{"id":182293,"date":"2009-10-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-10-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/registered-office-at-vs-7-conrad-anthony-rebello-on-6-october-2009"},"modified":"2016-12-16T12:40:21","modified_gmt":"2016-12-16T07:10:21","slug":"registered-office-at-vs-7-conrad-anthony-rebello-on-6-october-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/registered-office-at-vs-7-conrad-anthony-rebello-on-6-october-2009","title":{"rendered":"Registered Office At … vs 7 Conrad Anthony Rebello on 6 October, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Registered Office At … vs 7 Conrad Anthony Rebello on 6 October, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: Anoop V.Mohta<\/div>\n
                                            1\n\n\n\n\n               IN THE  HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                          \n                                      O.O.C.J.\n\n\n\n\n                                                 \n                    ARBITRATION PETITION NO.346  OF 2009\n\n\n\n\n                                                \n    Godrej Industries Ltd.\n    A public limited company incorporated\n    and registered under the provisions of\n    The Companies Act, 1957, having its\n\n\n\n\n                                           \n    Registered office at Phirojshahnagar,\n    Vikhroli, Mumbai 400 079ig                                     .... \n    Petitioner\n                  vs\n    1      Jer Rutton Kavasmaneck\n                          \n           (Alias Jer Jaswahar Thadani)\n           residing at 193, Jupiter Apartment,\n           Cuffe Parade,\n           Mumbai 400 005.\n          \n\n\n    2     Darius Rutton Kavasmaneck\n       \n\n\n\n          residing at 626, Parsi Colony,\n          Dadar,\n          Mumbai 400 014.\n\n\n\n\n\n    3     Maharukh Murad Oomrigar\n          Residing at 701-A, Foreshore,\n          Juhu Tara Road,\n          Santacruz (W), Mumbai 400049,\n\n    4     Percy Rutton Kavasmaneck\n\n\n\n\n\n          134, Olivera Way,\n          Palm Beach Garden\n          33418, Florida, USA\n          also through their\n          constituted Attorney\n          Ms.Houfarish Hirji, residing at\n          628, Dadar Parsi Colony,\n          Dadar, Mumbai 400014.\n\n    5     Aban Percy Kavasmaneck\n\n\n\n                                                 ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:09:36 :::\n                                                2\n\n           134, Olivera Way,\n           Palm Beach Garden\n           33418, Florida, USA\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                     \n           also through their\n           constituted Attorney\n           Ms.Houfarish Hirji, residing at\n\n\n\n\n                                                            \n           628, Dadar Parsi Colony,\n           Dadar, Mumbai 400014.\n\n    6      Colin Mario Rebello\n\n\n\n\n                                                           \n           1, Kostka House,\n           St Peter's Co-op Hsg. Society,\n           31, Manual Gonsalves Road,\n           Bandra, Mumbai 400 050.\n\n\n\n\n                                               \n    7    Conrad Anthony Rebello,\n                              \n         1, Kostka House,\n         St Peter's Co-op Hsg. Society,\n         31, Manual Gonsalves Road,\n                             \n         Bandra, Mumbai 400 050.                                              .... \n    Respondents\n\n\n    Dr.   Virendra   Tulzapurkar,   Sr.   Counsel,   Mr.Virag   Tulzqapurkar,   Sr.Counsel, \n          \n\n\n    with Mr.Venkatesh Dhond, Mr.Amit Jamsandekar, Mr.Dara Mehta, Ms.Rajas \n       \n\n\n\n    Kasbekar, Ms.Pratibha Mehta and Ms.Ranya Mahesh i\/b. M\/s.Little & co. \n    for the petitioner.\n\n    Mr .C. U. Singh, Sr. Counsel with Mr.Sidharth Shrivastav and Mr.Sharon \n\n\n\n\n\n    Jagtiani i\/b. M\/s.D.H.Law Associates for the respondents. \n\n\n                                              CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.\n\n                                                DATE  :  6th   October,   2009\n\n\n\n\n\n    JUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    1      By consent of the parties, heard finally.\n\n    2      The   petitioner   has   invoked   Section   9   of   the   Arbitration   and \n\n<\/pre>\n
    Conciliation  Act,  1996 (for  short, the  Act)  as dispute  arose  between  the <\/p>\n
    parties arising out of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) having <\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:09:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 3<\/span><\/p>\n
    arbitration clause No.28 which reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
                  “28 Any   dispute   or   difference   between   the   parties <\/p>\n
           hereto   including  in   respect  of  any   breach   or   alleged   breach
\n           hereof, shall be referred to the sole arbitration of a person to
\n           be   mutually   agreed   upon   by   the   parties   hereto.     The   sole <\/p>\n
           arbitrator shall have summary powers and the Arbitrator shall
\n           not be required to give reasons for his award.   The place for
\n           arbitration shall be at Bombay.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    3      The basic facts\/events, as per the petitioner, are:\n<\/p>\n
           The   petitioner   is   a   public   limited   company   incorporated   and <\/p>\n
    registered under the Companies Act, 1956 inter alia carries on the business <\/p>\n
    of     manufacturing,   marketing   and   distribution   of   various   industrial <\/p>\n
    chemicals,   chemicals, etc.  <\/p>\n
    4      The   respondents   are   shareholders   of   Gharda   Chemicals   Limited <\/p>\n
    (hereinafter referred to as “GCL”), a public limited company incorporated <\/p>\n
    and registered under the Companies Act, 1956.  The majority shares of GCL <\/p>\n
    are   owned   by     Dr.Keki   Gharda   and   the   respondents   are   minority <\/p>\n
    shareholders of GCL.\n<\/p>\n
    5      In 1992, the respondents offered for sale 461 shares of GCL owned by <\/p>\n
    them as the respondents were unable to repay the loan amount given   to <\/p>\n
    the respondents  by the petitioner.       The petitioner is the owner of 461 <\/p>\n
    shares  of  GCL  which  are  sold  by the  respondents  to  the  petitioner  after <\/p>\n
    following the detail provisions of the Articles of Association of GCL.\n<\/p>\n
    6      The petitioner agreed to make available to the respondents loan to <\/p>\n
    purchase   the   shares   of   GCL   as   and   when   offer   for   sale   is   made   in <\/p>\n
    accordance with the Articles of Association of GCL.     On 03.06.1992, the <\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:09:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  4<\/span><\/p>\n
    terms and conditions of loan agreed to make available by the petitioner to <\/p>\n
    the   respondents   are   contained   in   the   Memorandum   of   Understanding <\/p>\n
    (“MOU”).\n<\/p>\n
    7      Between   1992   to   2000,   as   agreed   and   in   terms   of   MOU,   the <\/p>\n
    petitioner   made available to the respondents a sum of Rs.10.34 crores to <\/p>\n
    purchase the shares of GCL offered for sale in accordance with the Articles <\/p>\n
    of Association of GCL.     The respondents have accepted the loan amount <\/p>\n
    and have pledged the shares which are owned by them with the petitioner <\/p>\n
    towards the security of the loan.  The respondents have accepted the loan <\/p>\n
    amount and have pledged the  shares owned by them.   The  respondents <\/p>\n
    have  executed the irrevocable Power of Attorney and Loan cum Pledged <\/p>\n
    Agreements in favour of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
    8      The petitioner has performed the terms and conditions of the MOU <\/p>\n
    and has not acted contrary to the terms and conditions of the same.     In <\/p>\n
    terms of the MOU, the respondents also agreed that they shall not enter <\/p>\n
    into a compromise or agreement or arrangement directly or indirectly or <\/p>\n
    otherwise howsoever with any other shareholder of GCL or with GCL itself <\/p>\n
    in   respect   of   the   shares   of   GCL   or   with   regard   to   any   other   matter <\/p>\n
    pertaining to the participation of the parties to the MOU in the business <\/p>\n
    affairs,   management,   properties,   technical   know   how   arrangement, <\/p>\n
    engineering or process development or engineering etc. of GCL.\n<\/p>\n
    9      Except as permitted, in terms of MOU, the respondents shall not be <\/p>\n
    entitled to pledge, charge or offer as security in any manner or form the <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:09:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 5<\/span><\/p>\n
    shares held by them in GCL for securing any of their borrowings.\n<\/p>\n
    10     The   respondents   had   filed   a   Company   Petition   being   Company <\/p>\n
    Petition No.77 of 1990 before the Bombay High Court alleging oppression <\/p>\n
    and mismanagement by the majority shareholders of GCL.   The petitioner <\/p>\n
    was subsequently made party to the said company Petition but no relief was <\/p>\n
    sought against the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
    11     In 2005, the petitioner lodged the shares which are pledged by the <\/p>\n
    respondents with the petitioner for transferring the same in the name of the <\/p>\n
    petitioner with GCL.    The shares were lodged for transfer in the name of <\/p>\n
    the   petitioner   and\/or   its   nominees   with   GCL   but   the   said   GCL   alleged <\/p>\n
    refused to transfer the shares in the name of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
    12     GCL filed a Suit against the petitioner and the  respondents  herein <\/p>\n
    before this Court being Suit No.1170 of 2005.              The   petitioner   had   filed <\/p>\n
    Company Petitions before the Company Law Board challenging the refusal <\/p>\n
    of GCL to transfer the shares in the name of the petitioner.  On 27.09.2008 <\/p>\n
    the Company Law Board dismissed the Company Petitions.  The petitioner <\/p>\n
    preferred   an     Appeal   under   Section   10(F)   of   the   Companies   Act,   1956 <\/p>\n
    before this Court.   This Court was pleased to allow the respondents 1, 2, 3, <\/p>\n
    6 and 7 to withdraw the said Company Petition.   On   14.11.2008,   the   said <\/p>\n
    Company Petition No.77 of 1990 was dismissed by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
    13     The petitioner apprehends that the respondents are trying to sell their <\/p>\n
    shares of GCL in collusion with Dr.Keki Gharda so as to cause loss, damage <\/p>\n
    and injury to the petitioner and in breach of the terms and conditions of <\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:09:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                               6<\/span><\/p>\n
    MOU.  Hence the petition.\n<\/p>\n
    14    The basic prayer of the petitioner is as under:\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                    \n                 (a)    that the pending the hearing and final disposal of \n\n\n\n\n                                                            \n<\/pre>\n
          the   proposed   arbitration   proceedings   and   the   making   and <\/p>\n
          implementation   of   the   Award   herein,   the   Respondents,   their <\/p>\n
          agents, servants or any other person claiming through or under <\/p>\n
          them be restrained by a temporary order and injunction of this <\/p>\n
          Hon’ble   Court   from,   in   any   manner,   directly   or   indirectly, <\/p>\n
          dealing, selling, offering for sale, causing it to be offered for <\/p>\n
          sale,   transferring,   causing   to   be   transferred,   parting   with <\/p>\n
          possession of, delivering, creating or causing to be created any <\/p>\n
          third party rights of whatsoever nature, or any right, title and <\/p>\n
          interest in  the shares owned by the  Respondents  of   Gharda <\/p>\n
          Chemicals Limited, other than to the petitioner AND be further <\/p>\n
          restrained from committing any breach of the Memorandum of <\/p>\n
          Understanding dated 3rd  June 1992 or acting contrary   to the <\/p>\n
          terms and conditions of the same.\n<\/p>\n
    15    The whole submissions of the parties  revolve around the MOU duly <\/p>\n
    signed and executed by the parties and same is intact till this date.     The <\/p>\n
    parties in fact acted upon the same without any objection.  The petitioner <\/p>\n
    has made available to the respondents   a sum of Rs.10,34,00,000\/- since <\/p>\n
    1992 to 2000 to purchase the shares of the company.  The loan amount was <\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:09:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    7<\/span><\/p>\n
    admittedly disbursed to the Advocates of the respondents M\/s. Federal & <\/p>\n
    Rashmikant   as   agreed.     The   parties   have   acted   accordingly   without   any <\/p>\n
    objection.\n<\/p>\n
    16     The important clauses of the negative covenants are 15 to 18 of the <\/p>\n
    MOU  are :\n<\/p>\n
                   “15 The parties hereto covenant and agree that either
\n           of the parties shall not enter into a compromise or agreement
\n           or arrangement directly or indirectly or otherwise howsoever,
\n           with any other shareholders of the Company or the Company <\/p>\n
           itself in respect of the shares of the Company or with regard to
\n           any other matter pertaining to the Participation of the parties <\/p>\n
           hereto   in   the   business   affairs,   management,   properties,
\n           technical   knowhow   arrangement,   engineering   or   process
\n           development or engineering etc. of the Company.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 16     The parties hereto agree and undertake that till the
\n           Company   goes   public   and   or   its   shares   are   listed   in   any
\n           recognized stock exchange, the parties  shall not sell, alienate,
\n           dispose of or transfer or create any interest or right  in the third <\/p>\n
           party rights in any shares registered in their respective names <\/p>\n
           or in which they have a beneficial interest.  It is clarified that
\n           nothing herein will restrict the transfer among the designated
\n           nominees\/limited nominees defined hereinabove”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   17       The party of the   First Part shall be bound to sell
\n           and\/or   transfer   or   dispose   of   any   rights   in   respect   of   any
\n           shares,  whether purchased with the finance made available by
\n           the party of the Other Part or not, only to the party of the Other
\n           Part.     In   respect   of   shares   that   are   not   purchased   with   the
\n           finance made available by the party of the Other Part, the sale <\/p>\n
           and\/or   transfer   etc.   shall   be   made   at   the   fair   value   as
\n           determined in   accordance  with  the  Articles  of  Association  of
\n           the Company.  In respect of shares purchased with the finance
\n           made available by the party of the other part, the value shall be
\n           determined in accordance  with Clause 10 hereof.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  18       Except as permitted herein the parties hereto shall
\n           not   be   entitled   to   pledge   charge   or   offer   as   security   in   any
\n           manner or form the shares held by them in the Company for
\n           securing any of their borrowings.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:09:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 8<\/span><\/p>\n
    17     The   petitioner   moved   the   present   petition   after   receiving   the <\/p>\n
    information\/news   that   Dr.   Keki   Gharda,   who   is   a   60%   shareholder   was <\/p>\n
    proposing   to   sell   75%   shares   of   the   Company   to   private   parties   like <\/p>\n
    Blackstone and Morgan Stanley.  The respondents are not entitled to sell the <\/p>\n
    shares as they are bound by the negative covenants as referred above,  this <\/p>\n
    Court, therefore,  after considering the averments so raised granted interim <\/p>\n
    reliefs on 12th May, 2009 in the following terms:\n<\/p>\n
                 “3<\/p>\n
                        Admittedly,   there   is   a   Memorandum   of
\n          Understanding   (MOU)   dated   03.06.1992   which   provides   an
\n          arbitration clause.   Pursuance to this MOU, as the petitioners <\/p>\n
          have paid about Rs.10 crores and approximately 3000 shares
\n          have   been   pledged.     Therefore,   considering   the   averments
\n          made in paragraph 28 and as case is made out and further to
\n          secure the amount\/claim as contemplated under Section 9 of
\n          the Act, I am inclined to grant ad-interim relief   to the extent <\/p>\n
          that   the   respondents   shall   not   sell,   transfer,   part   with <\/p>\n
          possession   or   create   any   third   party   right   or   interest   of
\n          whatsoever nature in the shares owned by the respondents of
\n          GHARDA CHEMICALS LIMITED, if not already transferred or
\n          created any right party right or interest thereon.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    18     Respondent no.2, in response to their letter dated 25.05.2009 stated <\/p>\n
    that they were not selling and\/or intend to sell the shares of the company.\n<\/p>\n
    However,   there   is   no   appearance   on   behalf   of   respondent   no.2   though <\/p>\n
    served.   Respondents 4 and 5 appeared and resisted the petition by reply <\/p>\n
    dated 20.07.2009.\n<\/p>\n
    19     It is clear that there exists a valid MOU between the parties with the <\/p>\n
    arbitration clause.   The said MOU is, therefore, binding to all the parties, <\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:09:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                                   9<\/span><\/p>\n
    unless it is set aside.     There is no denial by respondents 4 and 5 to the <\/p>\n
    apprehension   raised   by   the   petitioner   that     they   are   likely   to   sell   and <\/p>\n
    dispose of or create third party rights in the shares.   On the contrary, the <\/p>\n
    submission   is   that   they   are   free   and   entitled   to   sell   their   shares.\n<\/p>\n
    Respondent   no.2   though   not   appeared,   expressed   otherwise   by   letter.\n<\/p>\n
    Therefore, there is clear a conflict and dispute between the petitioner and <\/p>\n
    respondents 4 and 5 and also between respondent no.2 and respondents 4 <\/p>\n
    and 5.\n<\/p>\n
    20<\/span><\/p>\n
           Admittedly, Company Petition No.77\/1990 has not been dealt with <\/p>\n
    and\/or decided the validity and\/or legality of the  MOU as sought to be <\/p>\n
    contended by respondents 4 and 5, including of the Power of Attorney-cum-\n<\/p>\n
    Pledge Agreement executed by the respective respondents.   The judgment <\/p>\n
    and   the   relevant   paragraphs   so  referred   from   the   Company   Petition   No.<\/p>\n
    7\/1990   is   of   no   assistance   and\/or   sufficient   to   overlook   the   averments <\/p>\n
    made   by   the   petitioner   and   now   substantiated   by   the   Affidavit   filed   by <\/p>\n
    respondents 4 and 5 itself.\n<\/p>\n
    21     The respective interpretation of the clauses as sought to be contended <\/p>\n
    by the parties is again, in my view,  in the present facts and circumstances, <\/p>\n
    is a matter of detail trial and inquiry.  The MOU is a composite contract and <\/p>\n
    the clauses thereof cannot be read in isolation.  The subsequent documents <\/p>\n
    executed, based upon the same and as the parties have already acted since <\/p>\n
    long and never challenged the same at the earliest point of time and now <\/p>\n
    when   the   petitioner     has   invoked   present   proceeding   in   view   of   the <\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:09:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                                   10<\/span><\/p>\n
    apprehension   so   raised     denying   and\/or   challenging     the   clauses   of   the <\/p>\n
    MOU   with   regard   to   their   obligations   and   liabilities,   in   my   view,   is <\/p>\n
    unsustainable.\n<\/p>\n
    22     The allegations of collusion by the petitioner with respondents 1, 2, <\/p>\n
    3,   6   and   7;   and\/or   misrepresentation   and\/or   that   respondents   4   and   5 <\/p>\n
    never   used   and   utilised;   and\/or     received   any   such   amount   or <\/p>\n
    consideration;   and\/or   it   was   never   intended   for   their   respective   shares;\n<\/p>\n
    and\/or   got benefited out of this MOU   at any point of time, need detail <\/p>\n
    inquiry, based upon substantive material and pleadings and above all, detail <\/p>\n
    inquiry   and   trial.     These   challenges   itself   unless   it   is   accepted     and\/or <\/p>\n
    granted in favour of respondents 4 and 5, shows that there is a prima facie, <\/p>\n
    material substantiated by the above facts.\n<\/p>\n
    23     The plain reading of the MOU itself provides that all respondents are <\/p>\n
    collectively   bound   by   the   terms.         The   interse   dispute   between   the <\/p>\n
    respondents in no way sufficient to overlook the express and clear terms of <\/p>\n
    the   MOU   specially   at   this   stage   of   the   arbitration   proceedings.       The <\/p>\n
    submissions with regard to the benami transaction and\/or suppression and <\/p>\n
    and\/or of Section 9 of the Companies Act, even if any, at this stage, unless <\/p>\n
    decided finally in favour of respondents 4 and 5 and as the respondents <\/p>\n
    being “Party of the First Part” in the MOU they are bound by the same, <\/p>\n
    specially   in   view   of   the   negative   covenants   as   referred   above.     The <\/p>\n
    commercial   minded   parties   having   full   knowledge   of   trade,   practice   of <\/p>\n
    business,   signed   the   MOU   and,   accordingly,   acted   also   now   cannot   be <\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:09:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  11<\/span><\/p>\n
    permitted to agitate the issue at this prima facie stage revolving around the <\/p>\n
    Doctrine of Restraint of Trade.\n<\/p>\n
    24     The submission with regard to the status of the company   that the <\/p>\n
    company is a Public Limited Company referring to clause 16 of the MOU <\/p>\n
    which provides that “The company goes public and\/or its shares are listed <\/p>\n
    in any recognised Stock Exchange”, in my view, also interpreted to mean till <\/p>\n
    the Company goes public and its shares are listed on the Stock Exchange.\n<\/p>\n
    Clause 17 of the MOU also binds the respondents 4 and 5 to sell the shares <\/p>\n
    held by them  only to the petitioner.  This itself means that clause 16 shall <\/p>\n
    operate as long as company does not go “public” and the shares are not <\/p>\n
    listed on the recognised Stock Exchange.   The words “goes public”, in my <\/p>\n
    view, also cannot be construed to mean become public by operation of law.\n<\/p>\n
    The Company, as noted, had already become a public company in the year <\/p>\n
    1988   even   before   the   signing   of   the   MOU   dated   3 rd  June,   1992   by   the <\/p>\n
    parties   including   respondents   4   and   5.         Therefore,   the   contesting <\/p>\n
    respondents were fully aware that the company has been a public limited <\/p>\n
    company since 1988.\n<\/p>\n
    25     The   submission  that   the  MOU  is   not  enforceable   and\/or   its   broad <\/p>\n
    understanding   between   the   parties   so   that   they   could   seek   finance   and <\/p>\n
    enter into binding agreement known as “Loan-cum-Pledge Agreement” and <\/p>\n
    restrictive covenants have ceased to exists and have no force in law and any <\/p>\n
    interpretation of clause 16 will run contrary to the Companies Act and the <\/p>\n
    Company   being   a   Public   Company,   there   can   be   no   restriction     on   the <\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:09:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 12<\/span><\/p>\n
    transferability of its shares, in view of above facts itself, is not acceptable, <\/p>\n
    without   considering   due   and   supportive   material   and   evidence   by   the <\/p>\n
    Arbitral Tribunal, but not at this preliminary stage of the proceedings under <\/p>\n
    Section 9 of the Act to decide  the issues finally.   It is  not a question of <\/p>\n
    blanket restriction  on the  transfer of all shares, but it is the question  of <\/p>\n
    terms and conditions of duly signed MOU of the year 1992, specially when <\/p>\n
    respondents 4 and 5 are only agitating and making this submission, but not <\/p>\n
    by other respondents.   Therefore, the said MOU, if not under challenge by <\/p>\n
    other   respondents   and   definitely   by   the   petitioner,   at   the   instance   of <\/p>\n
    respondents 4 and 5, at this interlocutory stage, even if the interpretation so <\/p>\n
    sought  to be made is accepted, that itself cannot be the reason to declare <\/p>\n
    the   said   MOU   null   and   void   and\/or   enforceable,   because   the   other <\/p>\n
    respondents   are   supporting   the   case   of   the   petitioner   and   in   fact   a <\/p>\n
    statement is also made and recorded by letter that they are not intending to <\/p>\n
    sell and\/or transfer the shares.    On the contrary , it is respondents 4 and 5 <\/p>\n
    insisting and claiming right inspite of above to sell the shares.   Therefore <\/p>\n
    also, to avoid further complication by allowing such transfer of shares, I am <\/p>\n
    of the view that let the Arbitral Tribunal finally decide these issues so that <\/p>\n
    the   parties   can   proceed   accordingly.       The   submission   so   raised   by <\/p>\n
    respondents 4 and 5 with regard to the validity and\/or enforceability of the <\/p>\n
    MOU and\/or right to transfer the shares after such long period and as it is <\/p>\n
    question   of   interpretation   of   the   clauses   read   with   the   conduct   of   the <\/p>\n
    parties, I am of the view that the submission of respondents 4 and 5, based <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:09:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                                     13<\/span><\/p>\n
    upon Affidavit filed on record, just cannot be accepted in defence to the <\/p>\n
    positive case led by the petitioner with material on record to support the <\/p>\n
    same apart from supporting respondent’s statement.\n<\/p>\n
    26      Importantly, there is no power or jurisdiction under Section 9 of the <\/p>\n
    Arbitration Act to declare such action or inaction, void or illegal on merits.\n<\/p>\n
    It   is   a   matter   of   detail   trial   and   inquiry   before   the   Arbitral   Tribunal   as <\/p>\n
    parties   have   themselves   decided   to   settle   the   matter   through   the   sole <\/p>\n
    Arbitrator.     Therefore,   if   no   finality   can   be   given   to   the   decision   under <\/p>\n
    Section 9 of the Act, there is no  point in deciding those issues while considering<\/p>\n
    the interpretation of the rival  parties   at   this   prima   facie   stage   of   the <\/p>\n
    proceedings.  The basic requirement of existence of Agreement and the live <\/p>\n
    subject matter of disputes between the parties are sufficient to grant the <\/p>\n
    interim order as sought by the petitioner.   In my view, there is no point to <\/p>\n
    permit to introject such submissions at this stage of the proceedings, only <\/p>\n
    because respondents 4 and 5 have agitated that the MOU is void under <\/p>\n
    Sections 23 to 32 of the Indian Contract Act.\n<\/p>\n
    27      The petitioner, therefore,  in my view, has made out a sufficient case <\/p>\n
    under Section 9 of the Act read with Order 40, Rules 1 and 2 and\/or Order <\/p>\n
    39, Rules 1 and 2 of the  Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for appropriate <\/p>\n
    order   and\/or   interim   measure   as   sought,   unless   and   until   the   case   of <\/p>\n
    respondents   4   and   5   is   accepted   and\/or   decided   finally   in   their   favour <\/p>\n
    through   the   Arbitral   Tribunal   which   the   parties   are   free   to <\/p>\n
    appoint\/constitute as per the MOU.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:09:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                                   14<\/span><\/p>\n
    28     There is no power under Section 9 of the Act to decide and declare <\/p>\n
    such   MOU   null   and   void   finally.         The   Arbitral   Tribunal   may   do   so.\n<\/p>\n
    Therefore, unless it is declared so, in view of the agreed and signed MOU <\/p>\n
    and the respective clauses referred above, that itself, in my view, sufficient <\/p>\n
    to   maintain   the   interim   order   already   granted   and\/or   pass   such   interim <\/p>\n
    measure\/protection as prayed.\n<\/p>\n
    29     All relevant elements of balance of convenience, equity, irreparable <\/p>\n
    injury   lies   in   their   favour.       The   delay     and   latches   on   the   part   of <\/p>\n
    respondents 4 and 5 including their conduct to challenge the MOU now <\/p>\n
    also goes against respondents 4 and 5.     I have also observed referring  to <\/p>\n
    the above elements in Arbitration Petition No.423\/2009-Unity Realty and <\/p>\n
    Developers Ltd. vs. BW Highway Star Pvt.Ltd.  decided on 24.09.2009 as <\/p>\n
    under:\n<\/p>\n
           71    The   Supreme   Court   in  Adhunik   Steels   Ltd.   vs.   Orissa
\n           Manganese   and   Minerals   (P)   Ltd.<\/a>  (2007)   7   SCC   125  has
\n           observed as under:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  “Moreover, when a party is given a right to approach an
\n           ordinary   court   of   the   country   without   providing   a   special
\n           procedure or a special set of rules in that behalf, the ordinary
\n           rules followed by that court would govern the exercise of power
\n           conferred by the Act.   On that basis also, it is not possible to <\/p>\n
           keep   out   the   concept   of   balance   of   convenience,   prima   facie
\n           case, irreparable injury and the concept of just and convenient
\n           while passing interim measures under Section 9 of the Act.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           Similarly so expressed in  Arvind Constructions  Co.;(P) Ltd.  v.
\n           Kalinga Mining Corporation & ors.<\/a>, (2007) 6 SCC 798.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           72    The Apex Court in  Kishorsinh Ratansinh Jadeja v. Maruti
\n           Corp. & ors.<\/a>,  JT 2009 (5) SC 180, before passing or refusing <\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:09:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                                   15<\/span><\/p>\n
           any interim injunction\/reliefs, has observed     in the following
\n           words:<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           “12     In addition to the above, Mr.Ranjit Kumar also referred to the <\/p>\n
    decision of this Court in  Mandali Ranganna & others v. T. Ramchandra <\/p>\n
    [2008   (11)   SCC   1]  wherein   an   additional   principle   was   sought   to   be <\/p>\n
    enunciated   relating   to   grant   of   injunction   by   way  of  an  equitable   relief.\n<\/p>\n
    This Court held that in addition to the three basic principles, a Court while <\/p>\n
    granting  injunction must also take  into consideration  the  conduct of  the <\/p>\n
    parties.  It was observed that a person who had kept quiet for a long time <\/p>\n
    and   allowed   others   to   deal   with   the   property   exclusively   would   not   be <\/p>\n
    entitled   to   an   order   of   injunction.     The   Court   should   not   interfere   only <\/p>\n
    because the property is a very valuable one.  Grant or refusal of injunction <\/p>\n
    has serious consequences depending upon the nature thereof and in dealing <\/p>\n
    with   such   matters   the   Court   must   make   all   endeavours   to   protect   the <\/p>\n
    interest of the parties.”\n<\/p>\n
    30     Resultantly,   the   interim   order   already     granted   on   12th  May,   2009 <\/p>\n
    which has been in force since then shall continue until the constitution of <\/p>\n
    the Arbitral Tribunal and six weeks thereafter.\n<\/p>\n
    31     I do not deny the rights of the parties to raise their appropriate pleas <\/p>\n
    or defences before the Arbitral Tribunal, if so constituted.\n<\/p>\n
    32     Rule is made absolute accordingly.  No order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                                          (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)<\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:09:36 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Registered Office At … vs 7 Conrad Anthony Rebello on 6 October, 2009 Bench: Anoop V.Mohta 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. ARBITRATION PETITION NO.346 OF 2009 Godrej Industries Ltd. A public limited company incorporated and registered under the provisions of The Companies Act, 1957, having its Registered […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-182293","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRegistered Office At ... vs 7 Conrad Anthony Rebello on 6 October, 2009 - 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\/registered-office-at-vs-7-conrad-anthony-rebello-on-6-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Registered Office At ... vs 7 Conrad Anthony Rebello on 6 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/registered-office-at-vs-7-conrad-anthony-rebello-on-6-october-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-16T07:10:21+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=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/registered-office-at-vs-7-conrad-anthony-rebello-on-6-october-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/registered-office-at-vs-7-conrad-anthony-rebello-on-6-october-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Registered Office At … vs 7 Conrad Anthony Rebello on 6 October, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-16T07:10:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/registered-office-at-vs-7-conrad-anthony-rebello-on-6-october-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3463,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/registered-office-at-vs-7-conrad-anthony-rebello-on-6-october-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/registered-office-at-vs-7-conrad-anthony-rebello-on-6-october-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/registered-office-at-vs-7-conrad-anthony-rebello-on-6-october-2009\",\"name\":\"Registered Office At ... vs 7 Conrad Anthony Rebello on 6 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-16T07:10:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/registered-office-at-vs-7-conrad-anthony-rebello-on-6-october-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/registered-office-at-vs-7-conrad-anthony-rebello-on-6-october-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/registered-office-at-vs-7-conrad-anthony-rebello-on-6-october-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Registered Office At … vs 7 Conrad Anthony Rebello on 6 October, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Registered Office At ... vs 7 Conrad Anthony Rebello on 6 October, 2009 - 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\/registered-office-at-vs-7-conrad-anthony-rebello-on-6-october-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Registered Office At ... vs 7 Conrad Anthony Rebello on 6 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/registered-office-at-vs-7-conrad-anthony-rebello-on-6-october-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-16T07:10:21+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/registered-office-at-vs-7-conrad-anthony-rebello-on-6-october-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/registered-office-at-vs-7-conrad-anthony-rebello-on-6-october-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Registered Office At … vs 7 Conrad Anthony Rebello on 6 October, 2009","datePublished":"2009-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-16T07:10:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/registered-office-at-vs-7-conrad-anthony-rebello-on-6-october-2009"},"wordCount":3463,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/registered-office-at-vs-7-conrad-anthony-rebello-on-6-october-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/registered-office-at-vs-7-conrad-anthony-rebello-on-6-october-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/registered-office-at-vs-7-conrad-anthony-rebello-on-6-october-2009","name":"Registered Office At ... vs 7 Conrad Anthony Rebello on 6 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-16T07:10:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/registered-office-at-vs-7-conrad-anthony-rebello-on-6-october-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/registered-office-at-vs-7-conrad-anthony-rebello-on-6-october-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/registered-office-at-vs-7-conrad-anthony-rebello-on-6-october-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Registered Office At … vs 7 Conrad Anthony Rebello on 6 October, 2009"}]},{"@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\/182293","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=182293"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/182293\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=182293"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=182293"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=182293"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}