{"id":222591,"date":"2009-09-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-srikant-d-mankikar-vs-the-enforcement-offier-on-8-september-2009"},"modified":"2017-03-07T14:46:37","modified_gmt":"2017-03-07T09:16:37","slug":"sri-srikant-d-mankikar-vs-the-enforcement-offier-on-8-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-srikant-d-mankikar-vs-the-enforcement-offier-on-8-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"Sri Srikant D Mankikar vs The Enforcement Offier on 8 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Sri Srikant D Mankikar vs The Enforcement Offier on 8 September, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA\nCIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD\nDATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF sEPTEMB'=t,\u00ab;\u00a7:i\u00e9'2{$:j3--I:9__j'.  .\n\nBefore\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE I5I2I.TLlIVT{11)'i\"TC C   7\n\nCr}. 13.2430\/2006 C \/W Cr1.P.1826\/'2oo6, C.r,1.P,244-,5'\/2006, Cirl.P. \n\n1828\/2006, Cr1.P.2428\/2006, Crl.P'..243\\1\/2006, 'C.r1;-2:>.2'~43\"2'\/2006, '\nCr1.P.2433\/ 2006, Crl.P.2434'\/2006, Cr1.1%24.35\/2o'e6, C'r1.P;;2436\/2006,\nCr1.P.2437\/2006, Cr1.P.2438\/2006, C14.-;~P..24--39-;\/2006,' Cr1.P;2440\/2006,\nCr1.P.2441\/2006, C;-1.13.2442\/2qo_@ Crl.P:2'44_3.\/V2{)O6, Crl.P.2444\/2006,\n\nCr1.P; 12\u00a7_2:r_;:g_i';g,;\u00a7  \n\nBetween:\n\nSri.Srikant D. Mankikaf,' '*-I;,_ _\n\nS\/C late Dattatfeya; \" w.  _ \n\nAged 71 years, Managi:igVI32'Te'Ct[Oi=,__ \n\nM\/ 3 Karnataka State VeneCr':'L.td;,_  \n\nKavachur, North Kanara Distri\u00e9t;   .--   COMMON PETITIONER\n\n(By Svri.Ven1;a;tesh. R. Bnagat; Adv.)\n\nAnciii, \n\nI _ The Enf0tCC.rnCf1vtvV'C'}ff1c  \n Employees .Pf0viden*t. f_FLinc\u00a3 Organisation,\nIV 'Floor, Shrinatha Ccjmplex,\n\nNew Cotton Marke.t,\n\n 'Hub\"1'i',--__Disnt:j Dharv\u00e9ad.  COMMON RESPONDENT\n\n _  AV '\"'~.:\"-{\u00a7yxS'ri:Pfai'*ikT\u00a7;Shna S. Holla, Adv. 82;\n  _ A\"S'Ti,Veefresff1 B. Budihal, Adv.)\n\n1??\/4\n\n\n\nThese Criminal Petitions are \ufb01led under 8.482 Cr.PC, praying to\nquash the proceedings in C.C.Nos.352\/05, 569\/05, 367\/05, 571\/05,\n351\/05, 353\/05, 354\/05, 355\/05, 356\/05, 357\/05, 358\/05, 359\/05,\n360\/05, 361\/05, 362\/05, 363\/05, 364\/05, 365\/05, 366\/05 and CC\nNo.570\/05 respectively, in the court of the JMFC, Siddapura, Uttara\nKannada Dist, and etc.   \n\nThe petitions coming on for orders this day, the \"the\nfollowing common order:  ' ~   ' \"\n\nORDER  \n<\/pre>\n
In all these petitions, the petitionei-.v”is–i.i_seeking -to
\nproceedings in CC.Nos.351 to 367  and  57153″\n<\/p>\n
2005 on the \ufb01le of the JIVIFC,\n<\/p>\n
2. According to the  isLt:h’e:,l\\\/ianaging Director of<\/p>\n
M \/ s Karnataka State Veneers  i’Head Office at Dandeli,<\/p>\n
Uttara Kannada’  at\/Vikavachur, Siddapura, Uttara
\nKannada. Theiii\u00e9arnatahai Ltd is a joint venture company
\nwith the Go\\(ernm”en_t  iiiiariiataka and M\/s Indian Plywood
\nMan1i1’a_cturviin\u00a7g  xLtd’;’,”‘Bombay. On behalf of the Government of<\/p>\n
Karnataka ilVi,’,,s”v-Karneataka State Forest Industries Corporation Ltd is<\/p>\n
   of the company and M\/ s The indian Plywood<\/p>\n
, . 1\\\/I&an1;facturing..Cio\u00abrI1pany is holding 49% of shares. As per the promoters’<\/p>\n
 lozated 16.8.1974, the Company shall have a Board of<\/p>\n
it  ~,,:ii’Dijrecto’rsconsisting of 9 Directors including a Chairman who shall be<\/p>\n
XX\/_<\/p>\n
the nominee of the Government [i.e. M\/ s KSFIC LTD) and a Managing
\nDirector who shall be nominated by M \/ s Indian Plywood Mfg.”—-.Co. Ltd.<\/p>\n
That is to say, there were 5 Directors nominated by “Ltd<\/p>\n
including the Chairman and there were 4 Directors nomiriatediibyi.i’M\/s_V<\/p>\n
The Indian Plywood Manufacturing Company’  <\/p>\n
Managing Director.\n<\/p>\n
As already stated, the petitioner  Director of M \/ s
\nKarnataka State Veneers Ltd,’  day affairs of the
\nKarnataka State Veneers Ltd controlled by the
\nGeneral Manager or  vati:iKavachur and he was
\nresponsible for  the Company, including
\npayment of  contractors bills and other expenses
\nof the Company}. it One was appointed as Manager in-
\ncharge of thenestablishment–. 5.10.1996 and 30.6.1999. On his
\nretirement   Beiera””l’v\u20ac’oiideen was appointed by the (Chairman)<\/p>\n
Government’ ‘i.e.”-Kiarnataka State Forest Industries Corporation Ltd. as<\/p>\n
.i:(}.3_p,eral Manager  effect from 16.6.99 and 29.6.2000.<\/p>\n
 .. According to the petitioner, he was only an Executive of the<\/p>\n
 the Companies Act and not a full time employee of the<\/p>\n
\\<\/p>\n
comp’any..ar1d no remuneration 32% paid to the petitioner from the<\/p>\n
company. The liability of the Company was upon the person who was
\nresponsible for the management of day to day affairs of the company. As
\nper Companies Act, Directors of the company could not be considered as
\nemployees of the company and they are not liable either <\/p>\n
for the alleged offences.\n<\/p>\n
4. The complainant’s allegation against. the petitirgnerfislthat’. <\/p>\n
though the establishment is required if theypernployelesivivland
\nemployers share of provident fund ‘c:o’I1tribution’  of
\nemployees of the establishrnent”within”152days  the close of that
\nmonth, they have failed to   months between<\/p>\n
December 1997 and   aznllact is violation of<\/p>\n
Sec.14(1)A and llll  Provident Funds and
\nMiscellaneous       h<\/p>\n
5. The   that section 14AC(1) of the Act
\ninhiblits.the”i:court: from tal\u00e9ingcognizance of any offence under the Act,<\/p>\n
the sche__me,_ pension ‘scheme or insurance scheme, except on a report in<\/p>\n
:i.vv1?iil.I1g of factsli’e_o’nstituting such offences made with the previous<\/p>\n
.–sa”nc\u00abtion. of the Central Provident Fund Commissioner or such other<\/p>\n
.’\u00abV_vojffi”cer  be authorised by the Central Government by noti\ufb01cation<\/p>\n
3%”\n<\/p>\n
in the official gazette in that behalf, by an Inspector appointed under
\nsection 13 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
6. The petitioner in all these petitions has been prosecuted on<\/p>\n
obtaining sanction orders from the Regional Prov’ide’nt’–.s..l’Fund<\/p>\n
Commissioner, Sub–Regional Office, I-Iubli. According thejVpetitio_i1e1*,__<\/p>\n
so far as State of Karnataka is concerned.:o’n\u00bblygonl_e Regional\u00bbO&f\ufb01i’ce is if<\/p>\n
established at Bangalore and five Sub–Region.a1
\nvarious places in the State including one”~at Htibli__.  objection
\nraised by the petitioner is, that sancgtiolrrgjocs nolt”emAan.ate from the
\nOffice of Regional Office at  _Sub-\u00abRegional Office<\/p>\n
at Hubli, though the _sig_nat0rjf”tol’:  Fiegiioinal Provident Fund<\/p>\n
Commissioner.  obtained in all these cases
\ncannot be treated as a as per Sec.14AC of the Act.
\nReferring to ap gazette ~notificatic_ndated 16.10.1973 he submits, that it is
\nthe ,Regionalt_ji5ro\u00a7iident Fiind’*'”Commissioner of State of Mysore in whose<\/p>\n
regionhthe’ leStab’1i\u00bbsf1irr1ent-ppis covered or has its Head Office and not the<\/p>\n
1:iS–tiVb5Regional’llOffice; at Hubli. Therefore, according to the learned<\/p>\n
_ Counsef, the sanlctiori orders accorded in all these cases to prosecute the<\/p>\n
 Cor12pa’n_j’ are “bad in law.\n<\/p>\n
W\/..\n<\/p>\n
The petitioner further submits that he cannot be held to be in-
\ncharge and responsible for the conduct of day to day business of the
\ncompany. The petitioner being the Managing Director does’u._not fall<\/p>\n
within the de\ufb01nition of the term ’employer’ u\/ s 2(e) of the  he<\/p>\n
in–charge and control of the day to day business of the  <\/p>\n
proceed against him. The Form No.5A :’state.d.v to be <\/p>\n
submitted by the establishment in each   are:’go:t’:.L;p
\ndocuments, wherein in Col.11 the par,t_iculars.”of_ thelipers:o’n”‘in–charge
\nand responsible for the conduct the  the ‘company are to be
\nfurnished. The name of the petiti:oner– b.ee.nA.l,:mentioned in the said
\ncolumn, which is factually vincorrlect’   being a Managing
\nDirector could not    conduct of the day-\n<\/p>\n
to–day business’ of  to the learned Counsel
\nneither the so–cal’le:d  said document is having any
\nauthority lL0″‘.’.”\u00a7:’1′.’\u00a3bl”i’.1llZ the nor ‘said Form No.5(A) is produced from a<\/p>\n
proper  ?TheV.petitioner submits that the proceedings initiated<\/p>\n
against hirn-T’_is.lAnoth.i,ngAl.l’Vbtit abuse of process of court. In the absence of<\/p>\n
Vang\/atrerment: to..__’the. effect that petitioner was in charge and responsible<\/p>\n
 day to day business of the company, the learned<\/p>\n
“f”Magistrate’l:s.s erred in taking cognizance.<\/p>\n
According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Karnataka
\nState Veneers Ltd was registered as sick industry as on 2.7.99. The<\/p>\n
respondent authority has to obey the order dated  by<\/p>\n
the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction,  <\/p>\n
in Case No.602 \/ 99, in regard to windingpof’ the c\u00e9_omp’a1~i.y vv’h’i:C\u00a2hVi’vwasj <\/p>\n
accepted by the Provident Fund Commissiolnperiivvho
\nproceedings dated 25.3.2003.  these’  the
\ncomplaints filed by the respondent are not:maiI1tainable.._” <\/p>\n
Then learned Counsel  submitted that
\npursuant to the order .vo.f::BlFR  dated 25.3.2003 this<\/p>\n
court in Co.P.102 ‘..’1\u00a7;9_2005 permitted to initiate<\/p>\n
winding L113   Official Liquidator. The
\nrespondent hasllosltl.  and proceeded to \ufb01le
\ncomplaints. ‘–.rlelcoimmendation of the BIFR to wind up
\nthe._vj”Ka.rnatal\u00a7a;p_A..i$ta.te  Ltd, the Government of Karnataka,<\/p>\n
Department “of “D_isi:nivestments and State Public Enterprises Reforms,<\/p>\n
.3TBangalore’,A  its  dated 23.9.2004 has informed respondent to<\/p>\n
_ ajpproacph the Official Liquidator to be appointed by the I-iighCourt for<\/p>\n
 recovery’ of dues. The same fact was communicated to the Recovery<\/p>\n
  ‘(l)f.\ufb01c_er”ofl’r\u00a7heirespondent organization by its letter dated 24.12005.<\/p>\n
35*’<\/p>\n
7. Stating that petitioner is neither a signatory to the Form SA
\nnor was he looking after the day to day affairs of the Company, has
\ncontended that the so called Form SA produced by the respondent is a<\/p>\n
xerox copy not signed by the authorised signatory of The<\/p>\n
petitioner was the Honorary Managing Director of the  <\/p>\n
cannot be automatically presumed to be injcharge ‘or responsiblefforjthei’. <\/p>\n
affairs of the company. He has resigned blifrorni the of Managing
\nDirector with effect from 20.7.1999 andrthe saVid__resig’n__ationi’letter was
\naddressed to the Chairman of the Comp*any; Cli?eferring–to.-section 22 of<\/p>\n
Sick Industrial Companies (Special;Prov_is’ions.)”E985, he submitted,<\/p>\n
that during the pendency:cf_ the:’schen;1e.jof.i:rehabilitation no proceedings
\nshall be initiated against  company ‘eitherfor recovery of monies or
\notherwise.  is ‘s1.1b”rni’tted the act of learned Magistrate in
\nproceeding to takecognizianclepiofthe complaint against the petitioner is
\nnothing but abuse of process of law.\n<\/p>\n
 Kin suppo:rt~,of the above contentions, learned Counsel for<\/p>\n
 .petitioneir.placed”reliar1r;.e on the following decisions:<\/p>\n
 “in a deici..siViV)r1 reported in 1999(4) Kar.L.J. 471, K.M. Shivarama<\/p>\n
  Fur-uushothama, wherein this Court has held as follows:<\/p>\n
“(A) Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions
\nAct, 1952, Section 14(l–A)–Prosecution — Complaint of offence of
\nnon-payment of contributions due from establishment — Where
\ncomplainant has failed to establish that person sought to be
\nprosecuted is either occupier, or manager or person” of<\/p>\n
establishment, and that establishment in questiori entitlevd<\/p>\n
to exemption from operation of provisions of..A:(‘:t,vVdismissal–.of’V.__<\/p>\n
complaint, held, does not suffer from ‘any”‘err,_o’r,” .3 .  \u00ab<\/p>\n
Referring to a decision renderedloy  Court.\n<\/p>\n
518, Employees’ State Insurance Coirphoratiori   hgarwal V85
\nOthers, he submitted that it is  isthe\ufb02employer and
\nnot its Directors either singly or    as employers<\/p>\n
under Explanation 2 to  oi:=__lPC;3, <\/p>\n
He reliedlon ano,tVhieI*=de’cis’ioii’-reported in 2007(2) DCR 36, Suresh
\nK. Jasani Vs. Mrinal Dyeing Eoiillfnariufacturing Co. Ltd. And others,
\nwherein the_I=;3ompay High”Court referring to provisions of Sec.446(1) of<\/p>\n
thei\ufb02omipa    held that complaint filed after passing of order of<\/p>\n
z.,winding'”ups\/appoin.tiI15\u00e9ht'”of liquidator is not maintainable.<\/p>\n
V This Course’ case of Rajagopalachari S. Vs. Bellary Spinning<\/p>\n
A iVeav*iog Co; “Ltd. And another, reported in 1998 I.L.L.J 131, has<\/p>\n
iii’Ai..’V_i1eld i_ithat.,i1iabi1ity under section l4–A(1) of the Provident Fund Act did<\/p>\n
$6,,<\/p>\n
1.0<\/p>\n
not go with the designation and no presumption could arise that, by
\nbearing the designation of a Managing Director, it was the second
\nrespondent who was in–charge of and was responsible to the company in<\/p>\n
the matter of the conduct of its business.\n<\/p>\n
9. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner’ ‘at”ilength_<\/p>\n
and perused the papers placed on record…~It._is ‘that.l_jfori’v_thee. <\/p>\n
recovery of PP’ dues proceedings were initiated onithe  by
\nthe Enforcement Officer, Employees’ Piioyvi’d.ent
\nalleging non–payment of the provident ‘coz’it_rib1.1.tio’nl.liA1f1 respect of the
\nemployees of the said establis~hmen.t.’  it months between<\/p>\n
December 1997 to Februa.ryv200:O;” — if’ V<\/p>\n
I0. Whib\ufb01l the icioirnpanyl\ufb01lgeC1—-__the-C reference u\/s 15(1) of the Sick
\nIndustrial Companies {Spe’cial.l3roifisiiolns) Act, 1985, the BIFR declared it
\nas sick and directed the -Syndicate Bank to coordinate the finalisation of<\/p>\n
the ilrehabililtation  the scheme for the company after the<\/p>\n
: findings f’recom1mendiatifon’s of Technical Consultancy Services<\/p>\n
iOrrganisatiori<\u00abof Kai nataka. In the said proceedings, since the Company<\/p>\n
fldlidkjctgi"submit its rehabilitation proposal \/ package to the company as<\/p>\n
all'e.lfind'icated..by the bank and since the company promoters did not show<\/p>\n
 in revival of the company, on 25.3.2003 the Board<\/p>\n
33%"\n<\/p>\n
11<\/span><\/p>\n
recommended for closure of the Company and ordered winding up of the<\/p>\n
company.\n<\/p>\n
Pursuant to the order of 131?? recommending for windingujup. of the<\/p>\n
company} on reference to the High Court for appointme~nt_juo__fi”Official<\/p>\n
Liquidator, the Government of Karnataka by its <\/p>\n
directed the respondent authority to approach  to’,<\/p>\n
be appointed by the High Court, forgre4a1isa’tioiin.. of
\ndues and other dues. This court by ordeerdated
\nPetition No.102\/200-3 ordered.  and
\ndirected to take possession of  Company M\/s<\/p>\n
Karnataka State Venee}:s’\u00a3._td–.  ifisirelevant to note that<\/p>\n
petitioner was  of Company when the company
\nwas declared    on 2.7.1999. Therefore, the
\npetitioner being theMana,gingiIiireetor was not an employer u\/s 2(e) of
\nthe   ——– \u00abNothing has been demonstrated in the<\/p>\n
complaintathatg was in-charge of the affairs of the company and<\/p>\n
iivibecause of his mismanagement of affairs of the company, the dues<\/p>\n
_towards the PB’ contributions were not paid from time to time. Even<\/p>\n
 with:_re:s~pect”\u00ab–to getting sanction from competent authority to prosecute<\/p>\n
9   p”et’itior1er there is some discrepancy.\n<\/p>\n
:,:>e’\/<\/p>\n
12<\/span><\/p>\n
11. it is relevant to note that the Government as well as the
\npetitionepcompany, had informed the respondent Recovery Officer about
\nthe pendency of appointment of official liquidator before the High Court.<\/p>\n
The Company Petition 102 \/ 2003 was filed in the year  By<\/p>\n
virtue of order dated 19.9.2005 in the said companygpetitiionili’<\/p>\n
Liquidator was appointed directing him to__tAa1<:_e  <\/p>\n
company. Therefore, since already winding  p'_roceedings_.lwerei'i"initiated <\/p>\n
through the Official Liquidator, the respondenvt
\nagainst the petitioner could have Agplarticipatedhi   liquidation
\nproceedings for recovery of iitsmiegally dues out of the
\nliquidation proceeds. Butvthe  of approaching the
\nofficial liquidator to  Court, has resorted to file
\nthe impugned  petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
12. In thisiiviewvoifi and also having regard to the ratio
\nlaidfioivn  decisionspireferred to supra, impugned proceedings<\/p>\n
initiated\u00bb t_he_fiieg i-earned Magistrate against the petitioner would be<\/p>\n
 abuse. o’f,’pro’cle_vs_s”_of the court. In the circumstances, all these<\/p>\n
petitions are al-lovved. Registration of complaints and issuance of<\/p>\n
 by  learned Magistrate in the impugned proceedings<\/p>\n
i”\u00bb.’i_in,iitia.te_d in ‘tail: these cases are quashed.<\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n
13<\/span><\/p>\n
However liberty is reserved to the respondent–aut_hority to
\nparticipate in the liquidation proceedings before the Of\ufb01cia1r_iLi._c1u_idat0r
\nand to make necessary application before him towards  recovc-r\u00e9bvle<\/p>\n
dues of provident fund contributions and other contrib’utiojn  = _  it
\n  i     ~7″e-?39’e<\/p>\n
Sub \/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Sri Srikant D Mankikar vs The Enforcement Offier on 8 September, 2009 Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF sEPTEMB’=t,\u00ab;\u00a7:i\u00e9’2{$:j3–I:9__j’. . Before THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I5I2I.TLlIVT{11)’i”TC C 7 Cr}. 13.2430\/2006 C \/W Cr1.P.1826\/’2oo6, C.r,1.P,244-,5’\/2006, Cirl.P. 1828\/2006, Cr1.P.2428\/2006, Crl.P’..243\\1\/2006, ‘C.r1;-2:>.2’~43″2’\/2006, […]<\/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":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-222591","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSri Srikant D Mankikar vs The Enforcement Offier on 8 September, 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\/sri-srikant-d-mankikar-vs-the-enforcement-offier-on-8-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sri Srikant D Mankikar vs The Enforcement Offier on 8 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-srikant-d-mankikar-vs-the-enforcement-offier-on-8-september-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=\"2009-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-07T09:16:37+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-srikant-d-mankikar-vs-the-enforcement-offier-on-8-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-srikant-d-mankikar-vs-the-enforcement-offier-on-8-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sri Srikant D Mankikar vs The Enforcement Offier on 8 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-07T09:16:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-srikant-d-mankikar-vs-the-enforcement-offier-on-8-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2160,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-srikant-d-mankikar-vs-the-enforcement-offier-on-8-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-srikant-d-mankikar-vs-the-enforcement-offier-on-8-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-srikant-d-mankikar-vs-the-enforcement-offier-on-8-september-2009\",\"name\":\"Sri Srikant D Mankikar vs The Enforcement Offier on 8 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-07T09:16:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-srikant-d-mankikar-vs-the-enforcement-offier-on-8-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-srikant-d-mankikar-vs-the-enforcement-offier-on-8-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-srikant-d-mankikar-vs-the-enforcement-offier-on-8-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sri Srikant D Mankikar vs The Enforcement Offier on 8 September, 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":"Sri Srikant D Mankikar vs The Enforcement Offier on 8 September, 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\/sri-srikant-d-mankikar-vs-the-enforcement-offier-on-8-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sri Srikant D Mankikar vs The Enforcement Offier on 8 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-srikant-d-mankikar-vs-the-enforcement-offier-on-8-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-07T09:16:37+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-srikant-d-mankikar-vs-the-enforcement-offier-on-8-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-srikant-d-mankikar-vs-the-enforcement-offier-on-8-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sri Srikant D Mankikar vs The Enforcement Offier on 8 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-07T09:16:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-srikant-d-mankikar-vs-the-enforcement-offier-on-8-september-2009"},"wordCount":2160,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-srikant-d-mankikar-vs-the-enforcement-offier-on-8-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-srikant-d-mankikar-vs-the-enforcement-offier-on-8-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-srikant-d-mankikar-vs-the-enforcement-offier-on-8-september-2009","name":"Sri Srikant D Mankikar vs The Enforcement Offier on 8 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-07T09:16:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-srikant-d-mankikar-vs-the-enforcement-offier-on-8-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-srikant-d-mankikar-vs-the-enforcement-offier-on-8-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-srikant-d-mankikar-vs-the-enforcement-offier-on-8-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sri Srikant D Mankikar vs The Enforcement Offier on 8 September, 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\/222591","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=222591"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/222591\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=222591"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=222591"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=222591"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}