{"id":173734,"date":"2011-02-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-02-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vs-unknown-on-3-february-2011"},"modified":"2017-04-01T16:12:44","modified_gmt":"2017-04-01T10:42:44","slug":"ms-vs-unknown-on-3-february-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vs-unknown-on-3-february-2011","title":{"rendered":"M\/S vs Unknown on 3 February, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S vs Unknown on 3 February, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Jayant Patel,&Nbsp;Honourable J.C.Upadhyaya,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nOJA\/75\/2010\t 11\/ 11\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nO.J.APPEAL\nNo. 75 of 2010\n \n\nIn\n\n\n \n\nOFFICIAL\nLIQUDATOR REPORT No. 66 of 2010\n \n\nIn\n \n\n\nOFFICIAL LIQUDATOR REPORT No.\n227 of 2008\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL\n \n\n  \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nM\/S.\nCRYSTAL EQUITIES LIMITED - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nOFFICIAL\nLIQUIDATOR OF M\/S. GUJARAT SMALL INDUSTRIES CORP.LT & 11 -\nOpponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR.BHASH\nH MANKAD for\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nOFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR for Opponent(s) : 1, \nMS\nAMEE YAJNIK for Opponent(s) : 1, \nNone for Opponent(s) : 2 -\n12. \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 03\/02\/2011 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
(Per : HONOURABLE
\nMR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)<\/p>\n
\tThe
\n\tpresent appeal arises against the order dated 1.10.2010 passed by
\n\tthe learned Company Judge in OLR No.66\/2006, whereby the direction
\n\thas been issued for forfeiture of the EMD of the appellant herein,
\n\twho was one of the offerers before the Sale Committee as well as
\n\tbefore the learned Company Judge.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\n\trelevant facts appear to be that for the properties of M\/s.Gujarat
\n\tSmall Industries Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as
\n\t‘the Company in liquidation’ for short), steps were taken by the
\n\tOfficial Liquidator (OL) for realization of the money by sale of the
\n\tproperties.  Out of various lots, for Lot No.III, the appellant
\n\ttogether with the other offerers, in response to the advertisement
\n\tissued by the OL, had submitted offer.  At the relevant point of
\n\ttime, the EMD was of Rs.7 lac and when the report was submitted
\n\tbefore the Company Court for confirmation, the highest offer
\n\tsubmitted by the Appellant was of Rs.1.43 crore for Lot No.III of
\n\tthe properties of the Company in liquidation.  Since we are not much
\n\tconcerned with the other properties comprising of different lots,
\n\texcept Lot No.III, the said aspect would not be much relevant, save
\n\tand except while dealing with the contentions of the learned Counsel
\n\tfor the appellant, as and when required.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt
\n\tappears that thereafter, the OL submitted the report for
\n\tconfirmation of the offers of various Lots being OLR No.66 of 2010.
\n\tSuch aspects came to be considered by the learned Company Judge on
\n\t20.8.2010 and the learned Company Judge found that so far as Lot
\n\tNo.III is concerned, the offer was quite low and, therefore, the
\n\tCourt had shown disinclination to confirm the same, but further
\n\tdirected the OL to issue a fresh advertisement essentially with a
\n\tview to make one more attempt to invite higher offer than the offer
\n\treceived of Rs.1.43 crore of Lot No.III.  It appears that thereafter
\n\tthe OL, pursuant to the said order dated 20.8.2010 for Lot No.III
\n\tissued advertisement and intimated to the existing offerers also.
\n\tThereafter, when the matter once again came up for hearing before
\n\tthe learned Company Judge on 1.10.2010, it was found that there was
\n\tno offerer coming forward.  Therefore, the only highest offer
\n\tremained was as that of the appellant and the second highest offer
\n\twas as that of Mr.M.S.Lohar of Rs.1.42 crore for Lot No.III.  Since
\n\tthe appellant herein declared before the learned Company Judge that
\n\tthe appellant was not interested in purchasing the property, the
\n\tappellant withdrew the offer by backing out from the offer.  Under
\n\tthese circumstances, the learned Company Judge directed for
\n\tforfeiture of the EMD of the appellant and confirmed the next offer
\n\tof Rs.1.42 crore of Mr.M.S. Lohar.  The appellant has no object so
\n\tfar as the confirmation of the offer of Mr.Lohar at Rs.1.42 crore is
\n\tconcerned, however, since the learned Company Judge directed for
\n\tforfeiture of the EMD of the appellant, the present appeal before
\n\tus.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe
\n\thave heard Mr.Unwala, learned Counsel appearing with Mr.Bhash Mankad
\n\tfor the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\n\tfirst contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant is
\n\tthat the learned Company Judge, when passed the order on 20.8.2010
\n\tin OLR No.66 of 2010 for Lot No.III, his offer was not confirmed
\n\tand, therefore, it can be said as the offer not accepted and in the
\n\tsubmission of the learned Counsel for the appellant, as the learned
\n\tCompany Judge directed for issuance of fresh advertisement, it can
\n\tbe said that a fresh advertisement de novo
\n\twas ordered and the earlier process undertaken for inviting offers
\n\tand the offers so submitted stood cancelled.  In furtherance to the
\n\tsubmission, the learned Counsel attempted to rely upon the
\n\tobservations made by the learned Company Judge at paragraph 5 in the
\n\torder dated 20.8.2010.\n<\/p>\n
\tPrima
\n\tfacie the contention appears to be attractive, but upon close
\n\tscrutiny, it appears that
\n\tthe same is misconceived and even not on a correct factual premise.
\n\tIn the order dated 20.8.2010
\n\tpassed by the learned Company Judge, in OLR No.66\/2010 at paragraph
\n\t5, it was, inter alia, observed as under:-\n<\/p>\n
“5.\tSo
\n\tfar as Lot No. III is concerned I.e. Leasehold land of Plot No.1011
\n\tapproximately 5000 Sq. Mtr. (remaining leasehold period as on
\n\t31.03.2010 – 83 years Approx.) situated at GIDC Industrial
\n\tEstate, Ankleshwar, Dist. Bharuch, there are two bidders before the
\n\tCourt.  Except them, no other bidder has come forward.  The second
\n\thighest bidder has expressed its inability to make any further
\n\toffer.  The offer of the first highest bidder before the Sale
\n\tCommittee appears to be quite low and hence, the Court is not
\n\tinclined to confirm the same in favour of M\/s. Crystal Equities
\n\tLimited.  The Official Liquidator is, therefore, directed to issue a
\n\tshort advertisement fixing the upset price of Rs.1.43 Crores and EMD
\n\tat Rs.15 Lacs.  The inter-se
\n\tbidding for Lot No. III will take place before the Court on
\n\t03.09.2010.  If any one is interested to participate in the inter-se
\n\tbidding, they should remain present only after payment of EMD and
\n\tlate entry charges, if any.”\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\taforesaid order has to be read conjointly and it cannot be read in
\n\tisolation as sought to be
\n\tcanvassed.  The aforesaid order makes it clear that the Court did
\n\tshow disinclination to confirmation the offer at that stage, but
\n\tsimultaneously directed the OL to issue a fresh advertisement as
\n\tmentioned in the order.  The Court did not finally decide not to
\n\tconfirm the offer, but since the offer of the first highest offerer
\n\ti.e. the appellant herein before the Sale Committee was found by the
\n\tCourt, at that stage, low, by way of an attempt to invite additional
\n\toffers, subsequent directions were issued.  The aforesaid aspect is
\n\tapparent from the paragraph 11 of the very order, wherein the
\n\tlearned Company judge has observed as under:-\n<\/p>\n
“11.\tFor
\n\tLot No.III, the matter is adjourned to 03.09.2010.”\n<\/p>\n
\tMeaning
\n\tthereby, the Court did not conclude the question of confirmation or
\n\tnon-confirmation of the offer for lot No.III, but kept
\n\tthe matter pending to be considered after the advertisement as
\n\tordered was issued and the response thereof was placed before the
\n\tCourt.  Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel cannot be
\n\taccepted and is on factually incorrect premise.  Hence, deserves to
\n\tbe rejected.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tlearned Counsel next contended that since in the very order at
\n\tparagraph 9 the learned Company Judge had directed for return of the
\n\tEMD to the unsuccessful bidders, the intention of not to confirm the
\n\toffer of the appellant was apparent.  In our view, such contention
\n\tis also not only misconceived, but can
\n\talso be said as misdirected.  The direction issued at paragraph 9 in
\n\tthe said order is because of the fact that qua Lot No.V, offer of
\n\tone party was accepted and the offers of the other parties were not
\n\taccepted and, therefore, the Court had to direct for return of EMD.
\n\tHad the Court intended for return of EMDs of all the bidders of all
\n\tlots, the direction at para 11 would not have been there that for
\n\tLot No.III, the matter was
\n\tadjourned to 3.9.2010.  Under these circumstances, the contention
\n\tcannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\n\tlearned Counsel next contended that the Condition No.27 would
\n\tnot invest the power for forfeiture of the deposit under the present
\n\tcircumstances and, therefore, the learned Company Judge could not
\n\thave directed for forfeiture of the
\n\tdeposit.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn order to consider
\n\tthe submission, Condition No.27 would be relevant and the same reads
\n\tas under:-\n<\/p>\n
“27.\tThe
\n\toffer shall not be entitled to withdraw or cancel his offer once
\n\tsubmitted. If the offerer withdraw or cancel his offer the Earnest
\n\tMoney Deposit shall be liable to be forfeited and he will also be
\n\tliable to pay to the Official Liquidator the loss, damage suffered
\n\tconsequent upon his backing out of their offer.  The property\/assets
\n\tin question will then be re-sold at the risk and consequences
\n\tof the offerer.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\n\taforesaid condition makes it abundantly clear that if the offerer
\n\twithdraws his offer, the earnest money deposit will be liable to be
\n\tforfeited and he will also be liable to pay OL, the loss or
\n\tdamages suffered consequent upon his backing out from his offer.  It
\n\tappears that so far as backing out from the offer is concerned, the
\n\tlearned Company Judge has observed at paragraph 4 as under:-\n<\/p>\n
“4.\tSince
\n\tthere are only two bidders namely; M\/s.Crystal Equities Limited and
\n\tShri M.S. Lohar, the Court has asked the parties to make their
\n\toffer, Mr.Shalil Thakore, learned Advocate appearing for Ms.Megha
\n\tJani for M\/s.Crystal Equities Limited has submitted that his client
\n\tis not interested in purchasing the property in question as the
\n\tresponsible person of the said party is suffering from paralysis.
\n\tHence, he submitted
\n\tthat his client is not interested in purchasing the property in
\n\tquestion of the Company in liquidation.  He has, therefore,
\n\trequested that the EMD amount paid by the said party may kindly be
\n\tgiven back.”\n<\/p>\n
\tOn the aforesaid
\n\taspect, there is no dispute by the appellant that he did withdraw
\n\tthe offer.\n<\/p>\n
If
\n\tthe circumstances as stated in aforesaid paragraph 4 of the order of
\n\tthe learned Company Judge is concerned with Condition No.27,
\n\tit cannot be said that it would not attract the forfeiture of the
\n\tdeposit as sought to be canvassed and contended.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\n\tview of the above, we find that the appeal is meritless and hence,
\n\tdeserves to be dismissed.  Therefore, dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
 (Jayant Patel, J.)<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t(J.\n<\/p>\n
C. Upadhyaya, J.)<\/p>\n
 vinod<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court M\/S vs Unknown on 3 February, 2011 Author: Jayant Patel,&Nbsp;Honourable J.C.Upadhyaya,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print OJA\/75\/2010 11\/ 11 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD O.J.APPEAL No. 75 of 2010 In OFFICIAL LIQUDATOR REPORT No. 66 of 2010 In OFFICIAL LIQUDATOR REPORT No. 227 of 2008 For […]<\/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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-173734","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S vs Unknown on 3 February, 2011 - 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-vs-unknown-on-3-february-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S vs Unknown on 3 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vs-unknown-on-3-february-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-02-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-01T10:42:44+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-vs-unknown-on-3-february-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-vs-unknown-on-3-february-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S vs Unknown on 3 February, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-02-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-01T10:42:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-vs-unknown-on-3-february-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1616,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-vs-unknown-on-3-february-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-vs-unknown-on-3-february-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-vs-unknown-on-3-february-2011\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S vs Unknown on 3 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-02-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-01T10:42:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-vs-unknown-on-3-february-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-vs-unknown-on-3-february-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-vs-unknown-on-3-february-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S vs Unknown on 3 February, 2011\"}]},{\"@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 vs Unknown on 3 February, 2011 - 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-vs-unknown-on-3-february-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S vs Unknown on 3 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vs-unknown-on-3-february-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-02-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-01T10:42:44+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vs-unknown-on-3-february-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vs-unknown-on-3-february-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S vs Unknown on 3 February, 2011","datePublished":"2011-02-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-01T10:42:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vs-unknown-on-3-february-2011"},"wordCount":1616,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vs-unknown-on-3-february-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vs-unknown-on-3-february-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vs-unknown-on-3-february-2011","name":"M\/S vs Unknown on 3 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-02-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-01T10:42:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vs-unknown-on-3-february-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vs-unknown-on-3-february-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vs-unknown-on-3-february-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S vs Unknown on 3 February, 2011"}]},{"@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\/173734","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=173734"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/173734\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=173734"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=173734"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=173734"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}