{"id":42427,"date":"2001-10-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-10-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mani-credit-capital-pvt-ltd-vs-reliance-industries-limited-on-31-october-2001"},"modified":"2019-01-25T02:34:43","modified_gmt":"2019-01-24T21:04:43","slug":"mani-credit-capital-pvt-ltd-vs-reliance-industries-limited-on-31-october-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mani-credit-capital-pvt-ltd-vs-reliance-industries-limited-on-31-october-2001","title":{"rendered":"Mani Credit Capital Pvt. Ltd., … vs Reliance Industries Limited, … on 31 October, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"
Company Law Board<\/div>\n
Mani Credit Capital Pvt. Ltd., … vs Reliance Industries Limited, … on 31 October, 2001<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 2002 111 CompCas 808 CLB<\/div>\n
Bench: A Banerji, C Das<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
  C.R. Das, Member   <\/p>\n
 1. By the present petition, the petitioners are seeking directions against
\nReliance Industries Limited (Respondent No. 1) to register the transfer of 12,500 shares
\n(described in the Schedule being Annexure “D” to the above petition) in favour of the
\nPetitioner No.1  <\/p>\n
 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
a) The petitioner No.2 to 6 advanced through the petition No.1 to CRB Capital
\nMarkets Limited (Respondent No.2) the amounts aggregating to Rs. 24,75,000\/-. All the
\nsaid amounts were advanced by duly crossed account payee cheques drawn in favour of
\nrespondent No.2, complete details whereof are set out in Annexure “A” to the petition.
\nThe said cheques were encashed and the proceeds thereof received by Respondent No.2
\nThe said amounts were to be repaid by Respondent No. 2 after a period of 3 months on the
\nrespective due dates as mentioned in Annexure ‘A’ to the petition.\n<\/p>\n
b) Towards repayment of the amount of Rs. 24,75,000\/- so advanced, Respondent
\nNo.2 handed over to petitioner Nos.2 to 5, post dated cheques made out in their favour,
\nin the amounts, advanced by petitioner Nos.2 to 6 respectively to Respondent No.2. The
\ninterest for the period of 3 months had been paid, by cheque, upfront, at the time of the
\nadvance of the loan itself. It was agreed that the said advance by the petitioner Nos. 2 to
\n6 to Respondent No.2 would be secured by the deposit, by Respondent No.2 of “A”
\nGroup shares in marketable lots together with duly executed Transfer Deeds.\n<\/p>\n
c) Respondent No.2, by their letter dated 10th March, 1997, addressed to Petitioner
\nNo.1 recorded the essential features of the said transaction and enclosed with the said
\nletter 13,000 shares of Reliance Industries Limited. The said shares stood in the name of
\nRespondent No.3 (CRB Trustees Limited A\/c CRB Mutual Fund) which was a
\ngroup\/sister concern of Respondent No.2. The said shares were forwarded by
\nRespondent No. 2 to the petitioners as and by way of security for the amount advanced to
\nthe Respondent No.2. This security was subsequently reduced to 12,500 shares.\n<\/p>\n
d) In the aforesaid circumstances, Petitioner No. 1 came into lawful possession of the
\nsaid 12,500 shares together with the duly executed Transfer Deeds. As per the normal
\nmarket practice governing the transaction and as particular agreed to, the petitioner
\nNo.1 had the option of either keeping the said 12,500 shares with the Transfer Forms as
\nthey were, or alternately, lodging the same for transfer in their name, pending repayment
\nof the loan on the due date, when they would be re-transferred and returned, to the
\nRespondent No.2 or their nominee(s).\n<\/p>\n
e) Petitioner No.1 accordingly, on or about 2nd May, 1997 exercised the later option
\nto have the said shares transferred in its name, pending repayment. This was done to
\nsecure itself against a situation where Respondent No.3 might apply for and obtain
\nduplicate share certificates in which case the security in their hands, would be worthless
\nPetitioner No.1 therefore on 2nd May, 1997 lodged the said 12,500 shares alongwith Transfer Forms duly filled in and stamped with Karvy Consultants Ltd. (“Karvy”) the
\nRegistrars and Share Transfer Agents of Reliance Industries Limited. The said transfer
\nwas needless to say, subject to an obligation to retransfer the said shares, if the loan was
\nrepaid on the due date.\n<\/p>\n
f) Karvy, however, expressed its inability to process and give effect to the transfer
\nof the said shares in favour of the petitioners quoting the order dated 22nd May, 1997
\npassed by the Hon’ble Delhi High court in the Winding up petition filed by the Reserve
\nBank of India against the Respondent No.2 whereby the Official Liquidator, High Court,
\nDelhi had been appointed as Provisional Liquidator of the Respondent No.2.\n<\/p>\n
g) In the meantime, the Respondent No.1 committed default in repayment of the
\npetitioners’ dues which had become due for payment in June, 1997. The petitioner
\ntherefore, became entitled to enforce the security of the said shares.\n<\/p>\n
h) The petitioners therefore by their Advocates’ letter dated 6th February, 1998
\naddressed to the Official Liquidator, High Court, New Delhi and the Provisional
\nAdministrator of the Respondent No.3 (appointed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court)
\ncalled upon the Official Liquidator to pay to the petitioners the said aggregate sum of
\nRs. 24,75,000\/- together with interest thereon and also given an express notice to them
\nthat if the said amount was not paid to the petitioners, the petitioners would proceed to
\nenforce the security in their favour being the said shares. Clear notice was therefore
\ngiven by the petitioners under Sec.176 of the Indian Contract Act, 1882 of their intention
\nto sell the said shares and appropriate the net sale proceeds thereof towards the
\nsatisfaction of their dues and remit back the surplus amount if any.\n<\/p>\n
 i) The Official Liquidator, however, neither replied to the said letter nor paid to the
\npetitioners, the amounts due and owing by respondent No.2 to them and redeem and\/or
\nrelease the security of the said shares. The petitioners therefore became entitled to the
\nsaid shares absolutely and the pledge came to an end.\n<\/p>\n
j) In the circumstances, and in view of the fact that a Provisional Liquidator of the
\nRespondent No.2 had been appointed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the petitioners
\nmade an application being Company application No. 1374\/98 to the Hon’ble Delhi High
\nCourt (being the liquidation court) inter alia for direction against the company to register
\nthe transfer of the said 12,500 shares in the name of the petitioners. However, by an
\norder dated 2nd September, 1998 passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court on the said
\nCompany Application, the Hon’ble Court was pleased to observe that since the transfer of
\nshares was by a third party namely CRB Trustees Ltd (and not the Respondent No.2 of
\nwhich the Provisional Liquidator had been appointed by the Court), the Hon’ble Court
\nwas not a proper forum and that the petitioners should approach proper forum. The said
\nOrder thus gave the petitioners leave to agitate their entitlement to transfer before this
\nBoard since the same is the appropriate forum. The petitioners therefore have
\napproached this Board under Section 111A of the Companies Act, 1956 by filing the present
\npetition. In view of the disclaimer by the Company (Liquidation) Court, this Board alone
\nhas jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
k) After the petitioners filed the above petition, a scheme was proposed by the
\nProvisional Administrator of Respondent No.3, appointed pursuant to the order of the
\nHon’ble Bombay High Court, prescribing a Certification Procedure for transfer of shares
\nof various companies which were standing in the name of various CRB entities to the
\nname of bonafide purchasers for value of the said shares. The said Certification
\nScheme\/Procedure has been duly approved\/ratified by the Hon’ble Bombay High court
\nby its orders dated 22nd January, 1999 and 4th May, 1999.\n<\/p>\n
l) The said Certification Scheme\/Procedure specifically dealt with situations where
\nsecurities together with transfer forms signed by a CRB entity were lodge with any
\ncompany for transfer. It was provided in the said Scheme\/Procedure that securities
\nlodged prior to 21st May, 1997 did not require certification. The said Certification
\nScheme\/Procedure further specifically provided that where documents seeking transfer of
\nany security lodged for transfer with the Company prior to 21st May, 1997 were returned
\nunder objection by the company, the Provisional Administrator would be required to take
\nsteps to rectify the discrepancy within twenty-one days of receipt by the Provisional
\nAdministrator. The said scheme\/procedure also provided that any accretion by way of
\nbonus, dividend, interest or otherwise received by the Provisional Administrator in
\nrespect of the securities lodged with the company prior to 21st May, 1997 which had been
\n“cum” purchased by a bonafide purchaser before the cut-off date, shall if received by the
\nProvisional Administrator and upon a claim therefore by the investor, be passed by the
\nProvisional Administrator to the bonafide purchaser. In other words while transactions
\nrelating to transfer, lodged after 21st May, 1997 would be scrutinized, those lodged before
\n21st May, 1997 would be acted upon and recognised without any further inquiry or
\ncertification, provided they were otherwise in order.\n<\/p>\n
m) An Affidavit has been filed in the above petition by Respondent No.1
\nwhereby Respondent No.1 have, in essence, acknowledged and accepted the petitioners’
\nrights and their obligation to transfer the said 12,500 shares in favour of the petitioners
\nsubject to the compliance by the petitioners of certain formalities. It is, therefore, the
\npendency of the present proceedings which is preventing Respondent No.1 from
\ntransferring the said shares and delivering them to the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
n) An Affidavit in Reply has also been filed by the Provisional Administrator
\nof the Respondent No. 3 opposing the above petition essentially on the ground of
\nlimitation and on the ground that it was difficult for the Provisional Administrator to
\nverify whether consideration was received by the CRB Mutual Fund in respect of the said
\n12,500 shares. For want of knowledge, he has, therefore, denied that any consideration
\nhad been received by the Respondent No. 3 in respect of the said shares.\n<\/p>\n
o) In the hearing held before the Board on 22nd March, 2001, it was pointed
\nout that Respondent No. 3 could have no objection in the matter. Respondent No. 3 had
\nbeen appointed by the Bombay High Court, as a person designata, and was thus required
\nto act in accordance with the orders and directions of the court. The Bombay High Court,
\nhad itself sanctioned a scheme, in pursuance of which the actions of Respondent No. 3
\nwere to be guided by under the said scheme, no certification was needed in respect of
\nshares lodged prior to 21st May, 1997. The shares in question had admittedly been
\nlodged on 2nd May, 1997 and hence Respondent No. 3 had nothing to do in the matter.
\nRespondent No. 3, however, despite the fact that the petitioners had attached a copy of the
\nMemo of Acknowledgement dated 2nd May, 1997 issued by Karvy acknowledging receipt
\nby them of the said 12,500 shares from the petitioners for transfer, contended that it did
\nnot admit that the said 12,500 shares were lodged by the petitioners with Karvy on 2nd
\nMay, 1997, this Board was therefore pleased to direct the Respondent No. 1 to verify the
\nrecords and file an Affidavit stating the date on which the said shares were lodged by the
\npetitioners for transfer with Karvy. Accordingly, the Respondent No. 1 has filed an
\nAffidavit confirming that the said 12,500 shares were, in fact, lodged by the petitioners
\nfor transfer with Karvy on 2nd May, 2001.\n<\/p>\n
p) The Official Liquidator, High Court, Delhi appointed as Provisional
\nLiquidator of the Respondent No. 2 has, despite notice neither filed any Affidavit in reply
\nopposing the present petition nor appeared before the Board at the time of hearing of the
\nabove petition.\n<\/p>\n
3. It is contended by the Respondent No. 3 that the above petition is barred by
\nLimitation. It is submitted that the petition is well within limitation. Section 111A of the
\nCompanies Act, 1956 does not prescribe any special period of limitation (Refer: Finolex
\nIndustries Limited v. Mr. A.R. Chhabria reported in 2000(3) Bom C.R. 644). The
\npresent petition has been filed within the residuary period of limitation of 3 years
\nprescribed under the Limitation Act. The petitioners have, however, moved with utmost
\ndispatch. The refusal to transfer shares was intimated to them by the share transfer agents
\nof the company by their letter dated 20th June, 1997 and 24th October, 1997. The
\nPetitioners have thereafter, as required by law pursued the matter with the Official
\nLiquidator of Respondent No. 2 and the Custodian of Respondent No. 3. The petitioners
\nhave been able to file this petition only upon liberty from the Hon’ble Delhi High Court,
\nby its order dated 2nd September, 1998.\n<\/p>\n
b) The Certification Scheme\/Procedure drafted by the Provisional
\nAdministrator of Respondent No. 3 and duly ratified by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court,
\nin essence, provides that while transactions relating to transfer of shares standing in the
\nname of CRB entities lodged with the company for transfer by third parties after 21st
\nMay, 1997 would be scrutinized by the Certification Committee, those lodged before 21st
\nMay, 1997 would be acted upon and recognized without any further enquiry or
\ncertification. The date of 21st May, 1997 was, therefore, prescribed under the said
\nScheme\/Procedure as a cut-off date. The said Scheme\/Procedure specifically provided
\nthat where the documents seeking transfer of any security lodged for transfer with the
\ncompany prior to 21st May, 1997 were returned under objection by the company, the
\nProvisional Administrator would be required to take steps to rectify the discrepancies
\nwithin twenty-one days. The 12,500 shares of Respondent No. 1 company standing in the
\nname of Respondent No. 3 (whose transfer the petitioners are seeking by this petition)
\nhaving been lodged with Respondent No. 1 company for transfer together with the duly
\nstamped and executed Transfer Deeds on 2nd May, 1997 i.e. much prior to the cut off date
\nof 21st May, 1997 appointed by the Provisional Administrator for requiring certification,
\nis deemed to be bona fide and conclusive proof of the petitioners’ entitlement and is not
\nliable to be reopened or challenged as is now sought to be done by the Provisional
\nAdministrator. The Respondent No. 1 have affirmed on oath before this Hon’ble Board
\nthat the said shares were lodged by the petitioners with the Respondent No. 1 for transfer
\non 2nd May, 1997, i.e much before the cut off date of 21st May, 1997 prescribed under the
\nsaid Certification Procedure\/Scheme. The obvious underlying intent of the scheme was
\nto presume that transactions before the cut-off date were genuine.\n<\/p>\n
c) Without prejudice to the aforesaid, it is submitted that even otherwise, the
\npetitioners, can establish their ownership, independently of any deeming fiction. The
\ntransfer of shares in favour of the petitioners and their right to have their names entered in
\nthe register of members was complete as soon as the said shares and the instrument of
\ntransfer duly stamped and executed were handed over to the Petitioner No. 1. The transfer
\nof shares in favour of the petitioners was therefore complete as far back as on 10th
\nMarch, 1997 itself. The said shares, therefore, ceased to be the property of the
\nRespondents No. 2\/3 and belonged to the petitioners, subject of course, to the right of the
\nRespondent No. 2 to repay the petitioners’ dues on the date due and redeem the security
\nof the said shares which the Respondents No. 2 failed and neglected to do. In fact, in that
\nbehalf, as aforesaid as per the prevailing market practice, on 2nd May, 1997 itself, during
\nthe subsistence of the pledge, the petitioners has lodged the said shares together with the
\nduly stamped and executed transfer deeds with Karvy for perfecting this transfer to their
\nname pending repayment of their dues. The petitioners respectfully submit that passing
\nof the order dated 22nd May, 1997 by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court appointing Official
\nLiquidator attached to the Court as the Provisional Liquidator of the Respondent No. 2
\nwith the direction to take charge of the assets and properties of the Respondent No. 2 and
\nrestraining the Respondent No. 2., its director, servants and agents from disposing of,
\nalienating and\/or parting possession of any of the assets of the Company, does not
\naffect the petitioners’ right to have the shares registered to their name in the register of
\nmembers of the Company which is merely a formal, administrative or clerical act, the
\nshares having been transferred by the Respondents No. 2 in favour of the petitioners as far
\nback as on 10th March, 1997. (Refer in Re: Gammon India Limited reported in (1990) 3
\nComp. L.J. 89). The rejection by the Company of the petitioners’ application for
\nregistration of transfer on this account is therefore unjustified. Consequently, the said
\norder and directives issued by the Reserve Bank of India are not applicable to the present
\ncase and in no way transgressed.\n<\/p>\n
d) The said shares were lodged by the Respondent No. 2 with the petitioners
\nin their ordinary course of business in good faith and for valuable consideration. The
\npetitioners submit that the petitioners and particularly the petitioners No. 2, 4, 5 and 6 are
\nmiddle class people and had invested their hard earned monies and life savings in the
\nRespondent No. 2 of which they have been deprived in the circumstances aforesaid.
\nExcept for the refusal on the part of the Company in registering the transfer of the said
\nshares in favour of the petitioner No. 1 in the peculiar circumstances stated above, the
\npetitioners would have been able to sell the shares forwarded to them by the Respondent
\nNo. 2 as security and realize their dues.\n<\/p>\n
4. In this connection, it may be stated that Section 111A(2) provides that the shares of a
\npublic limited company shall be freely transferable. Refusal for transfer of shares can be
\ndone only on the grounds as specified in Sub-section (3) of Section 111A of the Companies
\nAct, 1956. However, if the company without sufficient cause refuse to register transfer of
\nshares, the transferee may appeal to the Company Law Board for registration of transfer
\nof shares.\n<\/p>\n
5. Although the Official Liquidator, High Court, Delhi is a party respondent through
\nCRB Capital Markets Limited (in liquidation), neither he has made his appearance nor
\nfiled any reply although a copy of the petition has been served upon him and also directed
\nto file affidavit on the petition.\n<\/p>\n
6. We have considered the various submissions made by the Counsels. From the
\nfats stated above, it is clear that the impugned shares lodged prior to 21.5.1997 do not
\nrequire any certification and the Respondent No. 1 Company should have transferred and
\nsent it to the petitioners. However, Respondent No. 1 Company has not done so, as a
\nmatter of abundant caution in view of the Court Order issued by the Hon’ble Court
\nDelhi. The Bombay Stock Exchange Notice No. 1698\/99 dated 21st May, 1999 was issued
\nto their members pursuant to the Hon’ble High Court, Mumbai’s order dated 22nd
\nJanuary, 1999 and amendment to that order vide order dated 4.5.1999. The notice dated
\n21.5.1999 of the Bombay Stock Exchange and the order of the Bombay High Court
\ndated 4.5.1999 are clear that the impugned shares were lodged with the Registrar of the
\nRespondent Company before 21.5.1997 and thus should have been acted upon and
\nrecognized for transfer without any further inquiry or certification provided they were
\notherwise order.\n<\/p>\n
7. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and
\nalso the facts that the plea of the defendants is not tenable, we are convinced that the
\nRespondent No. 1 – Reliance Industries Limited should register the transfer of impugned
\n12,500 shares in favour of the petitioner and pay all such benefits accrued on those shares
\nincluding bonus shares of the Respondent No. 1. We, accordingly, hereby direct the
\nRespondent No. 1 company to transfer the said 12,500 shares in favour of the Petitioner
\nNo. 1 within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The petition is disposed of
\naccordingly with no order as to cost.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Company Law Board Mani Credit Capital Pvt. Ltd., … vs Reliance Industries Limited, … on 31 October, 2001 Equivalent citations: 2002 111 CompCas 808 CLB Bench: A Banerji, C Das ORDER C.R. Das, Member 1. By the present petition, the petitioners are seeking directions against Reliance Industries Limited (Respondent No. 1) to register the transfer […]<\/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-42427","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nMani Credit Capital Pvt. Ltd., ... vs Reliance Industries Limited, ... on 31 October, 2001 - 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\/mani-credit-capital-pvt-ltd-vs-reliance-industries-limited-on-31-october-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mani Credit Capital Pvt. Ltd., ... vs Reliance Industries Limited, ... on 31 October, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mani-credit-capital-pvt-ltd-vs-reliance-industries-limited-on-31-october-2001\" \/>\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=\"2001-10-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-24T21:04:43+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mani-credit-capital-pvt-ltd-vs-reliance-industries-limited-on-31-october-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mani-credit-capital-pvt-ltd-vs-reliance-industries-limited-on-31-october-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mani Credit Capital Pvt. Ltd., … vs Reliance Industries Limited, … on 31 October, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-10-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-24T21:04:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mani-credit-capital-pvt-ltd-vs-reliance-industries-limited-on-31-october-2001\"},\"wordCount\":3146,\"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\\\/mani-credit-capital-pvt-ltd-vs-reliance-industries-limited-on-31-october-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mani-credit-capital-pvt-ltd-vs-reliance-industries-limited-on-31-october-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mani-credit-capital-pvt-ltd-vs-reliance-industries-limited-on-31-october-2001\",\"name\":\"Mani Credit Capital Pvt. Ltd., ... vs Reliance Industries Limited, ... on 31 October, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-10-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-24T21:04:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mani-credit-capital-pvt-ltd-vs-reliance-industries-limited-on-31-october-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mani-credit-capital-pvt-ltd-vs-reliance-industries-limited-on-31-october-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mani-credit-capital-pvt-ltd-vs-reliance-industries-limited-on-31-october-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mani Credit Capital Pvt. Ltd., … vs Reliance Industries Limited, … on 31 October, 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":"Mani Credit Capital Pvt. Ltd., ... vs Reliance Industries Limited, ... on 31 October, 2001 - 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\/mani-credit-capital-pvt-ltd-vs-reliance-industries-limited-on-31-october-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mani Credit Capital Pvt. Ltd., ... vs Reliance Industries Limited, ... on 31 October, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mani-credit-capital-pvt-ltd-vs-reliance-industries-limited-on-31-october-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-10-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-24T21:04:43+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mani-credit-capital-pvt-ltd-vs-reliance-industries-limited-on-31-october-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mani-credit-capital-pvt-ltd-vs-reliance-industries-limited-on-31-october-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mani Credit Capital Pvt. Ltd., … vs Reliance Industries Limited, … on 31 October, 2001","datePublished":"2001-10-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-24T21:04:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mani-credit-capital-pvt-ltd-vs-reliance-industries-limited-on-31-october-2001"},"wordCount":3146,"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\/mani-credit-capital-pvt-ltd-vs-reliance-industries-limited-on-31-october-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mani-credit-capital-pvt-ltd-vs-reliance-industries-limited-on-31-october-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mani-credit-capital-pvt-ltd-vs-reliance-industries-limited-on-31-october-2001","name":"Mani Credit Capital Pvt. Ltd., ... vs Reliance Industries Limited, ... on 31 October, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-10-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-24T21:04:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mani-credit-capital-pvt-ltd-vs-reliance-industries-limited-on-31-october-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mani-credit-capital-pvt-ltd-vs-reliance-industries-limited-on-31-october-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mani-credit-capital-pvt-ltd-vs-reliance-industries-limited-on-31-october-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mani Credit Capital Pvt. Ltd., … vs Reliance Industries Limited, … on 31 October, 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\/42427","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=42427"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42427\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=42427"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=42427"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=42427"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}