{"id":232814,"date":"2001-11-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-11-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-r-jindal-vs-nanda-devi-builders-p-ltd-and-on-16-november-2001"},"modified":"2015-05-12T00:06:27","modified_gmt":"2015-05-11T18:36:27","slug":"m-r-jindal-vs-nanda-devi-builders-p-ltd-and-on-16-november-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-r-jindal-vs-nanda-devi-builders-p-ltd-and-on-16-november-2001","title":{"rendered":"M.R. Jindal vs Nanda Devi Builders (P) Ltd. And &#8230; on 16 November, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Company Law Board<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">M.R. Jindal vs Nanda Devi Builders (P) Ltd. And &#8230; on 16 November, 2001<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>ORDER<\/p>\n<p>  S. Balasubramanian, Vice-Chairman   <\/p>\n<p> 1. The petitioner holding 500 shares in<br \/>\nNanda Devi Builders (P) Ltd. (the company) has filed this petition under sections<br \/>\n397\/398 of the Companies Act, 1956 (the Act) alleging acts of oppression and<br \/>\nmismanagement in the affairs of the company.\n<\/p>\n<p> 2. A summary of the petition is : The company was incorporated in July, 1989, and<br \/>\nthe present paid up capital of the company is Rs. 4,62,000 divided into 4,620 equity<br \/>\nshares of Rs. 100 each of which the petitioner holds 510 shares and his wife another<br \/>\n50 shares. In addition, the petitioner has also advanced a sum of Rs. 1 lakh to the<br \/>\ncompany as loan. He has been a director of the company right from its incorporation<br \/>\nand the company has proposed to remove him as a director in the EOGM held on<br \/>\n24.2.2001. The company has built a multi-storey complex known as Nanda Devi<br \/>\nTower in Prasant Vihar, Delhi, consisting of 5 floors including a basement. Even<br \/>\nthough the company has taken advance from prospective buyers, as early as in 1989,<br \/>\npossession has not been handed over to many of the allottees. The 2nd respondent<br \/>\nhad given 3\/4th portion of the basement of the Tower to be Shri Gurmeet Chauhan,<br \/>\nManaging Director of Surf Side Systems Limited, at the rate of Rs. 12,000 per month<br \/>\nsome time in September, 1999, and had also received a sum of Rs. 75,000 as security<br \/>\ndeposit. These monies are not being accounted for in the books of accounts of the<br \/>\ncompany. This is notwithstanding the fact that half portion of the basement had<br \/>\nalready been booked in the name of Shrimati Neelam Jhulka and Shri Ram Kumar<br \/>\nSahrawalt on payment of Rs. 2.5 lakhs in 1999. Thus, a property which has already<br \/>\nbeen booked for sale has been clandestinely leased out by the 2nd respondent.<br \/>\nLikewise, the 2nd respondent had rented out shop Nos. 4 and 5 in the first floor to<br \/>\none Shri Madhur Aggarwal at the meagre rent of Rs. 900 per month, and had also<br \/>\ncollected security deposit of Rs. 5,000. These amounts have not been accounted for<br \/>\nin the books of accounts of the company. This is notwithstanding the fact that these<br \/>\nshops had already been sold to one Shri S.P. Jindal in June, 2000, on receipt of<br \/>\nadvance from him. Even though the petitioner has written to the 2nd respondent and<br \/>\nalso to the auditors of the company complaining that the rentals and advances had<br \/>\nnot been accounted for in the books of accounts of the company, no reply had been<br \/>\nreceived from them. In November, 2000, the petitioner also filed a complaint with the<br \/>\npolice in this regard and also complained to the Registrar of Companies, Delhi,<br \/>\nseeking for investigation into the affairs of the company. The 2nd respondent has<br \/>\nbeen disposing of the assets and properties of the company illegally to his own<br \/>\nfriends and relations as is evident from the fact that some of the properties have been<br \/>\nsold to his close relations in February, 1994. Further, no Board meeting or general<br \/>\nbody meeting of the company had been held right from incorporation. Since the<br \/>\npetition has been raising objections on the illegal activities of the 2nd respondent,<br \/>\nhe has engineered to have the petition removed as a director in an EOGM<br \/>\nconvened on 24 February, 2001, so that he could carry on the affairs of the company<br \/>\nat his own will and pleasure and at the cost of minority shareholders. Accordingly, it<br \/>\nhas been prayed that investigation into the affairs of the company should be ordered,<br \/>\na receiver be appointed to take over the properties of the company and all the<br \/>\nagreements entered into in relation to the sale of the properties should be cancelled<br \/>\nand the 2nd respondent should be surcharged.\n<\/p>\n<p> 3. In the reply, the respondents have submitted : The petitioner being a director<br \/>\nright from incorporation is fully aware of the business or the company and has been<br \/>\nparticipating in all its decision. He has signed most of the balance sheets of the<br \/>\ncompany. After the disputes started, the petitioner has removed all the records of<br \/>\nthe company, like minute book, statutory records etc. The petition has also<br \/>\nsiphoned off funds of the company. In respect of shop No. 5, the petitioner had<br \/>\nexecuted a sale agreement in June, 2000, for a consideration of Rs. 6 lakhs without the<br \/>\nauthority from the Board to one of his close relations Shri. S.P. Jindal. The same shop<br \/>\nhad been sold by the company for Rs. 12.28 lakhs in February, 2001. Shri S.P. Jindal<br \/>\nhas filed a suit in this regard, and as such, the matter is sub judice. The petition has<br \/>\n sought for cancellation of the sales made by the company which prayer cannot be<br \/>\nconsidered since the purchasers of these shops have not been made parties to the<br \/>\nproceedings. Most of the issues praised by the petitioner relate to 1993-1994, and as<br \/>\nsuch are hopelessly time barred. From the statement at paragraph 5 of the reply on<br \/>\nthe status of the various shops in Nanda Devi Tower, it may be seen that almost all<br \/>\nthe shops had been handed over possession in 1993-94, and wherever full money had<br \/>\nnot been paid, the bookings had been cancelled. As far as the allegation relating to<br \/>\nnon-deposit of security deposit and rental received by the company is concerned, all<br \/>\nthe moneys received by the company\/2nd respondent have been properly accounted<br \/>\nfor in the books of the company. It is the petitioner who had acted against the interest<br \/>\nof the company by selling shop No. 5 for Rs. 6 lakhs while the company could get Rs.<br \/>\n12.28 lakhs for the same shop. The alleged letters of complaint written by the<br \/>\npetitioner to the 2nd respondent and to the auditors of the company are all fabricated<br \/>\nsince they had not received these letters. The company has been holding regular<br \/>\nBoard meetings and general meetings and the petitioner is fully aware of the same as<br \/>\nis evident form the fact that the balance sheets for 1998-99 and 1999-2000 annexed to<br \/>\nthe reply have been signed by the petitioner in his capacity as a director. Since the<br \/>\npetitioner has been acting against the interest of the company in an EOGM held on<br \/>\n24.2.2001, he was removed as a director in terms of section 284 of the Act and the<br \/>\nsame has not been implemented in view of the restraint order passed by this Bench.\n<\/p>\n<p> 4. The counsel appearing for the parties reiterated their respective submissions<br \/>\nmade in the pleadings. Shri Mathur, appearing for the respondents, submitted that<br \/>\nnone of the allegations against the respondents could be either considered to be an<br \/>\nact of oppression or mismanagement. All the allegations in the petition relate to the<br \/>\nperiod during which the petitioner was a director of the company. The motive of<br \/>\nfiling the petition is that the respondents have questioned the authority of the<br \/>\npetitioner in selling shop No. 5, and in view of the decision of the respondents to<br \/>\nremove the petitioner as a director. He prayed that the interim order passed by this<br \/>\nBench on 5.2.2001 restraining the company from giving effect to the resolution of the<br \/>\ngeneral body to remove the petitioner as director be vacated as his removal was due<br \/>\nto his prejudicial act against the interests of the company.\n<\/p>\n<p> 5. We have considered the pleadings and arguments of the counsel. In the hearing<br \/>\nheld on 5.2.2001, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that his clients<br \/>\nwould be willing to purchase the shares held by the petitioner so that the dispute<br \/>\nbetween the parties could be put to an end. However, the petitioner did not react to<br \/>\nthis suggestion. We do concur with the learned counsel for the respondents that most<br \/>\nof the allegations relate to events that took place nearly 7 years back. The only<br \/>\nallegation which is proximate to the date of petition relates to sale of shop No. 5<br \/>\nwhich is already a subject matter in a civil suit. As far as the allegation relating to<br \/>\nnon-credit of the security deposit and rental received, the respondents have averred<br \/>\nthat they have been properly accounted for in the books of accounts of the company<br \/>\nand, therefore, nothing survives on this allegation. As far as non-holding of the<br \/>\nBoard meeting and general body meetings is concerned, we find that the petitioner<br \/>\nhas signed the balance sheets of the company as late as of 1999-2000, i.e., just before<br \/>\nthe filing of this petition. This could not have happened unless Board meetings had<br \/>\nbeen held. We cannot accept the contention of the petitioner, who has been a director<br \/>\nthat the company has failed to hold annual general meetings for so many years.<br \/>\nThus, we find that the petitioner has not made out a case for us to grant any of the<br \/>\nreliefs sought for in the petition, and as such, we dismiss this petition. However,<br \/>\nsince the respondents have expressed their desire to purchase the shares held by the<br \/>\npetitioner, they are directed to do so on a fair value to be determined by the statutory<br \/>\nauditors of the company in case the petitioner intimates the company in writing,<br \/>\nwithin 30 days from the date of this order, his desire to sell the shares held by him<br \/>\nand his wife. If he does so, then the company should ensure that the fair value is<br \/>\ndetermined within 60 days thereafter and pay the consideration within 30 days<br \/>\nthereafter for the shares held by the petitioner and his wife. The company should<br \/>\nalso refund the amount of Rs. 1 lakhs given by the petitioner as a loan to the<br \/>\ncompany along with the consideration for the shares. The interim order dated<br \/>\n5.2.2001 is vacated since we find that he had been removed as a director on account<br \/>\nof his prejudicial acts.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Company Law Board M.R. Jindal vs Nanda Devi Builders (P) Ltd. And &#8230; on 16 November, 2001 ORDER S. Balasubramanian, Vice-Chairman 1. The petitioner holding 500 shares in Nanda Devi Builders (P) Ltd. (the company) has filed this petition under sections 397\/398 of the Companies Act, 1956 (the Act) alleging acts of oppression and mismanagement [&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":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-232814","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>M.R. Jindal vs Nanda Devi Builders (P) Ltd. And ... on 16 November, 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\/m-r-jindal-vs-nanda-devi-builders-p-ltd-and-on-16-november-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.R. Jindal vs Nanda Devi Builders (P) Ltd. And ... on 16 November, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-r-jindal-vs-nanda-devi-builders-p-ltd-and-on-16-november-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=\"2001-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-11T18:36:27+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-r-jindal-vs-nanda-devi-builders-p-ltd-and-on-16-november-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-r-jindal-vs-nanda-devi-builders-p-ltd-and-on-16-november-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.R. Jindal vs Nanda Devi Builders (P) Ltd. And &#8230; on 16 November, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-11T18:36:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-r-jindal-vs-nanda-devi-builders-p-ltd-and-on-16-november-2001\"},\"wordCount\":1625,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-r-jindal-vs-nanda-devi-builders-p-ltd-and-on-16-november-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-r-jindal-vs-nanda-devi-builders-p-ltd-and-on-16-november-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-r-jindal-vs-nanda-devi-builders-p-ltd-and-on-16-november-2001\",\"name\":\"M.R. Jindal vs Nanda Devi Builders (P) Ltd. And ... on 16 November, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-11T18:36:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-r-jindal-vs-nanda-devi-builders-p-ltd-and-on-16-november-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-r-jindal-vs-nanda-devi-builders-p-ltd-and-on-16-november-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-r-jindal-vs-nanda-devi-builders-p-ltd-and-on-16-november-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.R. Jindal vs Nanda Devi Builders (P) Ltd. And &#8230; on 16 November, 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":"M.R. Jindal vs Nanda Devi Builders (P) Ltd. And ... on 16 November, 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\/m-r-jindal-vs-nanda-devi-builders-p-ltd-and-on-16-november-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.R. Jindal vs Nanda Devi Builders (P) Ltd. And ... on 16 November, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-r-jindal-vs-nanda-devi-builders-p-ltd-and-on-16-november-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-11T18:36:27+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-r-jindal-vs-nanda-devi-builders-p-ltd-and-on-16-november-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-r-jindal-vs-nanda-devi-builders-p-ltd-and-on-16-november-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.R. Jindal vs Nanda Devi Builders (P) Ltd. And &#8230; on 16 November, 2001","datePublished":"2001-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-11T18:36:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-r-jindal-vs-nanda-devi-builders-p-ltd-and-on-16-november-2001"},"wordCount":1625,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-r-jindal-vs-nanda-devi-builders-p-ltd-and-on-16-november-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-r-jindal-vs-nanda-devi-builders-p-ltd-and-on-16-november-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-r-jindal-vs-nanda-devi-builders-p-ltd-and-on-16-november-2001","name":"M.R. Jindal vs Nanda Devi Builders (P) Ltd. And ... on 16 November, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-11T18:36:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-r-jindal-vs-nanda-devi-builders-p-ltd-and-on-16-november-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-r-jindal-vs-nanda-devi-builders-p-ltd-and-on-16-november-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-r-jindal-vs-nanda-devi-builders-p-ltd-and-on-16-november-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.R. Jindal vs Nanda Devi Builders (P) Ltd. And &#8230; on 16 November, 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\/232814","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=232814"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/232814\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=232814"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=232814"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=232814"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}