{"id":200361,"date":"2001-03-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-03-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hanuman-prasad-bagri-ors-vs-bagress-cereals-pvt-ltd-ors-on-27-march-2001"},"modified":"2016-01-07T10:05:50","modified_gmt":"2016-01-07T04:35:50","slug":"hanuman-prasad-bagri-ors-vs-bagress-cereals-pvt-ltd-ors-on-27-march-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hanuman-prasad-bagri-ors-vs-bagress-cereals-pvt-ltd-ors-on-27-march-2001","title":{"rendered":"Hanuman Prasad Bagri &amp; Ors vs Bagress Cereals Pvt. Ltd. &amp; Ors on 27 March, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Hanuman Prasad Bagri &amp; Ors vs Bagress Cereals Pvt. Ltd. &amp; Ors on 27 March, 2001<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: R Babu<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S. Rajendra Babu, K.G. Balakrishnan<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nSpecial Leave Petition (civil) 17137  of  2000\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nHANUMAN PRASAD BAGRI &amp; ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nBAGRESS CEREALS PVT. LTD. &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t27\/03\/2001\n\nBENCH:\nS. Rajendra Babu &amp; K.G. Balakrishnan\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>RAJENDRA BABU, J. :\n<\/p>\n<p>L&#8230;I&#8230;T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T..J<\/p>\n<p>    A  petition\t under Sections 397 &amp; 398 of  the  Companies<br \/>\nAct,  1956 [hereinafter referred to as the Act] was  filed<br \/>\nbefore\tthe Calcutta High Court on grounds of oppression and<br \/>\nmismanagement.\t The  learned  Company Judge held  that\t the<br \/>\nPetitioners   grievance\t in  regard  to\t ouster\t from\tthe<br \/>\nmanagement of the company is legitimate and justified;\tthat<br \/>\nrespondent  No.3 had manoeuvred the matters in such a manner<br \/>\nto  result  in\tthe ouster of the Petitioner No.1  from\t the<br \/>\nmanagement  of\tthe  Company.\tThe  learned  Company  Judge<br \/>\nfurther\t directed the Petitioner No.1 and his group  members<br \/>\nto  sell  their\t shares\t to respondents at  a  value  to  be<br \/>\ndetermined by a Valuer as on 16.5.1988, that is, the date of<br \/>\nthe petition and also held that the Petitioner No.1 had been<br \/>\nillegally  removed as an Executive Director of the  Company.<br \/>\nAppeal\twas preferred on behalf of the Company by respondent<br \/>\nNo.2  and  also\t on his own behalf.   The  Petitioners\talso<br \/>\nclaimed in that appeal that the learned Company Judge should<br \/>\nhave  given  guidelines for valuation of the shares  on\t the<br \/>\nmarket\tvalue  and should have also provided for payment  of<br \/>\ninterest on the amount receivable by them both on account of<br \/>\nshare  value  and remuneration.\t The Division Bench  of\t the<br \/>\nCalcutta  High Court allowed the appeal by the order made on<br \/>\n25.8.2000  holding that one of the conditions precedent\t for<br \/>\ngranting  relief  under Section 397 of the Act is  that\t the<br \/>\nPetitioners  should  prove  that winding up of\tthe  company<br \/>\nwould unfairly prejudice the Petitioners who are claiming of<br \/>\noppression, that otherwise the facts will justify the making<br \/>\nof  a winding up on just and equitable grounds.\t  Contesting<br \/>\nthe correctness of this view, this special leave petition is<br \/>\nfiled.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Relying  upon the decision in <a href=\"\/doc\/292160\/\">Needle Industries  (India)<br \/>\nPvt.   Ltd.  v.\t Needle Industries New (India) Holding Ltd.,<br \/>\nAIR<\/a>  1981  SC  1298, it is claimed that even if\t a  case  of<br \/>\noppression  is not made out by the Petitioners, the Court is<br \/>\nnot powerless under Section 397 of the Act to do substantial<br \/>\njustice\t between  the parties and, therefore, on  the  facts<br \/>\navailable  in the case the order made by the learned Company<br \/>\nJudge should have been maintained.  It is pleaded that it is<br \/>\nnot possible for the Petitioners and respondents to carry on<br \/>\nbusiness  of  the company together and the only solution  is<br \/>\nthat  one  group shareholders should purchase the shares  of<br \/>\nthe  other group and that the Petitioners have no  objection<br \/>\nin selling shares of their group at a proper value.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Section  397(2) of the Act provides that an order  could<br \/>\nbe  made on an application made under sub-section (1) if the<br \/>\ncourt is of the opinion\t (1) that the companys affairs are<br \/>\nbeing  conducted in a manner prejudicial to public  interest<br \/>\nor in a manner oppressive of any member or members;  and (2)<br \/>\nthat  the  facts  would justify the making of a\t winding  up<br \/>\norder  on the ground that it was just and equitable that the<br \/>\ncompany\t should\t be  wound up, and (3) that the\t winding  up<br \/>\norder  would  unfairly\tprejudice the applicants.   No\tcase<br \/>\nappears to have been made out that the companys affairs are<br \/>\nbeing  conducted in a manner prejudicial to public  interest<br \/>\nor  in\ta  manner  oppressive  of  any\tmember\tor  members.<br \/>\nTherefore,  we have to pay our attention only to the  aspect<br \/>\nthat  the winding up of the company would unfairly prejudice<br \/>\nthe  members  of the company who have the grievance and\t are<br \/>\nthe applicants before the court and that otherwise the facts<br \/>\nwould justify the making of a winding up order on the ground<br \/>\nthat  it  was just and equitable that the company should  be<br \/>\nwound  up.   In order to be successful on this\tground,\t the<br \/>\nPetitioners  have  to make out a case for winding up of\t the<br \/>\ncompany\t on  just and equitable grounds.  If the facts\tfall<br \/>\nshort  of  the\tcase  set out for winding  up  on  just\t and<br \/>\nequitable   grounds  no\t relief\t can   be  granted  to\t the<br \/>\nPetitioners.   On  the\tother hand the party  resisting\t the<br \/>\nwinding\t up can demonstrate that there are neither just\t nor<br \/>\nequitable grounds for winding up and an order for winding up<br \/>\nwould be unjust and unfair to them.\n<\/p>\n<p>    On\tthese tests, the Division Bench examined the  matter<br \/>\nbefore\tit.   It  was noticed that the shareholding  of\t the<br \/>\nPetitioners  is well under 20% while that of those  opposing<br \/>\nthe  winding up is more than 80%.  Therefore, the  adversary<br \/>\ngroup  has  sufficient majority shareholding even to pass  a<br \/>\nspecial resolution.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t grievances  made  by  the  Petitioners\t before\t the<br \/>\nDivision Bench of the High Court are as follows:@@<br \/>\n\t\t\t   JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ<\/p>\n<p>    1.\t That  the  registered\toffice of  the\tcompany\t was<br \/>\nshifted\t from the congested Posta area to the multi-storeyed<br \/>\nbuilding  called  Chatterjee Polk on Jawaharlal Nehru  Road,<br \/>\nand then again shifted back from there.\n<\/p>\n<p>    2.\tThat a certain amount of wheat quota for which above<br \/>\nRs.17  lakhs  was  deposited  by the  company  was  allowed,<br \/>\ncontrary to control orders to be lifted by a sister concern.\n<\/p>\n<p>    3.\tThat a certain loan payable to the Petitioner No.1 a<br \/>\nlittle\tunder  Rs.6 lakhs was sought to be paid back by\t the<br \/>\ncompany by seeking to make a book adjustment, trying to show<br \/>\na payment to another company Sumati in extinguishment of the<br \/>\nliability  of  the  Petitioner No.1 to Sumati  on  the\toral<br \/>\ninstruction  of Petitioner No.1 that the debt to him be paid<br \/>\ninstead to Sumati.\n<\/p>\n<p>    4.\t That certain roller boxes, about 14 in number\twere<br \/>\nsold  off  at  an aggregate price of  Rs.96,000\/-,  although<br \/>\nthose  had  been acquired in 1980 at a cost of\tRs.75,000\/-.<br \/>\nThe  complaint\twas  that the boxes were  still\t usable\t and<br \/>\nunnecessarily sold.\n<\/p>\n<p>    5.\t That a large amount of commission, of the order  of<br \/>\nRs.20  lakhs  or so, although receivable by respondent\tNo.3<br \/>\nand\/or his son, was got paid by Mitsubishi to the company so<br \/>\nas  to\tavoid tax incidence to respondent No.3 himself,\t who<br \/>\nutilised  the  losses of the company for setting off of\t the<br \/>\nprofit,\t treating  the company as the respondent No.3s\town<br \/>\ncompany.\n<\/p>\n<p>    6.\t That the continuing directorship of Petitioner No.1<br \/>\nwas  sought to be terminated without giving him\t appropriate<br \/>\nnotices\t of  the  Board\t meetings;   the  terminations\twere<br \/>\nalleged\t to be of no effect and the stoppage of remuneration<br \/>\nand of directorial benefits, improper and illegal.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The Division Bench was neither impressed with the merits<br \/>\nof  the\t case  nor  with the legal position  and  reached  a<br \/>\nconclusion  that  the  company\tpetition  is  liable  to  be<br \/>\nrejected  on  the  ground that there is no  finding  by\t the<br \/>\nlearned\t Company  Judge\t that the winding up  will  unjustly<br \/>\nprejudice  the\tcompany, therefore, the order of the  nature<br \/>\nappealed  had been passed and also concluded that the it  is<br \/>\nimpossible  for them to arrive at a finding in favour of the<br \/>\nPetitioners.   So  far as shifting of the registered  office<br \/>\nfrom  Posta  area to Chatterjee Polk and back to Posta,\t the<br \/>\nDivision  Bench\t was  of  the  view  that  shifting  of\t the<br \/>\nregistered  office by itself may not be a reason or a ground<br \/>\nto  be raised in a petition under Section 397 or 398 of\t the<br \/>\nAct  as\t long  as the company did not suffer  much  loss  on<br \/>\naccount\t of  the shifting and shifting back and no case\t was<br \/>\nmade out to show that such exercise was undertaken to put an<br \/>\noppressive  pressure  and pain upon the Petitioners.  It  is<br \/>\nnot  clear  that  such\ta course was adopted  by  way  of  a<br \/>\nwasteful expenditure so as to amount to mismanagement and on<br \/>\nthat rejected the first contention.\n<\/p>\n<p>    As\tregards the second contention that a certain  amount<br \/>\nof  wheat quota for which above Rs.17 lakhs was deposited by<br \/>\nthe  company  was allowed, contrary to control orders to  be<br \/>\nlifted\tby  a  sister concern, it was found as a  fact\tthat<br \/>\nthere  is neither disclosure of oppression or mismanagement.<br \/>\nThe  company in question during the relevant time was  under<br \/>\nlock  out and, therefore, wheat quota worth Rs.17 lakhs\t was<br \/>\nallowed\t to  be lifted by a sister concern.  It\t is  alleged<br \/>\nthat  such an act amounted to violation of control order and<br \/>\nthat  as  the wheat quota was lifted by the sister  concern,<br \/>\nthe  company in question was shown to be having an asset  by<br \/>\nway  of\t debt as against that sister concern and it  is\t not<br \/>\nclear  how the company suffered a loss by taking a debt\t and<br \/>\ngiving the wheat quota to sister concern.  On this basis the<br \/>\nsecond contention was also rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>    On\tthe  third  point  about  certain  loan\t payable  in<br \/>\nextinguishment\tof the liability of the Petitioner No.1\t the<br \/>\ncase put forth was that the company owed money to Sumati and<br \/>\nupon  instruction of Petitioner No.1, money was paid by\t the<br \/>\ncompany\t to Sumati so that Petitioner No.1 does not have  to<br \/>\npay  to\t Sumati\t and  the  company  does  not  have  to\t pay<br \/>\nPetitioner  No.1.   During the course of the proceedings  in<br \/>\nthis matter, Petitioner No.1 filed separate company petition<br \/>\nfor  winding  up  against   another  sister  concern,  Bagri<br \/>\nSynthetics Ltd.\t However, a suit was ordered to be filed and<br \/>\na  sum\tof  Rs.5,74,662\/-  was\tdirected  to  be  deposited.<br \/>\nThereafter,  the  suit was decreed by a judgment  which\t was<br \/>\nupheld\tby  the appellate court and, therefore, it was\theld<br \/>\nthat  if  a debt remained owing to Petitioner No.1 from\t the<br \/>\ncompany\t it would be unreasonable for the Petitioner No.1 to<br \/>\nask  for  a just and equitable winding up of the company  on<br \/>\nthe  other hand filing a suit would be proper as it had done<br \/>\nin the other case and, therefore, did not enter into further<br \/>\ndetails of the facts of the case in that part of matter.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t fourth\t contention is in regard to  certain  roller<br \/>\nboxes about 14 in number were sold off at an aggregate price<br \/>\nof  Rs.96,000\/-, although those had been acquired in 1980 at<br \/>\na  cost\t of Rs.75,000\/-.  The complaint was that  the  boxes<br \/>\nwere  still  usable and unnecessarily sold.  On\t this  point<br \/>\nalso  the  Division  Bench  did\t  not  find  any  ground  of<br \/>\noppression or mismanagement as provided under Section 397 or<br \/>\n398 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t Division  Bench found that Mitsubishi commision  of<br \/>\nRs.23 lakhs could hardly be a matter of mismanagement of the<br \/>\ncompany\t to bring into its till money which is not even\t its<br \/>\ndue.   No loss is shown to accrue to the company because  of<br \/>\nthe  bringing  in of this commission and, therefore, it\t was<br \/>\nfound that the mismanagement was not established.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The last and the most important point urged is in regard<br \/>\nto  continuation  of directorship of the  first\t petitioner.<br \/>\nThe first Petitioner joined the company in or about 1971 and<br \/>\nhe  is\ta  director.   It was noticed that  the\t last  Board<br \/>\nmeeting\t which\the  appears  to have attended  was  held  on<br \/>\n19.8.1985  but\tapparently he did not thereafter attend\t the<br \/>\nmeeting\t of 16.11.1985.\t Thereafter there was no material to<br \/>\nshow  that  he went to the corporate office or attended\t any<br \/>\nboard  meeting.\t  The  petitioner   No.1  pleaded  that\t the<br \/>\nrespondents  could  not have treated him as ceased to  be  a<br \/>\nDirector  in terms of Section 283(1)(g) of the Act.  Form 32<br \/>\nhad  been  filed  by  the  company  with  the  Registrar  of<br \/>\nCompanies  on 15.1.1988 showing that the Petitioner No.1 had<br \/>\nceased\tto  be\ta Director with effect from  21.12.1987\t and<br \/>\nsince  then it is maintained throughout that Petitioner No.1<br \/>\nceased\tto be in the office of the Director of the  Company.<br \/>\nThe Division Bench noticed that the position that Petitioner<br \/>\nNo.1  ceased to be a Director is seriously disputed and\t the<br \/>\nDivision  Bench ultimately concluded that the termination of<br \/>\ndirectorship  would  not  entitle  such person\tto  ask\t for<br \/>\nwinding\t up on just and equitable grounds inasmuch as  there<br \/>\nis  an\tappropriate remedy by way of company suit which\t can<br \/>\ngive  him  full relief if such action had been taken by\t the<br \/>\ncompany on inadequate ground.  The Division Bench found that<br \/>\nif  a Director even if illegally terminated cannot bring his<br \/>\ngrievance  as  to termination to winding up the company\t for<br \/>\nthat  single  and  isolated act, even if it was\t doing\tgood<br \/>\nbusiness  and  even  if the Director could obtain  each\t and<br \/>\nevery adequate relief in a suit in a court.\n<\/p>\n<p>    In this background, the appeal having been dismissed, we<br \/>\ndo not find any good reason to interfere with such an order.<br \/>\nHowever, Sri Dipankar Gupta, learned Senior Advocate for the<br \/>\nPetitioners,  sought  to urge the legal question as  to\t the<br \/>\ninterpretation\tplaced\tby  the Division Bench that  if\t the<br \/>\nfacts  fall  short  of a case upon which the  company  court<br \/>\nfeels  that  the  company  should be wound up  on  just\t and<br \/>\nequitable  grounds in that event no relief can be granted to<br \/>\nthe  Petitioners  in regard to Section 397 of the  Act.\t  We<br \/>\nfind  adequate\tsupport\t to the view taken by  the  Division<br \/>\nBench  and  we cannot read the provisions of Section 397  of<br \/>\nthe  Act in any other manner than what has been done by\t the<br \/>\nDivision  Bench.   Therefore  we  find\t no  merit  in\tthis<br \/>\npetition.  The same shall stand dismissed.  No costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Hanuman Prasad Bagri &amp; Ors vs Bagress Cereals Pvt. Ltd. &amp; Ors on 27 March, 2001 Author: R Babu Bench: S. Rajendra Babu, K.G. Balakrishnan CASE NO.: Special Leave Petition (civil) 17137 of 2000 PETITIONER: HANUMAN PRASAD BAGRI &amp; ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: BAGRESS CEREALS PVT. LTD. &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-200361","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Hanuman Prasad Bagri &amp; Ors vs Bagress Cereals Pvt. Ltd. &amp; Ors on 27 March, 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\/hanuman-prasad-bagri-ors-vs-bagress-cereals-pvt-ltd-ors-on-27-march-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Hanuman Prasad Bagri &amp; Ors vs Bagress Cereals Pvt. Ltd. &amp; Ors on 27 March, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hanuman-prasad-bagri-ors-vs-bagress-cereals-pvt-ltd-ors-on-27-march-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=\"2001-03-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-07T04:35:50+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hanuman-prasad-bagri-ors-vs-bagress-cereals-pvt-ltd-ors-on-27-march-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hanuman-prasad-bagri-ors-vs-bagress-cereals-pvt-ltd-ors-on-27-march-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Hanuman Prasad Bagri &amp; Ors vs Bagress Cereals Pvt. Ltd. &amp; Ors on 27 March, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-03-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-07T04:35:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hanuman-prasad-bagri-ors-vs-bagress-cereals-pvt-ltd-ors-on-27-march-2001\"},\"wordCount\":2194,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hanuman-prasad-bagri-ors-vs-bagress-cereals-pvt-ltd-ors-on-27-march-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hanuman-prasad-bagri-ors-vs-bagress-cereals-pvt-ltd-ors-on-27-march-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hanuman-prasad-bagri-ors-vs-bagress-cereals-pvt-ltd-ors-on-27-march-2001\",\"name\":\"Hanuman Prasad Bagri &amp; Ors vs Bagress Cereals Pvt. Ltd. &amp; Ors on 27 March, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-03-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-07T04:35:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hanuman-prasad-bagri-ors-vs-bagress-cereals-pvt-ltd-ors-on-27-march-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hanuman-prasad-bagri-ors-vs-bagress-cereals-pvt-ltd-ors-on-27-march-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hanuman-prasad-bagri-ors-vs-bagress-cereals-pvt-ltd-ors-on-27-march-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Hanuman Prasad Bagri &amp; Ors vs Bagress Cereals Pvt. Ltd. &amp; Ors on 27 March, 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":"Hanuman Prasad Bagri &amp; Ors vs Bagress Cereals Pvt. Ltd. &amp; Ors on 27 March, 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\/hanuman-prasad-bagri-ors-vs-bagress-cereals-pvt-ltd-ors-on-27-march-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Hanuman Prasad Bagri &amp; Ors vs Bagress Cereals Pvt. Ltd. &amp; Ors on 27 March, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hanuman-prasad-bagri-ors-vs-bagress-cereals-pvt-ltd-ors-on-27-march-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-03-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-07T04:35:50+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hanuman-prasad-bagri-ors-vs-bagress-cereals-pvt-ltd-ors-on-27-march-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hanuman-prasad-bagri-ors-vs-bagress-cereals-pvt-ltd-ors-on-27-march-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Hanuman Prasad Bagri &amp; Ors vs Bagress Cereals Pvt. Ltd. &amp; Ors on 27 March, 2001","datePublished":"2001-03-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-07T04:35:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hanuman-prasad-bagri-ors-vs-bagress-cereals-pvt-ltd-ors-on-27-march-2001"},"wordCount":2194,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hanuman-prasad-bagri-ors-vs-bagress-cereals-pvt-ltd-ors-on-27-march-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hanuman-prasad-bagri-ors-vs-bagress-cereals-pvt-ltd-ors-on-27-march-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hanuman-prasad-bagri-ors-vs-bagress-cereals-pvt-ltd-ors-on-27-march-2001","name":"Hanuman Prasad Bagri &amp; Ors vs Bagress Cereals Pvt. Ltd. &amp; Ors on 27 March, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-03-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-07T04:35:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hanuman-prasad-bagri-ors-vs-bagress-cereals-pvt-ltd-ors-on-27-march-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hanuman-prasad-bagri-ors-vs-bagress-cereals-pvt-ltd-ors-on-27-march-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hanuman-prasad-bagri-ors-vs-bagress-cereals-pvt-ltd-ors-on-27-march-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hanuman Prasad Bagri &amp; Ors vs Bagress Cereals Pvt. Ltd. &amp; Ors on 27 March, 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\/200361","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=200361"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/200361\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=200361"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=200361"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=200361"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}