{"id":46157,"date":"2001-08-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-08-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/barnes-investments-ltd-ors-vs-raj-k-gupta-ors-on-6-august-2001"},"modified":"2017-04-26T20:47:08","modified_gmt":"2017-04-26T15:17:08","slug":"barnes-investments-ltd-ors-vs-raj-k-gupta-ors-on-6-august-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/barnes-investments-ltd-ors-vs-raj-k-gupta-ors-on-6-august-2001","title":{"rendered":"Barnes Investments Ltd. &amp; Ors vs Raj K. Gupta &amp; Ors on 6 August, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Barnes Investments Ltd. &amp; Ors vs Raj K. Gupta &amp; Ors on 6 August, 2001<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: R Pal<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: V.N. Khare, Ruma Pal<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil) 5042  of  2001\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nBARNES INVESTMENTS LTD. &amp; ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nRAJ  K. GUPTA &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t06\/08\/2001\n\nBENCH:\nV.N. Khare &amp; Ruma Pal\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>RUMA PAL,  J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tThe questions raised in this appeal relate to the<br \/>\ninterpretation of Order 21 Rules 54, 55 and 58 of the Code of<br \/>\nCivil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code).\tAll the<br \/>\nprovisions relate to the attachment of immovable property in<br \/>\nexecution of a decree.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe decree, in this case, was passed in favour of the<br \/>\nappellants against respondent No. 1 by the Queens Bench<br \/>\nDivision of the High Court in England on 29th November 1990 for<br \/>\na sum of US$ 12,48,415,49 (being the equivalent of<br \/>\nRs.3,60,09,821.01)  together with interest @ 15 per cent per<br \/>\nannum from the date of the judgment.  The decree was put to<br \/>\nexecution by the appellants by filing an execution application in<br \/>\nthe original side of the Delhi High Court on 27th November 1991<br \/>\nrequiring the attachment of  property, being 20, Barakhamba<br \/>\nLane, New Delhi\t 110 001 and also the share holding of the<br \/>\nrespondent No. 1 in the companies of respondent Nos. 2 to 7<br \/>\nherein.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tNobody appeared on behalf of the judgment debtors before<br \/>\nthe Court when the matter was listed on 4th May, 1994.\tThis was<br \/>\nrecorded by the Court which accordingly issued warrants of<br \/>\nattachment with regard to premises No. 22, Barakhamba Lane,<br \/>\nNew Delhi 110001.  The matter was made returnable on 31st<br \/>\nAugust 1994. On an application for amendment moved by the<br \/>\nappellants, the Court corrected the description of the premises to<br \/>\nread as 20, Barakhamba Road, instead of Barakhamba Lane and<br \/>\nthe returnable date was extended to 3rd January, 1995.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t On 22nd September 1994 an objection was preferred to the<br \/>\nattachment by the respondent No. 1 under Order 21, Rule 58 of<br \/>\nthe Code ( EA 278\/94).\tA second application was also filed by<br \/>\nthe respondent No. 1 on the same date under Section 151 of the<br \/>\nCode for recalling the warrants of attachment ( E.A.279\/94).<br \/>\nNeither of these applications appear to have been proceeded with.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWhile these applications were pending, on 16th January<br \/>\n1995 the respondent No. 1 filed a suit against the appellants<br \/>\nherein\tin the High Court of Delhi praying, inter-alia, for a<br \/>\ndeclaration that the judgment passed by the Queens Bench<br \/>\nDivision in favour of the appellant was void. The respondent<br \/>\nNo.1 also sought for a permanent  injunction restraining the<br \/>\nappellants from executing the judgment and decree of the High<br \/>\nCourt of England (hereinafter referred to as the decree).  An<br \/>\ninterlocutory application was moved in the respondent No. 1s<br \/>\nsuit and an order was passed on 3rd April, 1995 staying the<br \/>\nexecution of the decree.  It is not in dispute that the interim order<br \/>\nis still operative and the suit is pending.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tOn 17th October 1997, the respondent No. 8 herein, namely,<br \/>\nUnited Towers India Private Ltd., filed an application (EA No.<br \/>\n343\/97) asking for impleadment as a party to the appellants<br \/>\nexecution proceedings and also for recalling and setting aside the<br \/>\nwarrants of attachment dated 4th May 1994.  On the same day, an<br \/>\napplication (EA No. 344\/97) was filed by the respondent No. 1<br \/>\nherein under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for<br \/>\nseeking substantially the same relief as had been claimed earlier<br \/>\nin the application filed by him under Section 151 on 22nd<br \/>\nSeptember 1994.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t Both the applications were heard by the Learned Single<br \/>\nJudge and an interim order was passed on 3rd February, 1998<br \/>\naccepting the offer of the respondent No. 8 and modifying the<br \/>\nattachment order dated 4th May 1994 subject to the Principal<br \/>\nOfficer of the respondent No. 8 filing an affidavit undertaking not<br \/>\nto sell 3000 sq. ft. of the covered area in the multi-storey building<br \/>\nproposed to be constructed on the property by the respondent No.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.  The affidavit was to be accompanied by a resolution of  the<br \/>\nBoard of Directors of the respondent No. 8 authorising the<br \/>\nPrincipal Officer of the respondent No. 8 to furnish the<br \/>\nundertaking.  On the filing of the said affidavit,  the attachment<br \/>\norder dated 4th May 1994 shall stand modified to the extent that<br \/>\n3000 sq. ft. of the covered area in the superstructure proposed to<br \/>\nbe constructed on the land in question shall remain attached till<br \/>\nthe disposal of the main execution petition. The Learned Judge<br \/>\nalso set down EA No. 343\/97 and EA No. 344\/97 for trial on<br \/>\nevidence.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe appellants preferred an appeal from the order dated 3rd<br \/>\nFebruary, 1998 before the Division Bench.  The Division Bench<br \/>\naffirmed the order of the Single Judge on 5th October, 1998<br \/>\nholding that he had not committed any illegality by modifying<br \/>\nthe order of attachment but at the same time protecting the<br \/>\ninterest of the decree holder by requiring United Towers to file<br \/>\nundertaking not to sell 3000 sq. ft. of the covered area in the<br \/>\nmulti-storeyed building proposed to be constructed at 20,<br \/>\nBarakhamba Road.  The appeal was accordingly dismissed.<br \/>\nHence this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt is not necessary for us to go into the merits of the<br \/>\nrespective cases of the parties as we are of the view that the High<br \/>\nCourt was clearly procedurally wrong in modifying the order of<br \/>\nattachment dated 4th May 1994,<\/p>\n<p>\tFirst,\tthere is nothing on record to show that respondent<br \/>\nNo. 8s prayer for being impleaded as a party in the execution<br \/>\nproceedings  had been allowed and yet the learned Single Judge<br \/>\naccepted the respondent No.8s offer and\t partially allowed the<br \/>\napplication of the respondent No. 8 in terms of such offer.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tSecondly, by the impugned orders the attachment has been<br \/>\ndirected to be effected\t on non-existent property.  The building is<br \/>\nproposed to be constructed by respondent No. 8 on the property. It<br \/>\nhas not been decided whether the respondent No.8 has any right to<br \/>\nconstruct on the property.  According to the High Courts order,\t if<br \/>\nand when the proposed building is constructed an attachment will<br \/>\nbe effected of an area of 3000 sq. ft. in an unspecified area of the<br \/>\nbuilding.  The High Court has in effect removed the attachment<br \/>\nfor the present to be operative at an un-determined point of time in<br \/>\nthe future on property which is not and may never come into<br \/>\nexistence.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t Thirdly, Order 21, Rule 54 in terms prohibits the judgment<br \/>\ndebtor from transfer or charging property attached in any way and<br \/>\nall persons from taking any benefit from such transfer or charge.<br \/>\nAs long the order of attachment is operative, no third party rights<br \/>\ncan be created.\t Pending the determination of the validity of the<br \/>\norder of attachment and ultimate disposal of EA 343\/97 and EA<br \/>\n344\/97, the Court should not have allowed the attachment to be<br \/>\nrendered infructuous.\n<\/p>\n<p>Order 21, Rule 55 indicates situations where an attachment<br \/>\norder may be withdrawn, namely, where<\/p>\n<p> (a) the amount decreed with costs and all<br \/>\ncharges and expenses resulting from the<br \/>\nattachment of any property are paid into<br \/>\nCourt, or<\/p>\n<p>(b) satisfaction of the decree is otherwise<br \/>\nmade through the Court or certified to the<br \/>\nCourt, or<\/p>\n<p>(c) the decree is set aside or reversed<\/p>\n<p>\tIf the Court was minded to lift the attachment\ttemporarily,<br \/>\nit should, therefore,  have at least secured the decretal amount.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn any case the Court could not have passed an interim order<br \/>\nvirtually  granting the final relief in EA 343 and EA 344 without<br \/>\nany decision on the merits of the case.\t This is fortified by Order<br \/>\n21, Rule 58 which has been substituted in the Code by the<br \/>\nAmendment Act, 1976.  Sub-rule 2 of Rule 58 provides:\n<\/p>\n<p>(2) All questions (including questions<br \/>\nrelating to right, title or interest in the<br \/>\nproperty attached) arising between the<br \/>\nparties to a proceeding or their<br \/>\nrepresentatives under this rule and relevant<br \/>\nto the adjudication of the claim or<br \/>\nobjection, shall be determined by the Court<br \/>\ndealing with the claim or objection and not<br \/>\nby a separate suit.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t     It is only upon determination of the questions referred to<br \/>\nin sub-Rule (2) that the Court, in accordance with such<br \/>\ndetermination  may, either<\/p>\n<p>(a)\t allow the claim or objection and<br \/>\nrelease the property from attachment either<br \/>\nwholly or to such extent as it thinks fit; or<\/p>\n<p>(b) disallow the claim or objection; or<\/p>\n<p>(c) continue the attachment subject to any<br \/>\nmortgage, charge or other interest in<br \/>\nfavour of any person; or<\/p>\n<p>(d)  pass such order as in the<br \/>\ncircumstances\t   of the case it deems fit.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWithout any determination of the questions referred to in<br \/>\nsub-Rule (2), the Court did not have the jurisdiction to pass any<br \/>\norder varying the orders of attachment.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe  appellant has also raised a preliminary issue as to the<br \/>\nmaintainablity of EA 343\/97 and EA 344\/97. Under Order 21,<br \/>\nRule 58 sub-Rule (1) no claim or objection shall be entertained<br \/>\nwhere the Court considers that the claim or objection was<br \/>\ndesignedly or unnecessarily delayed.  That the attachment order<br \/>\nhad been issued was known at least to the respondent No.1 in<br \/>\n1994.\tThe High Court has not\taddressed  its\tmind  to this<br \/>\naspect before  entertaining the\t applications filed by respondents<br \/>\nNos. 1 and 8.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFinally, the learned Single Judge himself observed that in<br \/>\nthe suit filed by respondent No. 1, an order has been passed<br \/>\nstaying the execution of the appellants decree and that that order<br \/>\nwas still operative.  In the circumstances, it was not open to the<br \/>\nCourt to proceed with the  execution proceedings. As long as the<br \/>\ninterim order passed in respondent No. 1&#8217;s suit is operative, no<br \/>\nfurther steps can be taken in the execution proceedings.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWe, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the impugned<br \/>\norders of the High Court but without any order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tJ.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t(V.N. Khare)<\/p>\n<p>\t\t..J<br \/>\n\t\t(Ruma Pal)<br \/>\nAugust 6,  2001<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Barnes Investments Ltd. &amp; Ors vs Raj K. Gupta &amp; Ors on 6 August, 2001 Author: R Pal Bench: V.N. Khare, Ruma Pal CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5042 of 2001 PETITIONER: BARNES INVESTMENTS LTD. &amp; ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: RAJ K. GUPTA &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06\/08\/2001 BENCH: V.N. Khare &amp; [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-46157","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Barnes Investments Ltd. &amp; Ors vs Raj K. Gupta &amp; Ors on 6 August, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/barnes-investments-ltd-ors-vs-raj-k-gupta-ors-on-6-august-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Barnes Investments Ltd. &amp; Ors vs Raj K. Gupta &amp; Ors on 6 August, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/barnes-investments-ltd-ors-vs-raj-k-gupta-ors-on-6-august-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2001-08-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-26T15:17:08+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\/barnes-investments-ltd-ors-vs-raj-k-gupta-ors-on-6-august-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/barnes-investments-ltd-ors-vs-raj-k-gupta-ors-on-6-august-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Barnes Investments Ltd. &amp; Ors vs Raj K. Gupta &amp; Ors on 6 August, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-08-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-26T15:17:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/barnes-investments-ltd-ors-vs-raj-k-gupta-ors-on-6-august-2001\"},\"wordCount\":1549,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/barnes-investments-ltd-ors-vs-raj-k-gupta-ors-on-6-august-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/barnes-investments-ltd-ors-vs-raj-k-gupta-ors-on-6-august-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/barnes-investments-ltd-ors-vs-raj-k-gupta-ors-on-6-august-2001\",\"name\":\"Barnes Investments Ltd. &amp; Ors vs Raj K. Gupta &amp; Ors on 6 August, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-08-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-26T15:17:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/barnes-investments-ltd-ors-vs-raj-k-gupta-ors-on-6-august-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/barnes-investments-ltd-ors-vs-raj-k-gupta-ors-on-6-august-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/barnes-investments-ltd-ors-vs-raj-k-gupta-ors-on-6-august-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Barnes Investments Ltd. &amp; Ors vs Raj K. Gupta &amp; Ors on 6 August, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Barnes Investments Ltd. &amp; Ors vs Raj K. Gupta &amp; Ors on 6 August, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/barnes-investments-ltd-ors-vs-raj-k-gupta-ors-on-6-august-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Barnes Investments Ltd. &amp; Ors vs Raj K. Gupta &amp; Ors on 6 August, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/barnes-investments-ltd-ors-vs-raj-k-gupta-ors-on-6-august-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-08-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-26T15:17:08+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\/barnes-investments-ltd-ors-vs-raj-k-gupta-ors-on-6-august-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/barnes-investments-ltd-ors-vs-raj-k-gupta-ors-on-6-august-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Barnes Investments Ltd. &amp; Ors vs Raj K. Gupta &amp; Ors on 6 August, 2001","datePublished":"2001-08-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-26T15:17:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/barnes-investments-ltd-ors-vs-raj-k-gupta-ors-on-6-august-2001"},"wordCount":1549,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/barnes-investments-ltd-ors-vs-raj-k-gupta-ors-on-6-august-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/barnes-investments-ltd-ors-vs-raj-k-gupta-ors-on-6-august-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/barnes-investments-ltd-ors-vs-raj-k-gupta-ors-on-6-august-2001","name":"Barnes Investments Ltd. &amp; Ors vs Raj K. Gupta &amp; Ors on 6 August, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-08-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-26T15:17:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/barnes-investments-ltd-ors-vs-raj-k-gupta-ors-on-6-august-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/barnes-investments-ltd-ors-vs-raj-k-gupta-ors-on-6-august-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/barnes-investments-ltd-ors-vs-raj-k-gupta-ors-on-6-august-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Barnes Investments Ltd. &amp; Ors vs Raj K. Gupta &amp; Ors on 6 August, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/46157","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=46157"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46157\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=46157"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=46157"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=46157"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}