\ning the financial affairs of the appellant were not readily available at the
\ntime of personal hearing and gave an undertaking to submit the same
\nlater. She submitted that even though vide letter dated 30-11-1999, the
\nappellant company was advised to send the details, till the issuance of the
\nimpugned order there was no response. Thus the allegation that they were
\nnot given opportunity to explain their case was unfounded. According to
\nher the appellants had failed to file reports\/documents with Registrar of
\nCompanies and stock exchange. Non-compliance of the requirements of
\nthe listing agreement, especially failure to furnish financial data etc., is
\ndetrimental to the interests of investors. She submitted that in the light of
\nthe submissions made by the appellants, there existed a prima facie case
\nthat the appellants had not made proper utilisation of the funds raised
\nthrough public issue. Reasons, if any, justifying non-utilisation or
\nmisutilisation of funds by the appellant company could not be given by
\nthem though ample opportunities were provided. It was made clear to the
\nappellants’ representatives during the personal hearing, that in case they
\nfail to submit the documents as per the undertaking given by them,
\nadverse inference will be drawn and appropriate action will follow. Since
\nthey failed to fulfil their own assurance, the respondent was constrained
\nto draw an adverse inference against them and issue impugned direction,
\nex parte the appellants. Referring to the applicability of Limitation Act,
\n1963 she submitted that the default under the facts of the instant case was
\nin the nature of continuing default and as such not barred by limitation<\/p>\n
12. I have carefully considered the rival contentions put forth by the
\nparties before me.\n<\/p>\n
13. The menace of companies raising capital from the pubic with rosy
\npromises and thereafter disappearing from the scene after duping the
\ninvestors has become a common feature these days. Gullible investors are
\ntaken for a ride by the smarter persons by including them to part with their
\nhard earned money by way of subscription to shares in the public issue.
\nAuthorities such as department of Company Affairs (responsible for
\nadministering Companies Act), Reserve Bank of India and the respondent,
\nbeing primarily concerned with the investor protection, the harassed
\ninvestors often look at them for redressal of their grievances. But they
\ncould not do much to alleviate the grievances of the investors for various
\nconstraints. In fact they were subjected to adverse criticisms for their
\ninaction in booking those fly by night operators. Some of the investors’
\nassociations even had filed Writ Petitions in the High Courts seeking
\ndirections to authorities to do the needful. It was in this context a high level
\ncommittee consisting of the Finance Secretary to Govt. of India, Secre-
\ntary, Department of Company Affairs and Chairman, SEBI decided to set
\nup a joint mechanism for taking stringent action against the unscrupulous
\ncompanies and the promoters who duped the public. A Co-ordination and
\nMonitoring Committee to decide policy issues and provide broad guide-
\nlines and seven Task Forces at field level to identify the companies which
\nhad disappeared after raising funds by issuing prospectus after 1992 were
\nset up. The concept of vanishing companies with the attributes mentioned
\nby the respondent was identified for functional purpose. In fact this
\nconcept was brought to the notice of the Allahabad High Court in W.P.No.
\n659(MB) 1998 filed by Midas Touch Investors Association. In an
\naffidavit filed by the petitioner before the High Court, it has been stated
\nthat in a meeting held between Secretary, Department of Company
\nAffairs and Chairman, SEBI along with their officials in order to devise a
\ncommon strategy, on 3-12-1999, it was decided that a Co-ordination and
\nMonitoring Committee would settle the policy issues regarding the delin-
\nquent companies\/promoters and monitor the progress in this regard to
\nthe action, that it was also decided that seven Task Forces would assist the
\nCo-ordination and Monitoring Committee and that the focus of these
\ngroups would be to identify the companies which have disappeared or
\nwhich have misutilised the funds mobilised from the public. The informa-
\ntion filed with the stock exchanges pursuant to the requirements of the
\nlisting agreements as also the various documents\/returns filed with
\nRegistrar of Companies could be the basis for initiating preliminary
\nexercise of identifying the delinquent companies. The High Court had
\nendorse the action including the criteria for identifying the companies
\nsubject to probe, is evident from the following observations made by the
\nHigh Court in its order dated 26-3-1999.\n<\/p>\n
“Now in view of the decision taken by the Securities and Exchange Board
\nof India, Department of Company Affairs and the Finance Secretary,
\nGovt. of India, it is clear that the Central Government, Deptt. of Company
\nAffairs and Securities and Exchange Board of India are already seized of
\nthe mater and appropriate steps have been taken for putting a check
\nupon the defaulting companies and to watch the interest of the investors.
\nThe work of identifying the defaulting companies has been entrusted to
\nseven Task Forces and thereafter as soon as the defaulting companies are
\nidentified further action in the light of the decision referred to above will
\nhave to be taken.  We are satisfied that the action taken and the principle
\nenunciated therein would certainly be a step towards identifying the
\ndefaulting companies and protecting the interest of the investors regarding
\nclaim of their money.   Besides this the defaulting companies and their
\ndirectors and promoters will also be subjected to penal consequences
\nunder the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the defaulting companies
\ncan also be subjected to proceedings under the Companies Act. At this
\njuncture we may hope and trust that the opposite parties ( i.e.,   Union of
\nIndia and Another), would abide the decision taken by them and would
\nbring to the notice the names of the defaulting companies as envisaged in
\nthe Supplementary Affidavit. They would also permit the petitioner and
\nother law abiding citizens of the society to submit a list of the defaulting
\ncompanies, if at all they can furnish and after such a list is submitted,
\naction as envisaged in the Supplementary Affidavit and the decision of the
\nSEBI, DCA and the Finance Secretary, Government of India shall be
\ntaken”\n<\/p>\n
[Emphasis Supplied] <\/p>\n
14. In view of the above observation of the Allahabad High Curt the
\nappellants’ contention on the power of the respondent and criteria
\nadopted for declaring a company as vanishing company cannot survive.
\nFor the reasons stated by the respondent for choosing the year 1992, the
\ncut off year for preparing the list, the argument that the line has been
\ndrawn out arbitrarily excluding companies which had issued capital prior
\nto 1992, is also unsustainable. From the order cited above it is clear that
\nthe list of 80 companies is not a rigid list as freedom has been given to add
\nnames to the list if considered necessary and that the respondent had also
\nsubmitted that the identification exercise is not a one time exercise but a
\ncontinuing process. I agree with the views of the learned Representative
\nof the respondent that the matter under inquiry is not hit by the provisions
\nof the Limitation Act.\n<\/p>\n
15. It is incorrect to say that by using Section 11B the respondent is
\nusurping the powers of Registrar of Companies or that they are interfer-
\ning with the management of the company. In this context it is pertinent to
\nnote that the Act is intended “to provide for the establishment of a Board
\nto protect the interests of investors in securities and to promote the
\ndevelopment of, and to regulate the securities market and for matters
\nconnected therewith or incidental thereto”. Section 11 prescribing the
\npowers and functions of the Board inter alia provides that subject to the
\nprovisions of the Act, it shall be the duty of the Board to protect the
\ninterests of investors and to promote the development of and to regulate
\nthe securities by such measures as it thinks fit. The respondent’s power to
\ntake suitable measures subject to the provisions of the Act has been
\nupheld by several High Courts  SEBI    v.  Alka Synthetics Ltd.   [1999] 19 SCL 460 (Guj.),  M.Z. Khan    v.  SEBI    AIR 1999 Delhi 164;  Ramrak R Bohra    v.  SEBI    [1999] 33 CLA (Bom.). As the Delhi High Court put in M.Z. Khan’s    case, the power under Section 11 is of a very wide nature and not hedged by any
\nrestriction.\n<\/p>\n
16. Section 11B enables the respondent to issue direction. Section 11B is
\nreproduced below:\n<\/p>\n
“11B.  Power to issue directions. –Save as otherwise provided in Section 11,
\nif after making or causing to be made an enquiry, the Board is satisfied
\nthat it is necessary–\n<\/p>\n
(i) in the interest of investors, or orderly development of securities
\nmarket; or<\/p>\n
(ii) to prevent the affairs of any intermediary or other persons referred
\nto in Section 12 being conducted in a manner detrimental to the
\ninterest of investors or securities market; or<\/p>\n
(iii) to secure the proper management of any such intermediary or
\nperson, it may issue such direction,–\n<\/p>\n
(a) to any person or class of persons referred to in Section 12, or
\nassociated with the securities market; or<\/p>\n
(b) to any company in respect of matters specified in Section 11A,
\nas may be appropriate in the interest of investors in securities
\nand the securities market”.\n<\/p>\n
17. Sections 11 and 11B are interconnected and co-extensive as both these
\nsections are mainly focused on investor protection. On a perusal of the
\nsaid Section 11 it could be seen that the respondent has been in no
\nuncertain terms mandated to protect the interests of investors in securi-
\nties by such measures as it thinks fit. The expression measure has not been
\ndefined in the Act. So we have to go by its generally understood meaning.
\nAccording to Corpus Juris Secundum measures means “anything desired
\nor done with a view to the accomplishment of a purpose, a plan or course
\nof action intended to obtain some object, any course of action proposed
\nor adopted by a Government”. Measure is also understood “as a means to
\nan end”. Thus, measure in its generic sense is of wider amplitude. I do not
\nconsider it necessary to go into the details of the nature of measure which
\nthe respondent is empowered to take, for discharging its duties, for the
\npurpose of disposing the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n
18. While Section 11 deals with the functions of the Board, Section 11B is
\non the powers of the Board. Section 11B is in a sense of functional tool in
\nthe hands of the Board. In effect 11B is one of the executive measures
\navailable to the respondent to enforce its prime duty of investor protec-
\ntion. As could be seen from the text of the section reproduced above the
\nrespondent is empowered to issue directions in the interest of investors to
\nany person or class of persons referred to in Section 12 of the Act or
\nassociated with the securities market. It cannot be said that a company
\nhaving its shares listed on the exchange is out of the reach of Sections 11
\nand 11B. Since the company is operating through its board of directors,
\nthe directors of that company also can be considered as persons associ-
\nated with the capital market, as long as the company’s shares are listed on
\nthe exchange. it does not stand to reason to say that a company whose
\nshares are traded in the securities market, is not associated with the
\nsecurities market. Trading is permitted subject to compliance of several
\nrequirements, flowing from the listing agreement entered into between
\nthe company and the stock exchange. Taking into consideration the scope
\nand reach of Sections 11 and 11B I am not inclined to agree with the view
\nthat the respondent is lacking authority to issue direction to the
\nappellants. It appears that the appellant has not appreciated the scope
\nof observations made in the order to refer the matter to the police
\nauthorities and the conduct of Shri B.P. Kanani to Institute of Chartered
\nAccountants to take appropriate action. These are mere observations
\nand not in the nature of an enforceable order or direction as such. Further,
\nthe impugned direction is not one for violation of the Companies Act or
\nthe Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act. It is issued in the interest of
\ninvestors under Section 11B, independent of the provisions of the
\ncompanies Act and the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act. Further
\nreferring to the reliance on ASE’s report, I do not find anything wrong in
\nrelying on a repot submitted by an authority like stock exchange, as the
\ninformation furnished by itself is only a starting point. An inquiry there-
\nafter follows and the concerned persons are given sufficient opportunities
\nto put across their views before the authorities. Similarly exclusion of
\npublic deposits and debt instruments from the scope of inquiry cannot be
\nconsidered to be in any way discriminatory, as the matter relating to
\npublic deposits etc., are taken care of by other regimes vested with powers
\nfor the purpose. For these reasons, I am inclined to hold that the re-
\nspondent is justified in pursuing the course of action against the vanishing
\ncompanies and its promoters and directors and the Respondent is legally
\ninvested with the requisite authority for the purpose.\n<\/p>\n
19. Now coming to the facts specified to the present case, it is seen that ASE
\nhad already reported the appellant’s existence at the given address.
\nHowever, the respondent claims that the appellant had not been comply-
\ning with the listing requirements and the statutory requirements of filing
\nreturns with Registrar of Companies, etc. But at the same time the
\nappellants have produced photo copies of filing acknowledgements stated
\nto have been issued by ASE and Registrar of Companies. In view of the
\nconflicting version it is felt that the factual position need be verified by the
\nrespondent with reference to the original records available with stock
\nexchange and Registrar of Companies. The respondent will do so. In any
\ncase it is not the respondent’s case that the company is not traceable at
\npresent. The respondent is on a more important issue regarding fund
\nutilisation by the appellants, adversely affecting the investors’ interest.\n<\/p>\n
20. The main reason based on which the impugned order has been issued
\nis an inference, in the absence of relevant material before the respondent,
\nthat the appellants had misused the funds collected from the public for
\npurposes other than for which it was collected. The appellants, though
\npromised to furnish the requisite details did not do so. The appellants have
\nexplained the reasons for the same as serious illness and death of a close
\nrelative of the Managing Director. Medical papers in support have been
\nproduced. Application of funds is matter which can be verified from the
\nrecords of the appellant company. In terms of Section 1192)(i) the respon-
\ndent is empowered to call for information, etc. from the appellant
\ncompany also for the reason that it is also a person associated with the
\nsecurities market. The appellants have not refused to furnish the details,
\nbut they had put forth certain reasons which disabled them to furnish the
\nrequisite information. During the proceedings before the Tribunal, the
\nappellants had expressed their willingness to produce the records\/infor-
\nmation before the respondent. In fact the appellants have annexed copies
\nof the appellant company’s audited annual accounts for the years ended
\non 31-3-1995, 31-3-1996, 31-3-1997, 31-3-1998 and 31-3-1999 to the appeal.
\nAs per the appellant company’s balance sheet as on 31-3-1999, Rs. 754.22
\nlakhs have been shown as capital work-in-progress and fixed assets net of
\ndepreciation has been valued at Rs. 47.33 lakhs. I am of the view that the
\nfund utilisation by the appellant company need be looked into with
\nreference to its records in the context of the charge of misuse of funds
\nraised from the public issue. Since the appellants have expressed their
\nwillingness to make available the requisite information, in depth study of
\nthe same would be useful to reach at a definite conclusion and also to
\npursue the matter thereafter, if considered necessary, to protect the
\ninterests of the investors. Since the impugned order is based on inference
\nand ex parte the appellants, it is felt proper that the appellants be given one
\nmore opportunity to furnish the information to the respondent in a
\nreasonable time frame and the respondent in the light of that information,
\nwill pass appropriate orders in accordance with the provisions of the law.
\nThe department of company affairs may also be requested, if so desired,
\nto examine the books of account and other records of the appellant
\ncompany to ascertain the utilisation of the funds and if necessary follow
\nup the matter.\n<\/p>\n
21. The impugned order does not in any way redress the grievances of the
\npersons who have already invested in the shares of the appellant com-
\npany. The prohibition put in on the appellants is effective only prospec-
\ntively. Since the appellant have come forward to furnish the details, and
\nthe impugned order is ex parte the appellants, it is felt that further inquiry
\non the lines embarked on by the respondent as stated in the impugned
\norder and follow up action thereafter would be in the interests of the
\ninvestors. For the purpose it is felt that the matter need be remanded.\n<\/p>\n
22. In the light of the above discussion the impugned order is set aside and
\nthe matter is remanded with the direction to the appellants to furnish the
\nrequisite information and all the documents and records showing the
\nutilization of funds raised from the pubic issue, as called for by the
\nrespondent within the time stipulated by the respondent. The respondent
\nwill examine the same and if any additional particulars are required from
\nthe appellants, they will furnish the same within two weeks of calling for
\nthe same by the respondent. The appellants will co-operate with the
\ninquiry and produce necessary documents and information as called for
\nby the respondent and the respondent thereafter will pass appropriate
\norder according to the law. If the appellants fail to furnish the documents
\nand information as called for by the respondents within the time frame, the
\nrespondent will be at liberty to pass such order as is deemed fit, at the risk
\nof the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
It is made clear that this order will not in any way affect the proposal of
\nthe respondent to approach the State Government to initiate appropriate
\ncriminal action in the matter under the Indian Penal Code or any other
\nState law and referring the conduct of Shri B.P. Kanani, Chartered
\nAccountant, to the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, for taking
\nappropriate action against him.\n<\/p>\n
23. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Securities Appellate Tribunal Integrated Amusement Ltd. vs Securities And Exchange Board Of … on 8 September, 2000 JUDGMENT 1. Integrated Amusement Ltd., and its directors (The Appellants) are aggrieved by the order dated 3-2-2000 made by the Respondent, whereby the appellants have been directed to disassociate themselves in every respect from the capital market related […]<\/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":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-160942","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nIntegrated Amusement Ltd. vs Securities And Exchange Board Of ... on 8 September, 2000 - 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\/integrated-amusement-ltd-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-8-september-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Integrated Amusement Ltd. vs Securities And Exchange Board Of ... on 8 September, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/integrated-amusement-ltd-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-8-september-2000\" \/>\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=\"2000-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-06T14:03:06+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=\"29 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/integrated-amusement-ltd-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-8-september-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/integrated-amusement-ltd-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-8-september-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Integrated Amusement Ltd. vs Securities And Exchange Board Of … on 8 September, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-06T14:03:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/integrated-amusement-ltd-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-8-september-2000\"},\"wordCount\":5814,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/integrated-amusement-ltd-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-8-september-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/integrated-amusement-ltd-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-8-september-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/integrated-amusement-ltd-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-8-september-2000\",\"name\":\"Integrated Amusement Ltd. vs Securities And Exchange Board Of ... on 8 September, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-06T14:03:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/integrated-amusement-ltd-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-8-september-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/integrated-amusement-ltd-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-8-september-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/integrated-amusement-ltd-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-8-september-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Integrated Amusement Ltd. vs Securities And Exchange Board Of … on 8 September, 2000\"}]},{\"@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":"Integrated Amusement Ltd. vs Securities And Exchange Board Of ... on 8 September, 2000 - 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\/integrated-amusement-ltd-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-8-september-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Integrated Amusement Ltd. vs Securities And Exchange Board Of ... on 8 September, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/integrated-amusement-ltd-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-8-september-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-06T14:03:06+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":"29 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/integrated-amusement-ltd-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-8-september-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/integrated-amusement-ltd-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-8-september-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Integrated Amusement Ltd. vs Securities And Exchange Board Of … on 8 September, 2000","datePublished":"2000-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-06T14:03:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/integrated-amusement-ltd-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-8-september-2000"},"wordCount":5814,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/integrated-amusement-ltd-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-8-september-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/integrated-amusement-ltd-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-8-september-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/integrated-amusement-ltd-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-8-september-2000","name":"Integrated Amusement Ltd. vs Securities And Exchange Board Of ... on 8 September, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-06T14:03:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/integrated-amusement-ltd-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-8-september-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/integrated-amusement-ltd-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-8-september-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/integrated-amusement-ltd-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-8-september-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Integrated Amusement Ltd. vs Securities And Exchange Board Of … on 8 September, 2000"}]},{"@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\/160942","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=160942"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/160942\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=160942"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=160942"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=160942"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}