{"id":47937,"date":"2011-03-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-03-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-matter-of-ms-bharti-vs-unknown-on-29-march-2011"},"modified":"2016-01-31T01:43:10","modified_gmt":"2016-01-30T20:13:10","slug":"in-the-matter-of-ms-bharti-vs-unknown-on-29-march-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-matter-of-ms-bharti-vs-unknown-on-29-march-2011","title":{"rendered":"In The Matter Of M\/S. Bharti … vs Unknown on 29 March, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
In The Matter Of M\/S. Bharti … vs Unknown on 29 March, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Sudershan Kumar Misra<\/div>\n
                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI\n\n                       COMPANY PETITION NO. 324\/2009\n\n                                 Reserved on 22nd September, 2010\n                        Date of pronouncement: 29th March, 2011\n      In the matter of\n      The Companies Act, 1956:\n\n      And\n\n      Petition under Sections 391 to\n      394 of the Companies Act, 1956\n\n      Scheme of Arrangement between:\n\n      M\/s. Bharti Infratel Limited            .. Petitioner\/Transferor\n                                                 Company\n           AND\n\n      M\/s. Bharti Infratel Ventures Limited       ..\n         Petitioner\/Transferee\n                                                 Company\n\n                                Through Mr. Nikhil Bhalla, Adv.\n                                for the petitioners\n                                Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, ASG with\n                                Mr. Nitin Mehta, Mr. Anuj Bhandari,\n                           Advs. for the Income Tax Deptt.\n\n      SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.\n<\/pre>\n
      1.         This joint petition has been filed under Sections 391 to<\/p>\n
      394 of the Companies Act, 1956 by the petitioner companies<\/p>\n
      seeking sanction of the Scheme of Arrangement between M\/s.<\/p>\n
      Bharti Infratel Limited (hereinafter referred to as transferor<\/p>\n
      company) and M\/s. Bharti Infratel Ventures Limited (hereinafter<\/p>\n
      referred to as the transferee company).\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      2.         The registered offices of the transferor and transferee<\/p>\n
CP 324\/2009                                                  Page No. 1 of 12<\/span>
\n       companies are situated at New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of<\/p>\n
      this court.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      3.       The transferor company was incorporated under the<\/p>\n
      Companies Act, 1956 on 30th November, 2006 with the Registrar<\/p>\n
      of Companies, NCT of Delhi & Haryana at New Delhi.<\/p>\n
      4.       The transferee company was incorporated under the<\/p>\n
      Companies Act, 1956 on 31st December, 2007 with the Registrar<\/p>\n
      of Companies, NCT of Delhi & Haryana at New Delhi.<\/p>\n
      5.       The authorized share capital of the transferor company,<\/p>\n
      as on 31st March, 2009, was Rs.60,00,00,000\/- divided into<\/p>\n
      6,00,00,000 equity shares of Rs.10\/- each.               The issued,<\/p>\n
      subscribed      and   paid   up   capital   of   the   company    was<\/p>\n
      Rs.54,05,00,000\/- divided into 5,40,50,000 equity shares of<\/p>\n
      Rs.10\/- each.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      6.       The authorized share capital of the transferee company,<\/p>\n
      as on 31st March, 2009, was Rs.50,00,000\/- divided into 5,00,000<\/p>\n
      equity shares of Rs.10\/- each. The issued, subscribed and paid<\/p>\n
      up capital of the company was Rs.5,00,000\/- divided into 50,000<\/p>\n
      equity shares of Rs.10\/- each.\n<\/p>\n
CP 324\/2009                                                    Page No. 2 of 12<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
       7.       Copies of Memorandum and Articles of Association of<\/p>\n
      the transferor and transferee companies have been filed on<\/p>\n
      record. The audited balance sheets, as on 31 st March, 2009, of<\/p>\n
      the transferor and transferee companies, along with the report<\/p>\n
      of the auditors, have also been filed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      8.       A copy of the Scheme of Arrangement has been placed<\/p>\n
      on record and the salient features of the Scheme have been<\/p>\n
      incorporated and detailed in the petition and the accompanying<\/p>\n
      affidavits.   It is submitted that the transferee company is a<\/p>\n
      wholly owned subsidiary of the transferor company and the<\/p>\n
      Scheme proposes that the Telecom Infrastructure Undertaking<\/p>\n
      of the transferor company be demerged\/transferred and be<\/p>\n
      vested in the transferee company.        It is submitted by the<\/p>\n
      petitioner companies that to evolve a structure for more<\/p>\n
      effective participation on the Project MOST (Mobile Operators’<\/p>\n
      Shared Towers), it is considered appropriate to consolidate the<\/p>\n
      Telecom Infrastructure Undertaking, in a distinct company and,<\/p>\n
      thereby, create distinct corporate identity for carrying on the<\/p>\n
      business of providing Telecom Infrastructure. It is claimed that<\/p>\n
      the Scheme of Arrangement would benefit the respective<\/p>\n
      companies and other stakeholders of respective companies to<\/p>\n
      reduce set-up and operating costs resulting in cost efficiency<\/p>\n
CP 324\/2009                                               Page No. 3 of 12<\/span>
\n       coupled with a greater financial flexibility; to improve quality of<\/p>\n
      services to its customers by establishing highest service<\/p>\n
      standards through operational agreements; and to increase<\/p>\n
      speed of roll-out, to increase efficiency and to improve sharing<\/p>\n
      of infrastructure.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      9.       So far as the share exchange ratio is concerned, the<\/p>\n
      Scheme provides that the transferee company is a wholly owned<\/p>\n
      subsidiary of the transferor company. It is further provided that<\/p>\n
      the Scheme is intended to restructure, within the group of<\/p>\n
      companies controlled by the transferor company, the holding of<\/p>\n
      the Passive Infrastructure Assets in a more efficient manner<\/p>\n
      consistent with the diverse needs of business.         Hence, the<\/p>\n
      transferee company shall not be required to issue any shares or<\/p>\n
      pay any consideration to the transferor company or to its<\/p>\n
      shareholders.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      10.             It has been submitted by the petitioners that no<\/p>\n
      proceedings under Sections 235 to 251 of the Companies Act,<\/p>\n
      1956 are pending against the petitioner companies.<\/p>\n
      11.             The Board of Directors of the transferor company<\/p>\n
      and the transferee company in their separate meetings held on<\/p>\n
      20th January, 2009 and 27th April, 2009 respectively, have<\/p>\n
CP 324\/2009                                                  Page No. 4 of 12<\/span>
\n       unanimously approved the proposed Scheme of Arrangement.<\/p>\n
      Copies of the Resolutions passed at the meetings of the Board<\/p>\n
      of Directors of the transferor and transferee companies have<\/p>\n
      been placed on record.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      12.            The petitioner companies had earlier filed CA (M)<\/p>\n
      No. 122\/2009 seeking directions of this court to dispense with<\/p>\n
      the requirement of convening the meetings of the equity<\/p>\n
      shareholders, secured and unsecured creditors of the transferor<\/p>\n
      company and equity shareholders and unsecured creditors of<\/p>\n
      the transferee company, which are statutorily required for<\/p>\n
      sanction of the Scheme of Arrangement. Vide order dated 20th<\/p>\n
      July, 2009, this court allowed the application and dispensed with<\/p>\n
      the requirement of convening and holding the meetings of the<\/p>\n
      equity shareholders, secured and unsecured creditors of the<\/p>\n
      transferor company and equity shareholders and unsecured<\/p>\n
      creditors of the transferee company to consider and, if thought<\/p>\n
      fit, approve, with or without modification, the proposed Scheme<\/p>\n
      of Arrangement. There is no secured creditor of the transferee<\/p>\n
      company.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      13.            The petitioner companies have thereafter filed the<\/p>\n
      present    petition   seeking   sanction   of   the   Scheme      of<\/p>\n
      Arrangement.    Vide order dated 28th July, 2009, notice in the<\/p>\n
CP 324\/2009                                                 Page No. 5 of 12<\/span>
\n       petition was directed to be issued to the Regional Director,<\/p>\n
      Northern Region. Citations were also directed to be published in<\/p>\n
      ‘Statesman’ (English) and ‘Veer Arjun’ (Hindi) in terms of the<\/p>\n
      Companies (Court) Rules, 1959.      Affidavit of service has been<\/p>\n
      filed by the petitioners showing compliance regarding service on<\/p>\n
      the Regional Director, Northern Region, and also regarding<\/p>\n
      publication of citations in the aforesaid newspapers on 6th<\/p>\n
      August, 2009. Copies of the newspaper clippings containing the<\/p>\n
      publications have been filed along with the affidavit of service.<\/p>\n
      14.           In response to the notices issued in the petition,<\/p>\n
      Dr. Navrang Saini, Regional Director, Northern Region, Ministry<\/p>\n
      of Corporate Affairs has filed his report dated 26th October,<\/p>\n
      2009. Relying on Clause 4.4.1 of Part-IV of the Scheme, he has<\/p>\n
      stated that, upon sanction of the Scheme of Arrangement, all<\/p>\n
      the employees of the transferor company engaged in or in<\/p>\n
      relation to the Passive Infrastructure Assets of the transferor<\/p>\n
      company shall continue to remain the employees of the<\/p>\n
      transferor company without any break or interruption in their<\/p>\n
      services.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      15.           The Regional Director has further submitted that<\/p>\n
      the individual assets and liabilities and values thereof pertaining<\/p>\n
      to “Passive Infrastructure Assets” of the transferor company<\/p>\n
CP 324\/2009                                                  Page No. 6 of 12<\/span>
\n       proposed to be transferred to the transferee company are not<\/p>\n
      mentioned in the Scheme. He has further submitted that since<\/p>\n
      the shareholders and creditors of the companies have approved<\/p>\n
      the Scheme of Arrangement as such, it should have been part of<\/p>\n
      the Scheme so that their details are known to the shareholders<\/p>\n
      and creditors of both the companies.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      16.           In response to the above objection, the petitioner<\/p>\n
      companies in their rejoinder stated that the transferee company<\/p>\n
      is 100% subsidiary of the transferor company and that the<\/p>\n
      proposed transfer of the “Passive Infrastructure Assets” is to<\/p>\n
      restructure the holding of assets within the group companies<\/p>\n
      controlled by the transferor company in a more efficient manner<\/p>\n
      consistent with the diverse needs of the business. It has been<\/p>\n
      further submitted that the present Scheme is not a Scheme of<\/p>\n
      Arrangement with respect to the creditors of the companies and<\/p>\n
      none of the creditors of the transferor company are being<\/p>\n
      transferred to the transferee company by way of present<\/p>\n
      Scheme. Further, the “Passive Infrastructure Assets” are being<\/p>\n
      transferred   without   any   consideration   and   the   value   of<\/p>\n
      investment of the shareholders of the transferor company shall<\/p>\n
      not deplete in any manner as the value of the investment by the<\/p>\n
      transferor company in the transferee company shall enhance<\/p>\n
      corresponding to the said transfer.\n<\/p>\n
CP 324\/2009                                                 Page No. 7 of 12<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
       17.          In support of the aforesaid submission, learned<\/p>\n
      counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this court in Re:<\/p>\n
      Bharti Airtel Limited [CP No. 233\/2007, decided on 26th<\/p>\n
      November, 2007] wherein this court had rejected the similar<\/p>\n
      objection raised by the Regional Director, Northern Region. In<\/p>\n
      view of the above, the objection raised by the Regional Director<\/p>\n
      does not survive.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      18.          The Regional Director, while referring to Para<\/p>\n
      3.1.1 of Part-III of the Scheme regarding the share exchange<\/p>\n
      ratio, has further submitted that the petitioner companies have<\/p>\n
      failed to submit a valuation report and that both the transferor<\/p>\n
      and transferee companies may be directed to obtain a valuation<\/p>\n
      report from a recognized firm of Chartered Accountants.<\/p>\n
      19.           In response to the above objection, the petitioner<\/p>\n
      companies in their rejoinder have submitted that the transferee<\/p>\n
      company is 100% subsidiary of transferor company and in lieu<\/p>\n
      of the transfer of “Passive Infrastructure Assets”, no equity<\/p>\n
      shares are to be issued by the transferee company to the<\/p>\n
      shareholders of the transferor company, and, therefore, there is<\/p>\n
      no need for obtaining the valuation report from a recognized<\/p>\n
CP 324\/2009                                               Page No. 8 of 12<\/span>
\n       firm of Chartered Accountants with respect to the Scheme. In<\/p>\n
      support of above submission, the petitioner companies relied on<\/p>\n
      the judgment of this court in Re: Bharti Airtel Limited [CP No.<\/p>\n
      233\/2007, decided on 26th November, 2007] wherein a similar<\/p>\n
      Scheme       of   Arrangement    involving   demerger   of   Passive<\/p>\n
      Infrastructure Assets into a group company, wherein no<\/p>\n
      consideration were paid nor any shares were issued by the<\/p>\n
      transferee company to the transferor company, was sanctioned.<\/p>\n
      In view of the above, the objection raised by the Regional<\/p>\n
      Director does not survive.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      20.               The Regional Director, while referring to Para 2.3<\/p>\n
      of Part-II of the Scheme, has further submitted that the<\/p>\n
      transferee company may be directed to obtain the necessary<\/p>\n
      approvals from the Department of Telecommunications for<\/p>\n
      transfer of licenses after sanction of the Scheme by this court,<\/p>\n
      pursuant to the Department of Telecommunications’ letter No.<\/p>\n
      820-I\/2003-LR dated 9th June, 2003, in which the Department of<\/p>\n
      Telecommunications has clarified that the licensee may transfer<\/p>\n
      the licenses with prior written approval of the licensor even in<\/p>\n
      cases   of    amalgamation      under   Sections   391\/394   of   the<\/p>\n
      Companies Act, 1956.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      21.               In response to the above objection, the petitioner<\/p>\n
CP 324\/2009                                                   Page No. 9 of 12<\/span>
\n       companies in their rejoinder have submitted that in terms of the<\/p>\n
      Department of Telecommunications’ letter No. 820-I\/2003-LR<\/p>\n
      dated 9th June, 2003 only post facto approval is required in case<\/p>\n
      any telecom license agreement between a telecom service<\/p>\n
      provider   and   Department   of   Telecommunication    is   being<\/p>\n
      transferred by way of merger or demerger.          It is further<\/p>\n
      submitted that no telecom license agreement between the<\/p>\n
      transferor company and Department of Telecommunication is<\/p>\n
      being transferred to the transferee company pursuant to this<\/p>\n
      Scheme and, that the aforesaid letter has no application to this<\/p>\n
      Scheme. In view thereof, the objection raised by the Regional<\/p>\n
      Director does not survive.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      22.           The Income Tax Department appeared in the<\/p>\n
      matter and filed their objections to the Scheme of Arrangement<\/p>\n
      by way of an affidavit of Mr. Raghuveer Singh Dagur, Deputy<\/p>\n
      Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), New Delhi, which are<\/p>\n
      akin to the objections filed by them in the matter of M\/s.<\/p>\n
      Vodafone Essar Infrastructure Limited & Ors. viz. Company<\/p>\n
      Petition No. 334\/2009. On 22nd September, 2010, Mr. Parag P.<\/p>\n
      Tripathi, learned ASG appearing with Mr. Nitin Mehta and Mr.<\/p>\n
      Anuj Bhandari, stated on behalf of the Income Tax Department<\/p>\n
      that they adopt the arguments that have been addressed in<\/p>\n
      Company Petition No. 334\/2009 and that they do not wish to<\/p>\n
CP 324\/2009                                                Page No. 10 of 12<\/span>
\n       address any further arguments in this matter.<\/p>\n
      23.              The objections filed on behalf of the Income Tax<\/p>\n
      Department stand dismissed in terms of the orders passed in<\/p>\n
      Company Petition No. 334\/2009 and no separate orders are<\/p>\n
      required to be passed in this behalf in this petition.<\/p>\n
      24.              No objection has been received to the Scheme of<\/p>\n
      Arrangement from any other party.           Learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
      petitioners in his affidavit dated 17th November, 2009 has<\/p>\n
      submitted that they have not received any objection pursuant to<\/p>\n
      citations published on 6th August, 2009.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      25.              In view of the approval accorded by the equity<\/p>\n
      shareholders, secured and unsecured creditors of the petitioner<\/p>\n
      companies to the proposed Scheme of Arrangement, and there<\/p>\n
      being no surviving objection to the same by the Regional<\/p>\n
      Director, Northern Region, there appears to be no impediment to<\/p>\n
      the     grant   of   sanction   to   the   Scheme   of   Arrangement.<\/p>\n
      Consequently, sanction is hereby granted to the Scheme of<\/p>\n
      Arrangement under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act,<\/p>\n
      1956. The petitioner companies will comply with the statutory<\/p>\n
      requirements in accordance with law.           Certified copy of this<\/p>\n
      order be filed with the Registrar of Companies within five weeks.<\/p>\n
CP 324\/2009                                                     Page No. 11 of 12<\/span>
\n       It is also clarified that this order will not be construed as an<\/p>\n
      order granting exemption from payment of stamp duty as<\/p>\n
      payable in accordance with law.     Upon the sanction becoming<\/p>\n
      effective from the appointed date of Arrangement, that is 1st<\/p>\n
      April, 2009, the ‘Passive Infrastructure Assets’ of the transferor<\/p>\n
      company shall stand merged in the transferee company.<\/p>\n
      26.            The petition is allowed in the above terms.<\/p>\n
              Dasti.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                     SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.\n<\/p>\n
    March 29, 2011
\n    sun<\/p>\n
CP 324\/2009                                                 Page No. 12 of 12<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court In The Matter Of M\/S. Bharti … vs Unknown on 29 March, 2011 Author: Sudershan Kumar Misra IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI COMPANY PETITION NO. 324\/2009 Reserved on 22nd September, 2010 Date of pronouncement: 29th March, 2011 In the matter of The Companies Act, 1956: And Petition under Sections 391 to […]<\/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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-47937","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nIn The Matter Of M\/S. Bharti ... vs Unknown on 29 March, 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\/in-the-matter-of-ms-bharti-vs-unknown-on-29-march-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"In The Matter Of M\/S. Bharti ... vs Unknown on 29 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-matter-of-ms-bharti-vs-unknown-on-29-march-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=\"2011-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-30T20:13:10+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-matter-of-ms-bharti-vs-unknown-on-29-march-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-matter-of-ms-bharti-vs-unknown-on-29-march-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"In The Matter Of M\/S. Bharti … vs Unknown on 29 March, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-30T20:13:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-matter-of-ms-bharti-vs-unknown-on-29-march-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2064,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-matter-of-ms-bharti-vs-unknown-on-29-march-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-matter-of-ms-bharti-vs-unknown-on-29-march-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-matter-of-ms-bharti-vs-unknown-on-29-march-2011\",\"name\":\"In The Matter Of M\/S. Bharti ... vs Unknown on 29 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-30T20:13:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-matter-of-ms-bharti-vs-unknown-on-29-march-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-matter-of-ms-bharti-vs-unknown-on-29-march-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-matter-of-ms-bharti-vs-unknown-on-29-march-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"In The Matter Of M\/S. Bharti … vs Unknown on 29 March, 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:\/\/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":"In The Matter Of M\/S. Bharti ... vs Unknown on 29 March, 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\/in-the-matter-of-ms-bharti-vs-unknown-on-29-march-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"In The Matter Of M\/S. Bharti ... vs Unknown on 29 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-matter-of-ms-bharti-vs-unknown-on-29-march-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-30T20:13:10+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-matter-of-ms-bharti-vs-unknown-on-29-march-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-matter-of-ms-bharti-vs-unknown-on-29-march-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"In The Matter Of M\/S. Bharti … vs Unknown on 29 March, 2011","datePublished":"2011-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-30T20:13:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-matter-of-ms-bharti-vs-unknown-on-29-march-2011"},"wordCount":2064,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-matter-of-ms-bharti-vs-unknown-on-29-march-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-matter-of-ms-bharti-vs-unknown-on-29-march-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-matter-of-ms-bharti-vs-unknown-on-29-march-2011","name":"In The Matter Of M\/S. Bharti ... vs Unknown on 29 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-30T20:13:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-matter-of-ms-bharti-vs-unknown-on-29-march-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-matter-of-ms-bharti-vs-unknown-on-29-march-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-matter-of-ms-bharti-vs-unknown-on-29-march-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"In The Matter Of M\/S. Bharti … vs Unknown on 29 March, 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:\/\/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\/47937","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=47937"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47937\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=47937"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=47937"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=47937"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}