{"id":272138,"date":"2011-07-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-07-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nihilent-technologies-private-vs-unknown-on-18-july-2011"},"modified":"2016-08-05T21:58:10","modified_gmt":"2016-08-05T16:28:10","slug":"nihilent-technologies-private-vs-unknown-on-18-july-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nihilent-technologies-private-vs-unknown-on-18-july-2011","title":{"rendered":"Nihilent Technologies Private … vs Unknown on 18 July, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Nihilent Technologies Private … vs Unknown on 18 July, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: J.P. Devadhar, A.A. Sayed<\/div>\n
                                                1                          wp10104-10\n\nagk                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                                                                               \n                                                       \n                            WRIT PETITION NO.10104 OF 2010\n\n\n       Nihilent Technologies Private Limited\n\n\n\n\n                                                      \n       having registered office at D Block,\n       4th Floor, Weikfield IT City Infopark,\n       Nagar Road, Pune - 411 014                                        ..Petitioner.\n\n\n\n\n                                               \n             Versus\n       1)\n                                \n             The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, \n             Circle - 2, PMT Building, B Wing,\n                               \n             1st Floor, Shankarsheth Road,\n             Swargate, Pune 411 037.\n       2)    The Commissioner of Income Tax - II,\n           \n\n\n             PMT Building, B Wing, 1st Floor,\n        \n\n\n\n             Shankarsheth Road, Swargate,\n             Pune 411 037.\n       3)    Union of India,\n     \n\n\n\n\n             through the Secretary,\n             Ministry of Finance, North Block,\n             New Delhi - 110 001                                         ..Respondents.\n\n\n\n\n\n       Mr.S.E. Dastur, Senior Advocate with Mr.Niraj Seth i\/by Mint & Confreres for \n       the petitioner.\n       Mr.Vimal Gupta for the respondents.\n\n\n\n                                                        CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &\n                                                                  A.A. Sayed, JJ.   \n<\/pre>\n
                                                        DATE     : 18th July, 2011.\n\n\n                                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:30:59 :::<\/span>\n                                                   2                                wp10104-10\n\n    ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per J.P. Devadhar, J.)\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                       \n<\/pre>\n
    1.            Rule.  Rule is made returnable forthwith.  By consent of parties, <\/p>\n
    the petition is taken up for final hearing.\n<\/p>\n
    2.            This  petition  is  filed to challenge  the  notice  dated 29th  March <\/p>\n
    2010   issued   under   Section   148<\/a>   of   the   Income   Tax   Act,   1961   seeking   to <\/p>\n
    reopen   the   assessment   for   assessment   year   2003-2004.     The   petitioner   –\n<\/p>\n
    assessee has also challenged the order dated 16th  December, 2010 whereby <\/p>\n
    the objections raised by the assessee for reopening of the assessment have <\/p>\n
    been rejected.\n<\/p>\n
    3.            The   assessee   is   a   private   limited   company   engaged   in   the <\/p>\n
    business of development of software.   The shares of the assessee company <\/p>\n
    were held in the initial three years, as follows. <\/p>\n
\n\n         Share-holders of the petitioner-         31-03-2001 31-03-2002 31-03-2003\n\n\n\n\n\n                   company \n    Hatch Investments (Mauritius) Ltd.,               99.85%         76.63%            76.25%\n    Other share-holders                               0.15%          23.37%            23.75%\n                                        TOTAL         100%            100%               100%\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
                  The   share-holding   of   Hatch   Investments   (Mauritius)   Limited <\/p>\n
    (‘Hatch   Investments’   for   short)   at   99.85%   on   as   on   31st  March   2001   was <\/p>\n
    reduced to 76.63% as on 31st March 2002 on account of additional shares <\/p>\n
    issued   by   the   assessee   company   to   the   remaining   shareholders,   thereby <\/p>\n
    increasing the shareholding of other shareholders from 0.15% to 23.37%.  It <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:30:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    3                               wp10104-10<\/p>\n
    may be  noted that 0.15%  shares as  on  31st  March 2001 were held by 11 <\/p>\n
    shareholders.   Neither, Hatch Investments nor other shareholders have sold <\/p>\n
    their   shares   to   any   third   parties,   save   and   except   that   one   shareholder, <\/p>\n
    namely, Nimisha Singh had transferred her 100 shares in favour of another <\/p>\n
    shareholder viz. L.C. Singh.   Thus, as on 31st March 2002 the number of <\/p>\n
    other   shareholders   of   the   assessee   company   was   reduced   from   11   to   10 <\/p>\n
    shareholders.   Even   in   the   year   ending   on   31st  March   2003,   none   of   the <\/p>\n
    shareholders of the assessee Company had sold or transferred their shares in <\/p>\n
    the assessee Company.\n<\/p>\n
    4.             The   assessment   for   assessment   year   2003-04   was   completed <\/p>\n
    under Section 143(3)<\/a> of the Act on 31st  March 2006, wherein the carried <\/p>\n
    forward   loss   incurred   by   the   assessee   in   assessment   year   2001-02   was <\/p>\n
    allowed to be set off.\n<\/p>\n
    5.             By the impugned notice dated 29th  March 2010 assessment for <\/p>\n
    assessment year 2003-2004 is sought to be reopened by recording following <\/p>\n
    reasons :\n<\/p>\n
                  “In accordance with the provisions contained in section 79<\/a>
\n           of the I.T. Act, where a change in share holding has taken place
\n           in a previous year in the case of a company not being a company
\n           in which the Public are substantially interested, no loss incurred
\n           in any previous year shall be carried forward and set off against
\n           the income of the previous year unless on the last day of the
\n           previous year which the shares of the company carry in not less
\n           than fifty one percent of the voting power were beneficially held
\n           by   persons,   who   beneficially   held   shares   of   the   company
\n           carrying not less than 51% of the voting power on the last day of
\n           the year in which loss was incurred.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:30:59 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                 4                                wp10104-10<\/p>\n
                  M\/s.Nihilent  Technologies   P. Ltd.   promoted  by  Shri  L.C.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          Singh in May 2000 and as per share holders agreement out of
\n          the   authorized   capital   of   Rs.20,00,00,000\/-,  the   company  has <\/p>\n
          issued 15.1% shares  to the  promoters  and stock management
\n          team   as   a   sweat   equity   shares   and   10%   to   EXOP   trust   for
\n          employees on approved stock plan.   The balance 74.9% shares
\n          were   brought   by   Nedcore   group   through   Nedcore   bank   Ltd.
\n          South Africa through Hatch Investment (Mauritius) as and by <\/p>\n
          31-03-2002 the same was increased to 76.25%.  During the year
\n          2002-03,   Nedbank   Ltd.   has   diverted   its   share   in   Hatch
\n          Investment (Mauritius) by selling off 50% of the above holding
\n          in the assessee company i.e. 38.125% to Dimension Data, PLC, <\/p>\n
          UK.  In other words, the effective share holding of Ned Bank Ltd
\n          in the assessee company which stood at 76.25% in the beginning <\/p>\n
          was   gone   below   51%   to   38.125%.     As   such   the   assessee
\n          company has barred from setting of the previous year losses and
\n          carry forward of the same.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 In the assessment for the year 2003-04 completed under
\n          Section   143(3)<\/a>   the   department   has   allowed   set   off   of   losses
\n          pertaining   to   A.Y.   2001-02   amounting   to   Rs.5,25,42,452\/-   to <\/p>\n
          arrive at NIL income and also allowed benefit of carry forward
\n          of Rs.4,25,18,048\/- for the unabsorbed portion.   Therefore, in <\/p>\n
          order to protect the interest of Revenue, the assessment of the
\n          case for the A.Y. 2003-04 is reopened by issuing notice u\/s.148.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    6.           From the aforesaid reasons, it is seen that the only ground for <\/p>\n
    reopening of the assessment is that in the assessment year in question, there <\/p>\n
    is a change in the shareholding of the assessee Company of not less than 51% <\/p>\n
    from the shareholding in the assessment year (AY 2001-02) in which the loss <\/p>\n
    was incurred and, therefore, the loss incurred in the assessment year 2001-02 <\/p>\n
    cannot be allowed to be set off in the assessment year in question.\n<\/p>\n
    7.           The argument of the Revenue is that the assessee had failed to <\/p>\n
    disclose that the shareholding of Hatch Investments in the assessment year <\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:30:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    5                                wp10104-10<\/p>\n
    2001-02 was 99.85% and the same was reduced to 38.125% in assessment <\/p>\n
    year 2003-04, because Hatch Investments, being a wholly owned subsidiary <\/p>\n
    of   Nedcor   Bank   Limited,   South   Africa,   the   Nedcor   Bank   Limited   during <\/p>\n
    assessment year 2003-04 had transferred 50% shares in Hatch Investments to <\/p>\n
    Dimension   Data   PLC,   UK   (‘Dimension’   for   short)   thus   the   effective <\/p>\n
    shareholding of Nedcor Bank Limited in the assessee Company stood reduced <\/p>\n
    to 38.125% and, hence, Section 79<\/a> of the Act was attracted.\n<\/p>\n
    8.<\/p>\n
                   The argument on behalf of the assessee is that all the relevant <\/p>\n
    facts   were   disclosed   in   the   assessment   proceedings   for   assessment   year <\/p>\n
    2003-04 and, therefore, it cannot be said that there was any failure on the <\/p>\n
    part   of   the   assessee   to   disclose   fully   and   truly   all   material   facts   and <\/p>\n
    consequently, reopening of the assessment beyond four years from the end of <\/p>\n
    the relevant assessment year is invalid.  It is also contended that in the facts <\/p>\n
    of the present case, Section 79<\/a> of the Act is not attracted.\n<\/p>\n
    9.             From the notes to the financial statements annexed to the return <\/p>\n
    of income for assessment year 2003-2004, it is seen that the assessee had <\/p>\n
    disclosed as follows :\n<\/p>\n
                  “1.1 Nihilent Technologies Private Limited (‘NTPL’ or the
\n           Company) is a company incorporated under the Companies Act<\/a>,
\n           1956 (‘The Act<\/a>‘) in India, Hatch Investments (Mauritius) limited
\n           owns 76.25% equity in the Company.  Further, Nedbank Limited
\n           (Nedbank’)   and   Dimension   Data   (‘Di-Data’)   each   own   50%
\n           equity   stake   in   Hatch   Investments   (Mauritius)   limited.     The
\n           balance   shares   of   NTPL   are   held   by   the   employees   and
\n           significant members of the Company.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:30:59 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                  6                                wp10104-10<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
    10.           Moreover,   during   the   course   of   assessment   proceedings   for <\/p>\n
    assessment   year   2003-04,   the   Assessing   Officer   by   his   letter   dated   27th <\/p>\n
    September   2005  specifically  called  upon   the   assessee   to  furnish  the   share <\/p>\n
    holding pattern as on 31st March 2003.  The assessee in its reply letter dated <\/p>\n
    17th November 2005 stated thus :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   “Nihilent   Technologies   Private   Limited   (Company)   is
\n           incorporated in India, and is in the area of Software services and
\n           its   export.     The   Company   was   promoted   by   Mr.   L.C.   Singh <\/p>\n
           towards   the   end   of   May   2000   along   with   a   group   of
\n           professionals and support of the Nedcor Group of South Africa.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           We would like to bring your kind attention that during the year
\n           2002-03,   Nedbank   Limited   has   divested   its   stake   in   Hatch
\n           Investments   (Mauritius)   Limited   by   selling   of   50%   shares   of <\/p>\n
           Dimension   Data,   PLC,   UK.     In   a   view   of   above,   effective
\n           shareholding   of   Nedbank   in   Nihilent   Technologies   Private
\n           Limited (NTPL) has been reduced from 76.25% to 38.125% as
\n           on 31st March 2003.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    11.           Thus,   it   is   evident   that   during   the   course   of   assessment <\/p>\n
    proceedings  for  assessment year  2003-04  all  material   facts  relating  to the <\/p>\n
    transfer   of   shares   of   Hatch   Investments   by   Nedcor   Bank   Limited   to <\/p>\n
    Dimension, as well as the fact that the effective shareholding of Nedcor Bank <\/p>\n
    Limited in the assessee Company has been reduced from 76.25% to 38.125% <\/p>\n
    as on 31st March 2003 was disclosed to the assessing officer.  Thus, the fact <\/p>\n
    that   the   effective   shareholding   of   Nedcor   Bank   Limited   in   the   assessee <\/p>\n
    company has gone down below 51% was specifically brought to the notice of <\/p>\n
    the assessing officer by the assessee.  In these circumstances, it cannot be said <\/p>\n
    that there was any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and <\/p>\n
    truly all material facts necessary for the assessment.  If there is no failure to <\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:30:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                                       7                                 wp10104-10<\/p>\n
    disclose   fully   and   truly   all   material   facts   necessary   for   the   purpose   of <\/p>\n
    assessment, then, as per the proviso to Section 147<\/a> of the Act reopening of <\/p>\n
    the assessment beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment <\/p>\n
    year cannot be sustained.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    12.             In the present case, the assessment for assessment year 203-04 is <\/p>\n
    sought   to   be   reopened   beyond   four   years   from   the   end   of   the   relevant <\/p>\n
    assessment   year.     Since   there   is   no   failure   on   the   part   of   the   assessee   to <\/p>\n
    disclose fully and truly all material facts, the reopening of the assessment <\/p>\n
    beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year cannot be <\/p>\n
    sustained.\n<\/p>\n
    13.             In   the   result,   the   notice   dated   29th  March   2010   issued   under <\/p>\n
    Section 148<\/a> of the Act, as also the order dated 16th December 2010 rejecting <\/p>\n
    the   objections   raised   by   the   assessee   for   reopening   of   the   assessment   are <\/p>\n
    quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n
    14.             Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to <\/p>\n
    costs.\n<\/p>\n
                            (A.A. Sayed, J.)                                 (J.P. Devadhar, J.)\n\n\n\n\n                                                                    ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:30:59 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Nihilent Technologies Private … vs Unknown on 18 July, 2011 Bench: J.P. Devadhar, A.A. Sayed 1 wp10104-10 agk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10104 OF 2010 Nihilent Technologies Private Limited having registered office at D Block, 4th Floor, Weikfield IT City Infopark, Nagar Road, […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-272138","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nNihilent Technologies Private ... vs Unknown on 18 July, 2011 - 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\/nihilent-technologies-private-vs-unknown-on-18-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Nihilent Technologies Private ... vs Unknown on 18 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nihilent-technologies-private-vs-unknown-on-18-july-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-07-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-05T16:28:10+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\\\/nihilent-technologies-private-vs-unknown-on-18-july-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nihilent-technologies-private-vs-unknown-on-18-july-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Nihilent Technologies Private … vs Unknown on 18 July, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-05T16:28:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nihilent-technologies-private-vs-unknown-on-18-july-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1493,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nihilent-technologies-private-vs-unknown-on-18-july-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nihilent-technologies-private-vs-unknown-on-18-july-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nihilent-technologies-private-vs-unknown-on-18-july-2011\",\"name\":\"Nihilent Technologies Private ... vs Unknown on 18 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-05T16:28:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nihilent-technologies-private-vs-unknown-on-18-july-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nihilent-technologies-private-vs-unknown-on-18-july-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nihilent-technologies-private-vs-unknown-on-18-july-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Nihilent Technologies Private … vs Unknown on 18 July, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Nihilent Technologies Private ... vs Unknown on 18 July, 2011 - 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\/nihilent-technologies-private-vs-unknown-on-18-july-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Nihilent Technologies Private ... vs Unknown on 18 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nihilent-technologies-private-vs-unknown-on-18-july-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-07-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-05T16:28:10+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\/nihilent-technologies-private-vs-unknown-on-18-july-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nihilent-technologies-private-vs-unknown-on-18-july-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Nihilent Technologies Private … vs Unknown on 18 July, 2011","datePublished":"2011-07-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-05T16:28:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nihilent-technologies-private-vs-unknown-on-18-july-2011"},"wordCount":1493,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nihilent-technologies-private-vs-unknown-on-18-july-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nihilent-technologies-private-vs-unknown-on-18-july-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nihilent-technologies-private-vs-unknown-on-18-july-2011","name":"Nihilent Technologies Private ... vs Unknown on 18 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-07-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-05T16:28:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nihilent-technologies-private-vs-unknown-on-18-july-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nihilent-technologies-private-vs-unknown-on-18-july-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nihilent-technologies-private-vs-unknown-on-18-july-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Nihilent Technologies Private … vs Unknown on 18 July, 2011"}]},{"@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\/272138","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=272138"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/272138\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=272138"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=272138"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=272138"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}