{"id":226109,"date":"2010-08-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2010"},"modified":"2016-02-01T07:59:41","modified_gmt":"2016-02-01T02:29:41","slug":"whether-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"Whether vs Unknown on 5 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Whether vs Unknown on 5 August, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: K.A.Puj,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCOMP\/83\/2009\t 11\/ 13\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCOMPANY\nPETITION No. 83 of 2009\n \n\nIN\n\n\n \n\nCOMPANY\nAPPLICATION No. 162 of 2009\n \n\nWITH\n\n\n \n\nCOMPANY\nPETITION No. 84 of 2009\n \n\nIN\n\n\n \n\nCOMPANY\nAPPLICATION No. 163 of 2009\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ \t\t\tSd\/-\n \n\n \n===================================\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\n1.\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nYES\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\n2.\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nNO\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\n3.\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nNO\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\n4.\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nNO\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\n5.\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nNO\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n===================================\n \n\nMEDTEK\nASIA PRIVATE LIMITED - Petitioner\n \n\nVersus\n \n\n-\nRespondent\n \n\n=================================== \nAppearance\n: \nMRS\nSWATI SOPARKAR for Petitioner. \nMR PS CHAMPANERI for\nRespondent. \n===================================\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 05\/08\/2010 \nCOMMON ORAL JUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
These
\n\tare the petitions filed by two petitioner companies  for sanction of
\n\t a  Scheme of Arrangement
\n\tin nature of  amalgamation of  Medtek
\n\tAsia  Private Limited,
\n\tthe
\n\tTransferor Company with IRM
\n\tLimited,
\n\tthe
\n\tTransferee Company under section 391 read with Section 394 of the
\n\tCompanies Act, 1956.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\thas been submitted that both the Petitioner Companies belong to the
\n\tsame group of management. Medtek Asia Private Limited, the
\n\tTransferor Company is presently engaged in manufacturing of pharma
\n\tproducts having its industrial undertaking in Mysore, state of
\n\tKarnataka. It has commanded pioneer knowhow and initial monopoly
\n\tposition in several Hospital products as well as Diagnostic
\n\tproducts. It is in a position to explore other special pharma
\n\tproducts segments but for the financial constraints. The IRM
\n\tLimited, the Transferee Company is a closely held public limited
\n\tcompany. It has been engaged in multiple businesses. It was
\n\toriginally engaged into Pharma management consultancy and Pharma
\n\tResearch Manifestation but has diversified in several other
\n\tbusinesses like Travel, Services, Hospitality, Tea Gardens etc.
\n\tConsidering  its financial strengths, it is posed for venturing into
\n\tadditional businesses. The amalgamation is proposed to obtain
\n\tsynergic advantages. The petitions give details of the advantages
\n\tthat would flow by virtue of the arrangement between these
\n\tcompanies.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\thas been pointed out that the proposed scheme was approved
\n\tunanimously by the Equity Shareholders and Unsecured creditors  of
\n\tthe Transferor company through the consent letters in writing placed
\n\ton record. It has been submitted that there are no Secured Creditors
\n\tof the Transferor Company. The Equity Shareholders of the Transferee
\n\tCompany also approved the scheme through their consent letters.
\n\tHence, the meetings of  shareholders and\/or creditors of the
\n\tpetitioner companies were not required to be held and accordingly
\n\tthey were dispensed with vide the orders passed on 9th
\n\tApril 2009 annexed to the respective petitions as Annex. D.\n<\/p>\n
After
\n\tthe petitions were admitted, the same were duly advertised in the
\n\tnewspapers viz.  The Indian Express  and  Sandesh ,
\n\tboth Ahmedabad editions dated 29th April 2009 and the
\n\tpublication in the Government gazette was dispensed with as directed
\n\tin the order dated 20th April 2009. No one has come
\n\tforward with any objections to the said petitions even after the
\n\tpublication. The same has been confirmed vide an Additional
\n\tAffidavit dated 22nd December 2009.\n<\/p>\n
Notice
\n\tof the petition of the Petitioner Transferor Company
\n\t was served upon the Official Liquidator attached
\n\tto Gujarat High Court. Vide the report dated 8th
\n\tDecember 2009,  filed by the Official Liquidator, it is observed
\n\tthat the affairs of the Transferor company has not been conducted in
\n\ta manner prejudicial to the interest of their members or  to the
\n\tpublic interest.  The
\n\tOfficial Liquidator has, however, observed in his report that the
\n\tbooks of accounts and other records and affairs of the Company after
\n\tthe appointed date i.e. 01.04.2008 have not been examined by the
\n\tChartered Accountant.  The Company has not disclosed its financial
\n\tposition as on 31.03.2009.  The Company, therefore, be directed to
\n\tplace on record its financial position as on 31.03.2009.  The
\n\tOfficial Liquidator has further observed that the Transferor Company
\n\tmay be directed to preserve its books, papers and records for a
\n\tperiod of 8 years from the date of sanctioning of the Scheme of
\n\tAmalgamation and not to dispose of the records without prior
\n\tpermission of the Central Government under Section 396-A of the
\n\tCompanies Act, 1956 before the aforesaid period.  He
\n\thas also observed that the petitioner Company may
\n\tbe directed to pay an amount of Rs.4,500\/- being cost in relation to
\n\tpreparation of his report etc.  <\/p>\n
\tIn response to
\n\tthe report of the Official Liquidator and observations made by him,
\n\tMrs. Swati Soparkar, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner
\n\tCompanies has submitted that the Transferor Company was to be merged
\n\twith the Transferee Company with effect from the appointed date i.e.
\n\t01.04.2008.  Hence, final accounts of the Transferor Company are not
\n\tprepared.  She has, however, submitted that the provisional accounts
\n\tfor the year ending on 31.03.2009 are already placed on the record
\n\tof this petition.  Nothing adverse was found in the said accounts.\n<\/p>\n
Notice
\n\tof the petition has been served upon the Central Govt. and Shri P.
\n\tS. Champaneri, learned Assistant Solicitor General appears for the
\n\tCentral Govt. An affidavit dated 11th
\n\tNovemebr 2009 has been filed by Mr. Rakesh Chandra, the Regional
\n\tDirector,
\n\tWestern Region, Ministry of Corporate Affairs,
\n\twhereby  the only observation pertains to the latest Financial
\n\tStatements of both these companies. The same has been dealt with by
\n\tthe petitioner Company in the aforesaid Additional Affidavit dated
\n\t22nd
\n\tDecember 2009.  It is stated that there is no material change in the
\n\tfinancial statements of the Company since the last audited
\n\tbalance-sheet except reflecting the transactions conducted by the
\n\tpetitioner Company in the normal course of business.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tRegional Director has, however, filed further affidavit on
\n\t09.06.2010.  It is observed in the said affidavit that on perusal of
\n\tthe entire material and balance-sheet as at 31.03.2009 of the
\n\tTransferor Company with regard to Schedule II dealing with small
\n\tCreditors, it is observed that  no purchases were shown in the
\n\tprofit and loss account  but Sundry Creditors rose from 139.52
\n\tLacs to 173.28 Lacs.  The Transferor Company has not given any
\n\tjustification \/ clarification but inspite of the fact that the
\n\tRegistrar of Companies, Gujarat has called for clarification
\n\tfrom the Company vide his letter dated 11.05.2010.  The Regional
\n\tDirector has, therefore, directed the Registrar of Companies to take
\n\tup the matter with the Company for violation of Section 211 of the
\n\tCompanies Act, 1956.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tRegional Director has further observed in his further affidavit that
\n\ton perusal of the entire material and balance-sheet as at 31.03.2009
\n\tof the Transferee Company, it is noticed that the Auditors have made
\n\tadverse comments at paragraph (f) and (g) of their report attached
\n\tto the said balance-sheet as at 31.03.2009.  The matter was taken up
\n\twith the Company by Registrar of Company, Gujarat vide his letter
\n\tdated 11.05.2010 as advised by the Regional Director and the Company
\n\thas submitted its reply vide letter dated 20.05.2010.  The Regional
\n\tDirector further observed that the reply of the Company may hold
\n\tgood, for the compliance of Section 217 (3) of the Act.  However,
\n\tthe reply given by the Board of Directors in their report \/ in their
\n\treply to the Registrar
\n\tof Companies’ letter, no justification \/ clarification
\n\thas been given for non-provisions of the gratuity, especially when
\n\tthe Company has made huge profits.  The Company ought to have made
\n\tprovisions for gratuity as provided in Accounting Standard   15
\n\tread with Section 211 (3C) of the Companies Act, 1956.  The Regional
\n\tDirector has, therefore, directed the Registrar of Companies to take
\n\tup the matter with the Company for violation of Section 211 (3C)
\n\tread with Accounting Standard 15.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tresponse to this further affidavit of the Regional Director, on
\n\tbehalf of the Transferee Company, an additional affidavit was filed
\n\ton 28.07.2010.  As regards the observation made by the Regional
\n\tDirector in relation to the Transferor Company, it is submitted that
\n\tthe debt in account of Creditors of the Transferor Company as per
\n\tthe balance-sheet as on 31.03.2009 has appeared due to the said
\n\tamount has been received from another Group Company, which has had
\n\tconsiderable purchases from the Company effected in the past, which
\n\thas paid part payment of the amount as advance for buying some
\n\tmachinery from the petitioner Company.  Another part of the amount
\n\thas been received from the same Group Company towards operating
\n\texpenses and settling dues of the manufacturing unit of the
\n\tTransferor Company.  It is further submitted that both these amounts
\n\tare placed together which are duly disclosed in the advances and not
\n\tbetween Sundry Creditors for goods or expenses and for advances
\n\treceived.  Thus, though there being no purchases being recorded by
\n\tthe Company, there is an increase in the Sundry Creditors.  The
\n\tpetitioner Transferor Company has also placed a certificate from the
\n\tChartered Accountant explaining and clarifying the said position.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tis further stated in the additional affidavit with regard to the
\n\tobservation made by the Regional Director in relation to the
\n\tTransferee Company that non-provision of gratuity of the employees
\n\tin case of the Transferee Company has resulted due to unintentional
\n\tlapse.  The Company has owned sufficient
\n\tprofits and the amount of provision is a small
\n\tamount and the said error shall also to be rectified by making the
\n\trequired provision in the current financial year.  The Board of
\n\tDirectors in their report to shareholders have confirmed the said
\n\tlapse and further assured the corrective actions in this regard.  It
\n\tis further stated that the said non-compliance by either Company is
\n\tnot an issue material for the proposed Scheme of Amalgamation.  The
\n\tpresent Scheme does not envisage any exemption against any
\n\tcontraventions or procedural lapses, if any, in case of the
\n\tpetitioner Companies.  The Scheme does not come in the way of any
\n\tproceedings, if initiated for such alleged lapses against the
\n\tCompany or its Directors.  The said view is consistently taken by
\n\tthis Court in various matters while sanctioning the Scheme.\n<\/p>\n
Having
\n\theard Smt. Swati Saurabh Soparkar, learned advocate for the
\n\tpetitioner companies and Shri P.S. Champaneri, learned Assistant
\n\tSolicitor General for the Central Govt. and having gone through the
\n\tpetitions, affidavits, reply to these affidavits, further affidavits
\n\tand additional affidavits and considering the submissions made by
\n\tthe parties, the Court is of the view that the scheme of arrangement
\n\twould be in the interest of the companies and their members and
\n\tcreditors. The objections raised by the Regional Director as well as
\n\tthe Official Liquidator were duly answered in the Additional
\n\taffidavits submitted before the Court.  In any case, those
\n\tobjections do not have much bearing on sanctioning of the Scheme.
\n\tEven otherwise, the Scheme does not envisage any exemption against
\n\tany contravention or procedural lapses, if any, in case of the
\n\tpetitioner Companies.  The sanctioning of the Scheme shall not come
\n\tin the way of any proceedings, if initiated, for such alleged lapses
\n\tagainst the Company and\/or its Directors.  In this view of the
\n\tmatter, prayers in terms of paragraph 19 (a) in case of both the
\n\tpetitions are hereby granted.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tpetitions are disposed of accordingly. So far as the costs to be
\n\tpaid to the Central Govt. Standing Counsel is concerned, I quantify
\n\tthe same at Rs.5,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
\tper petition. The same may be paid directly by the petitioner
\n\tCompany to the learned advocate Shri P. S. Champaneri. Cost of Rs.
\n\t4,500\/- be also paid to the Office of the Official Liquidator, for
\n\tthe Transferor company only.  The Transferor Company is directed to
\n\tpreserve its books, papers and records for a period of 8 years from
\n\tthe date of sanctioning of the Scheme of Amalgamation and not to
\n\tdispose of the records without prior permission of the Central
\n\tGovernment under Section 396-A of the Companies Act, 1956 before the
\n\taforesaid period.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSd\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t[K. A. PUJ, J.]\t\t<\/p>\n
Savariya<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Whether vs Unknown on 5 August, 2010 Author: K.A.Puj,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print COMP\/83\/2009 11\/ 13 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD COMPANY PETITION No. 83 of 2009 IN COMPANY APPLICATION No. 162 of 2009 WITH COMPANY PETITION No. 84 of 2009 IN COMPANY APPLICATION No. […]<\/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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-226109","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nWhether vs Unknown on 5 August, 2010 - 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\/whether-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Whether vs Unknown on 5 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-08-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-01T02:29:41+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Whether vs Unknown on 5 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-01T02:29:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1804,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2010\",\"name\":\"Whether vs Unknown on 5 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-01T02:29:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Whether vs Unknown on 5 August, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Whether vs Unknown on 5 August, 2010 - 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\/whether-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Whether vs Unknown on 5 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-01T02:29:41+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Whether vs Unknown on 5 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-01T02:29:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2010"},"wordCount":1804,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2010","name":"Whether vs Unknown on 5 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-01T02:29:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Whether vs Unknown on 5 August, 2010"}]},{"@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\/226109","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=226109"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/226109\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=226109"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=226109"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=226109"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}