{"id":186827,"date":"2009-11-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baldev-raj-arora-vs-modex-international-securities-on-9-november-2009"},"modified":"2017-11-04T08:19:45","modified_gmt":"2017-11-04T02:49:45","slug":"baldev-raj-arora-vs-modex-international-securities-on-9-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baldev-raj-arora-vs-modex-international-securities-on-9-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"Baldev Raj Arora vs Modex International Securities … on 9 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Baldev Raj Arora vs Modex International Securities … on 9 November, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: V.B.Gupta<\/div>\n
*        HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI\n\n                                 FAO No.398\/2008\n\n%               Judgment reserved on: 4th November, 2009\n\n                Judgment delivered on:9th November, 2009\n\n         Baldev Raj Arora,\n         S\/o Late Sh. G. D. M. Arora,\n         R\/o Flat No. 209, Divya Jyoti Apartment,\n         Sector-19, Pocket-C,\n         Rohini, Delhi-85.\n                                                             ....Appellant\n\n                         Through:               Mr. Kundan Kr. Mishra with Mr.\n                                                Ashish Kr. Bhagat , Adv.\n\n                       Versus\n\n         Modex International Securities Ltd.\n         Having its registered office at 507,\n         Padama Tower, II 22 Rajendera Place,\n         New Delhi.\n\n                                                           ....Respondent.\n\n                                Through:       Mr. Aseem Mehrotra, Adv.\n\nCoram:\n\nHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA\n\n1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may\n   be allowed to see the judgment?                   Yes\n\n2. To be referred to Reporter or not?                Yes\n\n3. Whether the judgment should be reported\n   in the Digest?                                    Yes\n\n\n\n\nFAO No.398\/2008                                                     Page 1 of 6\n V.B.Gupta, J.\n<\/pre>\n
       This appeal has been filed against order dated 3rd October, 2008, passed by<\/p>\n
Additional District Judge, Delhi, vide which application under Order 9 rule 13 of<\/p>\n
Code of Civil Procedure (for short as \u201eCode\u201f) filed by the appellant, was<\/p>\n
dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
2.     Brief facts of this case are that, respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.<\/p>\n
5,04,817.45\/- along with pendente lite and future interest against appellant.<\/p>\n
Initially appellant put in its appearance in the trial court on 29th November, 2004.<\/p>\n
Thereafter, on 3rd January, 2005, he absented and as such was proceeded ex parte.<\/p>\n
Appellant then filed an application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code, which was<\/p>\n
allowed subject to payment of costs. Appellant again absented and vide order<\/p>\n
dated 20th September, 2006, he was proceeded ex parte. Trial court decreed the<\/p>\n
suit, vide judgment dated 28th September, 2006.\n<\/p>\n
3.     In the present application it is stated that after framing of issues, appellant<\/p>\n
was approached by the respondent for out of court settlement. Appellant was<\/p>\n
persuaded emotionally as well as by giving references of earlier friendship and<\/p>\n
families tie up for not to contest as it would ensue no good for either party. In<\/p>\n
consequence of these re-conciliatory efforts, appellant agreed for compromise.<\/p>\n
Going by the commitment made by respondent, appellant became convinced and<\/p>\n
stopped coming to the Court in honest and bonafide belief of the fact that the<\/p>\n
matter was compromised.\n<\/p>\n
4.     However, respondent committed serious betrayal and defrauded the<\/p>\n
appellant and in contrary to their commitments, pressed the court for ex parte<\/p>\n
FAO No.398\/2008                                                         Page 2 of 6<\/span>
\n proceeding. Appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing in Court<\/p>\n
and therefore could not attend the proceedings on the crucial stages. There are<\/p>\n
special and reasonable circumstances in the matter, which entitle the appellant for<\/p>\n
setting aside the decree passed in this case.\n<\/p>\n
5.     It is contended by learned counsel for appellant that after framing of the<\/p>\n
issues, appellant was approached by the respondent for out of court settlement.<\/p>\n
Appellant also agreed for the compromise. In view of the commitments made by<\/p>\n
the respondent, appellant stopped coming to the Court in bonafide belief that<\/p>\n
matter has been compromised and thus appellant was prevented by sufficient<\/p>\n
cause, from appearing in the Court. Even on merits, respondent has no case and<\/p>\n
his execution application filed in the trial court has also been dismissed in default.<\/p>\n
6.     On the other hand, it is argued by learned counsel for respondent that story<\/p>\n
put forward by appellant is not at all convincing. There was no settlement at all<\/p>\n
between the parties. Appellant absented from appearing in the Court, without any<\/p>\n
just and sufficient cause.     In support       learned counsel for respondent cited<\/p>\n
decision of this Court; Mrs. Naimat Kaur Anand & Ors. Vs. M\/s Decond<\/p>\n
Comapnay, 82 (1999) Delhi Law Times 389.\n<\/p>\n
7.     Appellant was duly served and had put in its appearance before the trial<\/p>\n
court. He also filed the written statement. Issues were framed in the presence of<\/p>\n
appellant. Later on, appellant stopped appearing and thus, was proceeded ex parte<\/p>\n
on 20th September, 2006. Explanation given by appellant for non appearing in the<\/p>\n
Court on 20th September, 2006 and for subsequent hearings is that after framing<\/p>\n
FAO No.398\/2008                                                         Page 3 of 6<\/span>
\n of issues appellant was approached by the respondent for out of court settlement<\/p>\n
and in consequence thereof, appellant agreed for compromise.<\/p>\n
8.      In entire application it is no where stated as to on which date settlement<\/p>\n
took place, what were the terms of settlement, whether the settlement was effected<\/p>\n
in writing or orally. Application under Order 9 rule 13 of the Code, with regard to<\/p>\n
all these relevant facts is completely silent. The explanation given by appellant<\/p>\n
for non-appearance in Court on 20th September, 2006 and subsequent there to, is<\/p>\n
not at all convincing. In this regard, the trial court observed that;<\/p>\n
                “The defendant\/applicant admitted in his application under
\n                Order 9 rule 13 CPC that he had stopped appearing in court
\n                after 20.09.06. The present application for setting aside of
\n                the decree has been moved on 24.12.07. The
\n                defendant\/applicant is required to give an explanation for
\n                his non appearance for each day from 20.09.06 to 24.12.07.
\n                No such explanation is forthcoming. The application under
\n                Order 9 Rule 13 CPC which is under consideration is not
\n                even accompanied by an affidavit. No application under
\n                Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay
\n                has been moved. The story put forth by the
\n                defendant\/applicant is totally incredible that he stopped
\n                appearing in court at the behest of the plaintiff.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
9.      Application for setting aside of ex parte decree, was filed by appellant<\/p>\n
only on 24th December, 2007, that is after about fifteen months from the date of<\/p>\n
passing of ex parte order. No application for condonation of delay was filed.<\/p>\n
10.     In Mrs. Naimat Kaur Anand (Supra), it was observed:\n<\/p>\n
                “The negligence and delay does not end here. Section 123
\n                of the Limitation Act prescribes that the application for
\n                setting aside a decree should be filed within thirty days of
\n                its passing. This position must have been known to the
\n                defendant when the application under Order 9, Rule 13 was
\n                filed. Although one year and forty nine days had passed (as
\n                per the computation of the defendant) the application under<\/p>\n
FAO No.398\/2008                                                         Page 4 of 6<\/span>
\n                Section 5 of the Limitation Act did not accompany the
\n               application under Order 9, Rule 13 and this must be held to
\n               be fatal to the case put forward by the defendant\/judgment
\n               debtor.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
11.    In entire application for setting aside ex parte decree, appellant nowhere<\/p>\n
stated as to on which date and from whom he came to know about passing of ex<\/p>\n
parte decree. The application is completely silent about these material facts.<\/p>\n
Merely, application for execution of decree filed by respondent has been<\/p>\n
dismissed in default, will not have any bearing on the present appeal.<\/p>\n
12.    Respondent had filed the suit for recovery against appellant in the year<\/p>\n
2002. The same was decreed on 28th September, 2006. Now we are in year 2009.<\/p>\n
For last many years, respondent is being deprived of the fruits of the decree.<\/p>\n
Appellant has taken the court proceedings in very casual manner and has not<\/p>\n
bothered to vindicate his stand.\n<\/p>\n
13.    In Ravinder Kaur Vs. Ashok Kumar and Anr., (2003) 8 Supreme Court<\/p>\n
Cases 289, it was observed;\n<\/p>\n
               “Courts of law should be careful enough to see through
\n               such diabolical plans of the judgment debtors to deny the
\n               decree holders the fruits of the decree obtained by them.
\n               These type of errors on the part of the judicial forums only
\n               encourage frivolous and cantankerous litigations causing
\n               laws delay and bringing bad name to the judicial system”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
14.    In view of above discussion there is no ambiguity or illegality in the<\/p>\n
impugned order. Present appeal is most bogus and frivolous one and has been<\/p>\n
filed just to delay the proceedings. Appellant to a certain extent has succeeded in<\/p>\n
delaying the execution of decree for last many years. Present appeal is, therefore,<\/p>\n
dismissed with costs of Rs. 20,000\/- (Twenty Thousand Only).<\/p>\n
FAO No.398\/2008                                                          Page 5 of 6<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 15.    Appellant is directed to deposit the costs with Registrar General of this<\/p>\n
Court within one month from today, failing which the same shall be recovered in<\/p>\n
accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
16.    Trial court record be sent back.\n<\/p>\n
17.    List for compliance on 14th December, 2009.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
9th November , 2009                                         V.B.GUPTA, J.\nbhatti\n\n\n\n\nFAO No.398\/2008                                                    Page 6 of 6<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Baldev Raj Arora vs Modex International Securities … on 9 November, 2009 Author: V.B.Gupta * HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI FAO No.398\/2008 % Judgment reserved on: 4th November, 2009 Judgment delivered on:9th November, 2009 Baldev Raj Arora, S\/o Late Sh. G. D. M. Arora, R\/o Flat No. 209, Divya Jyoti […]<\/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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-186827","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBaldev Raj Arora vs Modex International Securities ... on 9 November, 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\/baldev-raj-arora-vs-modex-international-securities-on-9-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Baldev Raj Arora vs Modex International Securities ... on 9 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baldev-raj-arora-vs-modex-international-securities-on-9-november-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=\"2009-11-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-04T02:49:45+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baldev-raj-arora-vs-modex-international-securities-on-9-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baldev-raj-arora-vs-modex-international-securities-on-9-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Baldev Raj Arora vs Modex International Securities … on 9 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-04T02:49:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baldev-raj-arora-vs-modex-international-securities-on-9-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1198,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baldev-raj-arora-vs-modex-international-securities-on-9-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baldev-raj-arora-vs-modex-international-securities-on-9-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baldev-raj-arora-vs-modex-international-securities-on-9-november-2009\",\"name\":\"Baldev Raj Arora vs Modex International Securities ... on 9 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-04T02:49:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baldev-raj-arora-vs-modex-international-securities-on-9-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baldev-raj-arora-vs-modex-international-securities-on-9-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baldev-raj-arora-vs-modex-international-securities-on-9-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Baldev Raj Arora vs Modex International Securities … on 9 November, 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":"Baldev Raj Arora vs Modex International Securities ... on 9 November, 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\/baldev-raj-arora-vs-modex-international-securities-on-9-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Baldev Raj Arora vs Modex International Securities ... on 9 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baldev-raj-arora-vs-modex-international-securities-on-9-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-04T02:49:45+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baldev-raj-arora-vs-modex-international-securities-on-9-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baldev-raj-arora-vs-modex-international-securities-on-9-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Baldev Raj Arora vs Modex International Securities … on 9 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-04T02:49:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baldev-raj-arora-vs-modex-international-securities-on-9-november-2009"},"wordCount":1198,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baldev-raj-arora-vs-modex-international-securities-on-9-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baldev-raj-arora-vs-modex-international-securities-on-9-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baldev-raj-arora-vs-modex-international-securities-on-9-november-2009","name":"Baldev Raj Arora vs Modex International Securities ... on 9 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-04T02:49:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baldev-raj-arora-vs-modex-international-securities-on-9-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baldev-raj-arora-vs-modex-international-securities-on-9-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baldev-raj-arora-vs-modex-international-securities-on-9-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Baldev Raj Arora vs Modex International Securities … on 9 November, 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\/186827","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=186827"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/186827\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=186827"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=186827"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=186827"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}