{"id":242137,"date":"2010-12-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jiji-antony-vs-jrg-securities-limited-on-1-december-2010"},"modified":"2016-02-07T03:29:48","modified_gmt":"2016-02-06T21:59:48","slug":"jiji-antony-vs-jrg-securities-limited-on-1-december-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jiji-antony-vs-jrg-securities-limited-on-1-december-2010","title":{"rendered":"Jiji Antony vs Jrg Securities Limited on 1 December, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Jiji Antony vs Jrg Securities Limited on 1 December, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCo.Appeal.No. 67 of 2010()\n\n\n1. JIJI ANTONY, MADHAVATHU HOUSE,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. REGI JACOB, 5C, MANGALAM TOWERS,\n3. GIBY MATHEW, 5B,\n4. JERRY MATHEW, 7A, TOC H RETREAT,\n5. MATHEW JACOB, TALAVYALIL HOUSE,\n6. JOSE THOMAS, NEDUMKANAL HOUSE,\n7. MINI JOSEPH, 5C, MANGALAM TOWERS,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. JRG SECURITIES LIMITED,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. DUCKWORTH LIMITED,\n\n3. MR.PADMANABHAN VISWANATHAN,ADDITIONAL\n\n4. MR.T.M.VENKATARAMAN,\n\n5. MR.PRADEEP MALLICK, INDEPENDENT DIRECTOR\n\n6. MR.BHASKER RAMAKRISHNA MENON,\n\n7. MR.RAHUL BHASIN, CHAIRMAN,\n\n8. MR.MUNISH DAYAL, DIRECTOR, B24,\n\n9. MR.GAURAV VIVEK SONI,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.SATHISH NINAN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH\nThe Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI\n\n Dated :01\/12\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n              K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.\n        ------------------------------------------------------\n            COMPANY APPEAL No.67 of 2010-G\n           ----------------------------------------------\n         Dated, this the Ist day of December, 2010\n\n                         J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
K.M.Joseph, J.\n<\/p>\n
            This company appeal is lodged against the order<\/p>\n
dated    11th    October,     2010      in    C.A.No.92\/2010    in<\/p>\n
C.P.No.44\/2010 by the Chennai Bench of the Company Law<\/p>\n
Board.\n<\/p>\n
            2.   Briefly put, the case of the appellants is as<\/p>\n
follows:  Appellants are the petitioners in C.P.No.44\/2010.<\/p>\n
They are the original promoters of the Ist respondent<\/p>\n
company. The Ist respondent company is incorporated under<\/p>\n
the Companies Act, 1956 and it is a public limited company. It<\/p>\n
is a listed public company and it is engaged in equity,<\/p>\n
commodity and insurance broking business. Appellants 1 to 3<\/p>\n
are the original promoters of the company. Respondent No.2<\/p>\n
is a financial investor.    The 2nd respondent had agreed to<\/p>\n
subscribe 1,03,82,174 equity shares of Rs.10\/- each at a<\/p>\n
premium of Rs.38\/- per share.              Annexure A-2 is the<\/p>\n
agreement between the appellants 1 to 3 and the 2nd<\/p>\n
 COA 67\/2010                    -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
respondent. Appellants filed Company Petition under Section<\/p>\n
397 and 398 of the companies Act. The appellants also filed<\/p>\n
application seeking interim injunction       (Annexure A-14)<\/p>\n
feeling aggrieved by the decision of the company to raise<\/p>\n
capital. Various other acts are allegedly the subject matter of<\/p>\n
the petition.   The Company Law Board initially granted<\/p>\n
injunction dated 6.7.2010. The Company Law Board directed<\/p>\n
that the respondents shall not proceed with the rights issue<\/p>\n
without the leave of the Bench.         Subsequently, by the<\/p>\n
impugned order the Company Law Board has vacated the said<\/p>\n
injunction and permitted the Ist respondent company to<\/p>\n
proceed with the rights issue.       The Ist respondent was<\/p>\n
permitted to proceed with the rights issue as resolved in the<\/p>\n
Board meeting on 25.5.2010.       It is also observed that the<\/p>\n
above order is subject to the final outcome of the C.P.<\/p>\n
Respondents were directed to file counter within four weeks.<\/p>\n
           3. The case of the appellants is essentially based<\/p>\n
on Article 157 (A) of the Articles of Association of the<\/p>\n
company.\n<\/p>\n
           Article 157A inter alia reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
COA 67\/2010                     -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
    “157A<\/p>\n
     e. Decisions of the Company and its present and<\/p>\n
     future subsidiaries, regarding the following subject<\/p>\n
     matters shall require the affirmative vote of Regi<\/p>\n
     Jacob   or  the   nominee   of  Regi  Jacob    in  an<\/p>\n
     appropriately convened Board meeting.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     (e) Further issue of shares or other securities of the<\/p>\n
     Company\/group companies to Baring or its affiliates;<\/p>\n
            4. We heard Sri.Karthik Seshadhri on behalf of the<\/p>\n
appellants, Sri.Pathrose Mathai, learned senior counsel for<\/p>\n
respondents 1, 6, 8 and 9. We have also heard Sri.Rohit<\/p>\n
Choudhry also who appeared with Sri. Pathrose Mathai for<\/p>\n
respondent No. 9.\n<\/p>\n
            5. Sri.Karthik Seshadhri, learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellants submits that the 2nd appellant who is referred in<\/p>\n
the Articles of Association has a legal right to insist that<\/p>\n
further issue of capital can be done only if he agrees to the<\/p>\n
proposal. There should be an affirmative vote on the part of<\/p>\n
the 2nd appellant.     According to him, there is no such<\/p>\n
COA 67\/2010                       -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
affirmative vote, and, therefore, the decision of the company<\/p>\n
approving the        rights issue is     in contravention of the<\/p>\n
provisions of the Articles of Association. He would point out<\/p>\n
that the stand of the Ist respondent as is disclosed in the<\/p>\n
counter affidavit is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     “5. Without prejudice to the foregoing, I say and state<\/p>\n
    that matter relating to issue of shares on rights basis does<\/p>\n
    not fall within the ambit of provisions of sub-clause e (e)<\/p>\n
    of Article 157A of the Articles of Association.        It is<\/p>\n
    submitted that the said provisions only come into play in<\/p>\n
    the event in any further issue of shares, which is likely to<\/p>\n
    alter the shareholding of the promoter\/petitioners, the<\/p>\n
    petitioner shall have an affirmative vote on such matter.<\/p>\n
    In the instant case, shares are sought to be issued on<\/p>\n
    rights basis, which does not alter the shareholding pattern<\/p>\n
    in the respondent company and as such there is no<\/p>\n
    requirement      of   any    affirmative   vote    of    the<\/p>\n
    petitioners\/promoter group.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             6. However, he would point out that the Company<\/p>\n
Law Board,      by the impugned order has proceeded on the<\/p>\n
basis that the Article itself is void being ultra vires Section 81<\/p>\n
of the Companies Act.        He would point out that even the<\/p>\n
respondents did not have such a case before the Company<\/p>\n
Law Board. He would further submit that the Company Law<\/p>\n
 COA 67\/2010                    -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
Board has also found that no case of oppression is made out<\/p>\n
by the appellants and that the oppression which is sought to<\/p>\n
be built up by the appellants revolves around only the rights<\/p>\n
issue when on the contrary the appellants have other<\/p>\n
allegations in support of their case under Sec.397 and 398 of<\/p>\n
the Companies Act.      He would submit that under Sec.81 of<\/p>\n
the Companies Act, the Board must decide to increase<\/p>\n
subscribed capital.    This result inevitably follows from the<\/p>\n
words used in Sec.81 namely that ‘where it is proposed’.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
According to him, ‘where it is proposed’ means where it is<\/p>\n
decided by the Board. Therefore, according to him, when it is<\/p>\n
in dispute that he did raise his objection to the raising of<\/p>\n
further capital the fact that he was outvoted would not make<\/p>\n
any difference. At a stage when the Board decides to take a<\/p>\n
decision as to whether there must be an increase in<\/p>\n
subscribed capital in the light of Article 157A he poses the<\/p>\n
question as to how the Company Law Board could come to the<\/p>\n
conclusion that the said Article is repugnant to provision of<\/p>\n
Section 81. According to him, once it is decided by Board<\/p>\n
lawfully to increase the capital necessarily, unless the<\/p>\n
 COA 67\/2010                     -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
company decides in the general body by special resolution<\/p>\n
under Sub-sec (1A) of Sec.81 inexorably there must be a<\/p>\n
rights issue under sub-sec (1) (a) of Sec.81.      According to<\/p>\n
him,    preceding the stage where the question of right issue<\/p>\n
arises or a question of preferential right under sub-sec.(1A)<\/p>\n
arises the Board must take a decision to increase the capital<\/p>\n
and it is at that stage that Article 157A operates enabling the<\/p>\n
2nd appellant to lawfully object to the proposal to increase the<\/p>\n
capital.  There is no repugnancy in the Article       if it is so<\/p>\n
interpreted, he contends. Of course, he further contends that<\/p>\n
appellants were the original promoters. They wanted further<\/p>\n
infusion of capital. It is accordingly that the agreement with<\/p>\n
the 2nd respondent was entered into.         They wanted the<\/p>\n
company to grow. It is pointed out that proposed issue is<\/p>\n
attempted for a collateral purpose.     He would contend that<\/p>\n
even though it is termed as rights issue actually the result will<\/p>\n
be that there will be      several shareholders who may not<\/p>\n
subscribe to the rights issue and in respect of such shares the<\/p>\n
Board can allot shares at their discretion and he would submit<\/p>\n
that though it is stated to be a rights issue at the end of it all<\/p>\n
 COA 67\/2010                     -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
shareholding pattern will be completely changed and it will be<\/p>\n
heavily loaded in favour of the contesting respondents.<\/p>\n
            7. Per contra, Sri.Pathrose Mathai would point out<\/p>\n
that there is no merit at all in the appeal. He would point out<\/p>\n
that what is involved is a plain case of rights issue. He would<\/p>\n
submit that there can be no case at all for the appellants to<\/p>\n
complain about as the shares will be distributed among the<\/p>\n
existing shareholders as mandated in section 81 (1) (a).<\/p>\n
There is no preferential allotment at all to Barings and in this<\/p>\n
regard he draws     our attention to Article 157A (e) and he<\/p>\n
would submit that the Article is directed to prevent any issue<\/p>\n
to M\/s.Barings or its associates. (It is not in dispute that<\/p>\n
Barings is the company controlled by the 2nd respondent). He<\/p>\n
would submit that there is no preferential allotment in this<\/p>\n
case.   He would submit that the question of        allotment of<\/p>\n
shares other than to the existing shareholders does not arise<\/p>\n
in this case and that is a matter which may be controlled by<\/p>\n
Sec.81 (1A) and there is no such proposal by the company at<\/p>\n
all. He would also submit that the appellant was outvoted in<\/p>\n
the meeting and the Board has decided to raise capital in the<\/p>\n
 COA 67\/2010                     -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
interest of the company.      Sri.Rohit   Choudhry also would<\/p>\n
submit that there can be no complaint about the manner in<\/p>\n
which the company has taken a decision on the rights issue.<\/p>\n
He would submit that Article 157A will not apply in the facts<\/p>\n
of this case.     Both Sri.Pathrose Mathai and         Sri.Rohit<\/p>\n
Choudhry would point out that apart from the allegation of<\/p>\n
rights issue there is no other allegation under Section 397 and<\/p>\n
398. Sri.Pathose Mathai would emphasise that under Section<\/p>\n
397 and 398 it is not open to the applicant to rely on an<\/p>\n
allegation of isolated nature to make good his case under<\/p>\n
Section 397 and 398.\n<\/p>\n
            8. We notice that the Company Law Board has<\/p>\n
proceeded to refer to few decisions and came to the<\/p>\n
conclusion that Article 157A is repugnant to Section 81 of the<\/p>\n
Companies Act and therefore void. In the light of the same, it<\/p>\n
is  tentatively held that Article 157A is void as far as the<\/p>\n
Company Petition is concerned. It is also found that except<\/p>\n
the rights issue no prima facie case is made out regarding<\/p>\n
oppression on other grounds pleaded in the petition.        The<\/p>\n
shares have been issued to all shareholders on pro-rata basis.<\/p>\n
 COA 67\/2010                     -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
This is an interlocutory order. Any finding which is arrived in<\/p>\n
the course of interlocutory order can only be tentative and<\/p>\n
prima facie.   We say this to allay the apprehension in the<\/p>\n
minds of the appellants that when the Company Law Board<\/p>\n
takes up the matter for final disposal the Company Law Board<\/p>\n
should not feel bound to follow the reasoning adopted in the<\/p>\n
interlocutory order. We are of the view that we need not<\/p>\n
interfere with the order vacating the injunction.      We must<\/p>\n
notice in this regard that Article 157A (e) which we have<\/p>\n
extracted actually prohibit rights issue in favour of Barings or<\/p>\n
its associates. There is no dispute that what is proposed is<\/p>\n
rights issue under Sec.81(1) (a). We would think that in the<\/p>\n
facts of this case the appellants have not made out a case for<\/p>\n
interference with the exercise of discretion by the Company<\/p>\n
Law Board in vacating the interlocutory order. But, we also<\/p>\n
feel that this is a case which calls for a direction to the<\/p>\n
Company Law Board to dispose of C.P.No.44\/2010 on its files<\/p>\n
finally on merits within a time limit. Therefore, in the interest<\/p>\n
of justice, we direct the Company Law Board to take up<\/p>\n
C.P.No.44\/2010 and dispose of it finally on merits        within<\/p>\n
COA 67\/2010                  -10-<\/span><\/p>\n
three months from the date of production of a copy of this<\/p>\n
judgment untrammelled by anything contained in   its own<\/p>\n
order as also this judgment.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                    (K.M.JOSEPH)
\n                                        JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
                                  (M.C.HARI RANI)
\n                                        JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
MS<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Jiji Antony vs Jrg Securities Limited on 1 December, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Co.Appeal.No. 67 of 2010() 1. JIJI ANTONY, MADHAVATHU HOUSE, … Petitioner 2. REGI JACOB, 5C, MANGALAM TOWERS, 3. GIBY MATHEW, 5B, 4. JERRY MATHEW, 7A, TOC H RETREAT, 5. MATHEW JACOB, TALAVYALIL HOUSE, 6. […]<\/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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-242137","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJiji Antony vs Jrg Securities Limited on 1 December, 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\/jiji-antony-vs-jrg-securities-limited-on-1-december-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jiji Antony vs Jrg Securities Limited on 1 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jiji-antony-vs-jrg-securities-limited-on-1-december-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=\"2010-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-06T21:59:48+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\\\/jiji-antony-vs-jrg-securities-limited-on-1-december-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jiji-antony-vs-jrg-securities-limited-on-1-december-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jiji Antony vs Jrg Securities Limited on 1 December, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-06T21:59:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jiji-antony-vs-jrg-securities-limited-on-1-december-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1822,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jiji-antony-vs-jrg-securities-limited-on-1-december-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jiji-antony-vs-jrg-securities-limited-on-1-december-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jiji-antony-vs-jrg-securities-limited-on-1-december-2010\",\"name\":\"Jiji Antony vs Jrg Securities Limited on 1 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-06T21:59:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jiji-antony-vs-jrg-securities-limited-on-1-december-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jiji-antony-vs-jrg-securities-limited-on-1-december-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jiji-antony-vs-jrg-securities-limited-on-1-december-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jiji Antony vs Jrg Securities Limited on 1 December, 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":"Jiji Antony vs Jrg Securities Limited on 1 December, 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\/jiji-antony-vs-jrg-securities-limited-on-1-december-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jiji Antony vs Jrg Securities Limited on 1 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jiji-antony-vs-jrg-securities-limited-on-1-december-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-06T21:59:48+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\/jiji-antony-vs-jrg-securities-limited-on-1-december-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jiji-antony-vs-jrg-securities-limited-on-1-december-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jiji Antony vs Jrg Securities Limited on 1 December, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-06T21:59:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jiji-antony-vs-jrg-securities-limited-on-1-december-2010"},"wordCount":1822,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jiji-antony-vs-jrg-securities-limited-on-1-december-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jiji-antony-vs-jrg-securities-limited-on-1-december-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jiji-antony-vs-jrg-securities-limited-on-1-december-2010","name":"Jiji Antony vs Jrg Securities Limited on 1 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-06T21:59:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jiji-antony-vs-jrg-securities-limited-on-1-december-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jiji-antony-vs-jrg-securities-limited-on-1-december-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jiji-antony-vs-jrg-securities-limited-on-1-december-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jiji Antony vs Jrg Securities Limited on 1 December, 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\/242137","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=242137"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/242137\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=242137"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=242137"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=242137"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}