{"id":178245,"date":"2001-07-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-07-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankar-sundaram-vs-amalgamations-private-limited-on-16-july-2001"},"modified":"2016-07-02T14:21:46","modified_gmt":"2016-07-02T08:51:46","slug":"shankar-sundaram-vs-amalgamations-private-limited-on-16-july-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankar-sundaram-vs-amalgamations-private-limited-on-16-july-2001","title":{"rendered":"Shankar Sundaram vs Amalgamations Private Limited on 16 July, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Company Law Board<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Shankar Sundaram vs Amalgamations Private Limited on 16 July, 2001<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 2002 108 CompCas 885 CLB<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>ORDER<\/p>\n<p>  K.K. Ballu, Member   <\/p>\n<p> 1. This is an application filed under section 167 of the Companies<br \/>\nAct, 1956 (&#8216;the Act&#8217;) by the applicant seeking directions of this Bench against<br \/>\nAmalgamation Private Limited (&#8216;the company&#8217;) for the following reliefs:\n<\/p>\n<p> (a) to convene and hod the adjourned annual general meeting of the company<br \/>\noriginally held on 29.9.2000;\n<\/p>\n<p> (b) to appoint Chairman of the meeting of the adjourned annual general meeting;\n<\/p>\n<p> (c) to pass necessary order with regard to quorum for the meeting; and  <\/p>\n<p> (d) to rectify the record of the minutes of the meeting of shareholders held on<br \/>\n29.9.2000 and 30.9.1999.\n<\/p>\n<p> 2. According to the applicant, he is holding 10 per cent of the issued share capital<br \/>\nof the company. the company had convened its 61st annual general meeting for the<br \/>\nyear ended 31.3.2000 on 29.9.2000, wherein certain items of business were not resolved<br \/>\n by the shareholders. Consequently, the annual general meeting was adjourned<br \/>\nto a future date for consideration of the unresolved items. The adjourned<br \/>\nannual general meeting was assured to be held on or before 30.11.2000. However,<br \/>\nthis meeting was not convened by the company. Moreover, many of the vital discussions<br \/>\nwhich took place at the time of annual general meeting were not properly incorporated,<br \/>\nbut they were deliberately omitted in the minutes of the meeting. The<br \/>\nminutes of the earlier meeting held on 30.9.1999 do not also reflect the proceedings of<br \/>\nthe meeting; and the minutes of both the meetings are required to be rectified, reflecting<br \/>\n a true and fair view of the proceedings. Hence, this application.\n<\/p>\n<p> 3. According to the company, the application lacks merits and is untenable in<br \/>\nview of the fact that the adjourned annual general meeting of the company was convened<br \/>\nand concluded on 23.3.2001. While the application has become infructuous,<br \/>\nthe company has denied the allegation in regard to the deliberate omissions in the<br \/>\nminutes of the annual general meeting. The company, has, therefore, sought for<br \/>\ndismissal of the application.\n<\/p>\n<p> 4. During the hearing, Shri Arvind P.Datar, senior counsel appearing for the applicant,<br \/>\nwhile reiterating the averments made in the application, has submitted that<br \/>\nthe minutes of the 61st annual general meeting do not reflect a true and fair view of<br \/>\nthe proceedings of the annual general meeting. The minutes deliberately do not contain<br \/>\nseveral of the essential discussions which took place in the course of the meeting,<br \/>\nwhich are required to be rectified. The application seeking intervention of this Bench<br \/>\nwas filed on 19.2.2001, whereas the adjourned annual general meeting was convened<br \/>\nand held by the company on 23.3.2001. Though the company has subsequently convened<br \/>\nthe adjourned general meeting, the minutes of the annual general meeting<br \/>\noriginally held on 29.9.2000 should be rectified reflecting a true picture of the proceedings.<br \/>\nShri Datar urged that the Company Law Board, in exercise of its powers<br \/>\nunder Section 167, has the authority not only to direct the company to call a general<br \/>\nmeeting of the company, but also [to] give such ancillary or consequential directions<br \/>\nas the CLB think expedient in relation to the calling, holding and conducting of the<br \/>\nmeeting. He further pointed out that the company has failed to deny specifically the<br \/>\naverments made in the application in regard to the deliberate omissions in the minutes<br \/>\nof the meeting on several of the issues. The denial of the company is vague and<br \/>\nnot specific, in which case, it does not amount to denial by the company. In this connection,<br \/>\nhe has placed reliance on <a href=\"\/doc\/1002368\/\">Kewal Krishan v. Dina Nath AIR<\/a> 1993 SC 881, to<br \/>\nshow that denial of allegation should be specific. He further relied on Lohia Properties<br \/>\n(P) Ltd. v.Atmaram Kumar (1993) 4 SCC 6 for the proposition that allegation of fact<br \/>\nmust either be denied specifically, or by a necessary implication or there should be<br \/>\natleast a statement that the fact is not admitted, failing which the allegation shall be<br \/>\ntaken to be admitted. He further emphasised that though the provision of Civil Procedure<br \/>\nCode are not applicable in the proceedings before the Company Law Board,<br \/>\nthe underlying principles enunciated in Civil Procedure Code are applicable. In the<br \/>\npresent case, the denial of facts is not specific, and hence, the averments that the<br \/>\nminutes of the meeting do not reflect a true and fair view of the proceedings should<br \/>\nbe deemed to have been admitted by the company. In the circumstances, though the<br \/>\nmeeting has been held, the Company Law Board exercising its powers under section<br \/>\n167, has discretion to give consequential direction for rectifying the minutes of the<br \/>\nmeeting held on 29.9.2000. He further referred to the various correspondences between<br \/>\nthe applicant and the company and, particularly, the letter dated 8.1.2001 of<br \/>\nthe applicant addressed to the company listing out the discrepancies in the minutes<br \/>\nof the annual general meeting. In the circumstances, Shri Datar urged that the minutes<br \/>\nof the annual general meeting will have to be properly rectified.\n<\/p>\n<p> 5. Shri Krishna Srinivasan, counsel appearing for the company, has submitted that<br \/>\nthe Company Law Board has authority to direct the company to call or direct the<br \/>\ncalling of a general meeting of the company, and give directions as may be deemed<br \/>\nfit in relation to the calling, holding and conducting of the meeting. He pointed out<br \/>\nthat the application was filed on 19.2.2001. The company had issued notice dated<br \/>\n28.2.2001 calling the adjourned annual general meeting, and the meeting was held on<br \/>\n23.3.2001. In these circumstances, the application has become infructuous and the<br \/>\nCompany Law Board cannot direct the calling of the adjourned annual general<br \/>\nmeeting. Consequently, no consequential directions can be given against the company<br \/>\nfor rectification of the minutes of the meeting. The Company Law Board can<br \/>\ngive consequential directions only when the company is directed to convene a general<br \/>\nmeeting. In this connection, he relied on <a href=\"\/doc\/1469388\/\">R. Rangachari v. S. Suppiah and others<\/a><br \/>\n(1975) 45 Comp Cas 641 (SC) to state that the court under Section 186 has no jurisdiction<br \/>\nmerely to appoint a Chairman of the meeting without an order calling of the<br \/>\nmeeting. He further emphasised that the Company Law Board has no jurisdiction to<br \/>\nrectify the minutes of the annual general meeting. Moreover, he pointed out that the<br \/>\ncontents of minutes of proceedings of general meetings are presumed to be true by<br \/>\nvirtue of Sections 193, 194 and 195 of the Act. Shri Krishna Srinivasan reiterated that<br \/>\nthe allegations made in the application are singularly dined as baseless and self-serving.<br \/>\nThe applicant cannot seek to rectify the defects, even if any, by resorting to<br \/>\ndirections under Section 167; and the applicant has to approach a competent court of<br \/>\nlaw for appropriate remedy. The order, if any, is passed by the Company Law Board<br \/>\nin this regard will have no jurisdiction, and will not bind the parties and that any<br \/>\norder without jurisdiction is a nullity, in support of which he relied on <a href=\"\/doc\/1625415\/\">Kiran Singh v.<br \/>\nChaman Paswan AIR<\/a> 1954 SC 340.\n<\/p>\n<p> 6. Shri Datat, in his reply submitted that the decision in <a href=\"\/doc\/1469388\/\">R. Rangachari v. S. Suppiah<br \/>\nand others<\/a> (1975) 45 Comp Cas 641(SC) is inapplicable in the facts and circumstances<br \/>\nof the present case, especially, when it is dealing with Section 186. He further pointed<br \/>\nout that even if ti is found that Company Law Board has no jurisdiction, the decision<br \/>\nof the Company Law Board will be binding between the parties till the order of the<br \/>\nCompany Law Board is set aside. Shri Dater has, therefore, submitted that the company<br \/>\nshould be directed to rectify the minutes of the 61st annual general meeting<br \/>\nheld on 29.9.2000.\n<\/p>\n<p> 7. I have considered the pleadings and arguments of senior counsel for the applicant<br \/>\nas well as counsel for the company. The issued that arises for my consideration is<br \/>\nwhether the minutes of the adjourned annual general meeting held on 29.9.2000<br \/>\nshould be ordered to be rectified in the facts and circumstances of the case?\n<\/p>\n<p> 8. The facts not in dispute are that the application seeking directions against the<br \/>\ncompany for convening and holding of the adjourned annual general meeting was<br \/>\nfiled on 19.2.2001. The company had issued a notice dated 28.2.2001, convening the<br \/>\nadjourned annual general meeting and the meeting was held on 23.3.2001. In the circumstances,<br \/>\nthe application seeking direction to the company to convene and hold<br \/>\nthe adjourned annual general meeting has become infructious. In the application,<br \/>\nthe applicant has sought for direction to rectify the minutes of the annual general<br \/>\nmeeting held on 29.9.2000. The said meeting was not held as per the directions of<br \/>\nthe Bench. As per Section 167 of the Act, the Company Law Board has the powers to<br \/>\nissue appropriate consequential directions only in respect of a meeting convened at<br \/>\nits direction in terms of that section. Since in the present case, the meeting was held<br \/>\nwithout any directions from this Bench in terms of Section 167, the question of rectification<br \/>\n of the minutes of that meeting does not arise. Accordingly, the application is<br \/>\ndismissed having become infructuous in view of the company on its own convening<br \/>\nand holding the adjourned general body meeting. In view of this, I do not consider it<br \/>\nnecessary to go into other contentions of the parties and case laws cited in this behalf.<br \/>\nNo order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Company Law Board Shankar Sundaram vs Amalgamations Private Limited on 16 July, 2001 Equivalent citations: 2002 108 CompCas 885 CLB ORDER K.K. Ballu, Member 1. This is an application filed under section 167 of the Companies Act, 1956 (&#8216;the Act&#8217;) by the applicant seeking directions of this Bench against Amalgamation Private Limited (&#8216;the company&#8217;) for [&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":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-178245","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Shankar Sundaram vs Amalgamations Private Limited on 16 July, 2001 - 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\/shankar-sundaram-vs-amalgamations-private-limited-on-16-july-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shankar Sundaram vs Amalgamations Private Limited on 16 July, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankar-sundaram-vs-amalgamations-private-limited-on-16-july-2001\" \/>\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=\"2001-07-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-02T08:51:46+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\\\/shankar-sundaram-vs-amalgamations-private-limited-on-16-july-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shankar-sundaram-vs-amalgamations-private-limited-on-16-july-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shankar Sundaram vs Amalgamations Private Limited on 16 July, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-07-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-02T08:51:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shankar-sundaram-vs-amalgamations-private-limited-on-16-july-2001\"},\"wordCount\":1517,\"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\\\/shankar-sundaram-vs-amalgamations-private-limited-on-16-july-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shankar-sundaram-vs-amalgamations-private-limited-on-16-july-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shankar-sundaram-vs-amalgamations-private-limited-on-16-july-2001\",\"name\":\"Shankar Sundaram vs Amalgamations Private Limited on 16 July, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-07-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-02T08:51:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shankar-sundaram-vs-amalgamations-private-limited-on-16-july-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shankar-sundaram-vs-amalgamations-private-limited-on-16-july-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shankar-sundaram-vs-amalgamations-private-limited-on-16-july-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shankar Sundaram vs Amalgamations Private Limited on 16 July, 2001\"}]},{\"@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":"Shankar Sundaram vs Amalgamations Private Limited on 16 July, 2001 - 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\/shankar-sundaram-vs-amalgamations-private-limited-on-16-july-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shankar Sundaram vs Amalgamations Private Limited on 16 July, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankar-sundaram-vs-amalgamations-private-limited-on-16-july-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-07-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-02T08:51:46+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\/shankar-sundaram-vs-amalgamations-private-limited-on-16-july-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankar-sundaram-vs-amalgamations-private-limited-on-16-july-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shankar Sundaram vs Amalgamations Private Limited on 16 July, 2001","datePublished":"2001-07-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-02T08:51:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankar-sundaram-vs-amalgamations-private-limited-on-16-july-2001"},"wordCount":1517,"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\/shankar-sundaram-vs-amalgamations-private-limited-on-16-july-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankar-sundaram-vs-amalgamations-private-limited-on-16-july-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankar-sundaram-vs-amalgamations-private-limited-on-16-july-2001","name":"Shankar Sundaram vs Amalgamations Private Limited on 16 July, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-07-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-02T08:51:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankar-sundaram-vs-amalgamations-private-limited-on-16-july-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankar-sundaram-vs-amalgamations-private-limited-on-16-july-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankar-sundaram-vs-amalgamations-private-limited-on-16-july-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shankar Sundaram vs Amalgamations Private Limited on 16 July, 2001"}]},{"@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\/178245","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=178245"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/178245\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=178245"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=178245"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=178245"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}