{"id":50711,"date":"2008-12-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-12-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/criminal-misc-no-a-778-ma-of-vs-k-l-jindal-and-others-on-17-december-2008"},"modified":"2016-07-02T23:12:48","modified_gmt":"2016-07-02T17:42:48","slug":"criminal-misc-no-a-778-ma-of-vs-k-l-jindal-and-others-on-17-december-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/criminal-misc-no-a-778-ma-of-vs-k-l-jindal-and-others-on-17-december-2008","title":{"rendered":"Criminal Misc. No.A-778-Ma Of … vs K.L.Jindal And Others on 17 December, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Criminal Misc. No.A-778-Ma Of … vs K.L.Jindal And Others on 17 December, 2008<\/div>\n
Criminal Misc. No.A-778-MA of 2007                   -1-\n\n                                 ****\n\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA\nAT CHANDIGARH\n\n1.                      Criminal Misc. No.A-778-MA of 2007\n                        Date of decision : 17.12.2008\n\nHaryana Agro-Industries Corporation Ltd.       .....Appellant\n\n                        Versus\nK.L.Jindal and others                          ...Respondents\n\n2.                      Criminal Misc. No.A-779-MA of 2007\n\n\nHaryana Agro-Industries Corporation Ltd.       .....Appellant\n\n                        Versus\nK.L.Jindal and others                          ...Respondents\n\n3.                      Criminal Misc. No.A-780-MA of 2007\n\n\nHaryana Agro-Industries Corporation Ltd.       .....Appellant\n\n                        Versus\nK.L.Jindal and others                          ...Respondents\n\n4.                      Criminal Misc. No.A-781-MA of 2007\n\n\nHaryana Agro-Industries Corporation Ltd.       .....Appellant\n\n                        Versus\nK.L.Jindal and others                          ...Respondents\n\n5.                      Criminal Misc. No.A-782-MA of 2007\n\n\nHaryana Agro-Industries Corporation Ltd.       .....Appellant\n\n                        Versus\n Criminal Misc. No.A-778-MA of 2007                               -2-\n\n                                       ****\n\n\nK.L.Jindal and others                                     ...Respondents\n\nCORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND\n\nPresent:    Mr.Pankaj Gupta, Advocate for the appellant\n\n             Mr. Arun Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No.1.\n\n             Mr. Hari Om Sharma, Advocate for respondent no.4.\n\nS. D. ANAND, J.\n<\/pre>\n
             The    appellant-   complainant-     Haryana     Agro-Industries<\/p>\n
Corporation Ltd. has filed a plea under Section 378 (4) of the Code of<\/p>\n
Criminal Procedure to obtain      leave to appeal against the order dated<\/p>\n
13.9.2007 vide which the learned Trial Court had dismissed the complaint<\/p>\n
filed by the appellant-complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable<\/p>\n
Instruments Act against the respondents\/accused and acquitted the latter<\/p>\n
i.e. respondents\/accused.\n<\/p>\n
             Before proceeding to undertake the adjudicatory exercise, it<\/p>\n
would be appropriate to notice, at the very outset,         that the    learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the parties agreed that the appellant\/applicant had already<\/p>\n
invoked the arbitration clause as between it and three promoters and even<\/p>\n
an award has been passed by the Arbitrator in favour of the<\/p>\n
appellant\/applicant and against the three promoters.<\/p>\n
             It is common ground that two promoters i.e. S.K.Kansal and<\/p>\n
T.N.Singla had already been ordered to be discharged by this Court. This<\/p>\n
fact, even otherwise, is noticed in the order under challenge itself.<\/p>\n
             The appellant is a Public Sector Undertaking of the<\/p>\n
Government of Haryana and has been incorporated as a Government<\/p>\n
company. In terms of an ‘Assisted Sector Agreement’ dated 26.4.1995,<\/p>\n
executed between the appellant and the three promoters (K.L.Jindal,<\/p>\n
S.K.Kansal and T.N.Singla, out of which two promoters S.K.Kansal and
\n Criminal Misc. No.A-778-MA of 2007                               -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                       ****<\/p>\n
T.N.Singla have already been discharged by this Court) agreed to<\/p>\n
collaborate with each other “for the profitable implementation and setting<\/p>\n
up of the project for the production of the refined oil, vanaspati ghee and<\/p>\n
distilled oil through a company already got incorporated by the private<\/p>\n
promoters under the name and style of Shivaka Industries Ltd. at Barwala<\/p>\n
(Distt. Ambala).” The equity share holding of the appellant therein was to<\/p>\n
the extent of Rs. 34 lacs.      Clause 24(b) of the said Agreement provided<\/p>\n
that the private promoters i.e. the accused No.1 to 3 “shall be bound to<\/p>\n
purchase the said equity share-holding of the complainant Corporation in<\/p>\n
the company after the expiry of the period of three years from the date of<\/p>\n
commencement of commercial production by the company or at the expiry<\/p>\n
of a period of five years from its incorporation, whichever is earlier.”   The<\/p>\n
appellant having been incorporated on 29.6.1992 and the commercial<\/p>\n
production by it having commenced with effect from 7.12.1995, “the buy-<\/p>\n
back of the equity share-holding of the complainant Corporation became<\/p>\n
due   on   28.06.1997    against     the   consideration   of   Rs.48,20,356\/-,<\/p>\n
determined as per the Clause 24(c) of the Agreement ibid.”                 The<\/p>\n
promoters expressed inability to discharge the liability in the context of buy-<\/p>\n
back aforementioned at one go and requested for being allowed to pay the<\/p>\n
due amount     in instalment.     After discussion, the promoters agreed to<\/p>\n
make initial payment of Rs. 10 lacs in the month of October, 1997 and the<\/p>\n
balance amount in monthly instalments of Rs.5.00 lacs each. This buy-<\/p>\n
back arrangement was accepted by M\/s Golden Land Development (India)<\/p>\n
Ltd., which is the accused No.4, on behalf of the private promoters being<\/p>\n
the sister concern of M\/s Shivaka Industries Ltd.           The said private<\/p>\n
promoters (accused No.1 to 3) and M\/s Golden Land Development (India)<\/p>\n
Ltd. (accused No.4) were, however, required to execute a supplementary
\n Criminal Misc. No.A-778-MA of 2007                             -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                        ****<\/p>\n
tripartite agreement with the complainant Corporation in which a clause of<\/p>\n
penal interest @ 3% p.a. Over and above the documentary rate of interest<\/p>\n
from the date of default committed by the private promoters of M\/s Shivaka<\/p>\n
Industries Ltd. was to be stipulated.\n<\/p>\n
               Thereafter, M\/s Golden Land Development (India) Ltd.<\/p>\n
(hereinafter referred to as “M\/s Golden Land”) issued post dated cheques<\/p>\n
under reference which were payable during the month of May, 1998.<\/p>\n
Those cheques were issued on behalf of the promoters. However, those<\/p>\n
cheques bounced on account of ‘stop payment instruction’ by the drawer.<\/p>\n
The appellant issued a registered statutory notice to the M\/s Golden<\/p>\n
Land.   That notice was received undelivered thereby giving rise the<\/p>\n
presumption that it had been duly delivered because it had been issued on<\/p>\n
the last indicated address of the M\/s Golden Land.\n<\/p>\n
               On appraisal of the evidence adduced at the trial, the learned<\/p>\n
Trial Magistrate dismissed the complaint on a finding that appellant had<\/p>\n
failed to prove the ingredients of offence under Section 138 of the<\/p>\n
Negotiable Instruments Act.        For recording that finding, learned Trial<\/p>\n
Magistrate noticed that no contract at all could be infer to have been<\/p>\n
effectuated as between the appellant and         M\/s Golden Land.     In the<\/p>\n
absence of tripartite agreement which both the parties were required to<\/p>\n
sign in pursuance of the offer made by the M\/s Golden Land (Annexure A-<\/p>\n
1) and the acceptance thereof by the appellant vide Annexure A-2. In that<\/p>\n
context, the following relevant observations were made by the learned Trial<\/p>\n
Magistrate:-\n<\/p>\n
               “33.      Before filing the present complaint, the complainant<\/p>\n
               had served a legal notice, which is statutory, Ex.C6 upon the<\/p>\n
               accused persons. Perusal of the same is very much relevant
\n Criminal Misc. No.A-778-MA of 2007                          -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                  ****<\/p>\n
         for fastening any kind of liability upon the accused No.4. It is<\/p>\n
         pertinent to mention here that the present proceedings are not<\/p>\n
         regarding any criminal liability of the accused for not honouring<\/p>\n
         the buy-back agreement as also admitted by CW1 but<\/p>\n
         regarding the criminal liability regarding the dishonouring the<\/p>\n
         cheque in question, Ex.C4.      The cheque in question was<\/p>\n
         issued by the accused No.4, so at the maximum there will be<\/p>\n
         criminal liability of the accused No.4 only, if the other<\/p>\n
         ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act<\/p>\n
         are proved. On the basis of dishonouring of the cheque in<\/p>\n
         question, no criminal liability can be fastened upon the<\/p>\n
         accused No.1 to 3 and admittedly, the accused No.2 & 3 who<\/p>\n
         had approached the Hon’ble High Court had been discharged.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
         34.   Now resuming with the legal notice, Ex.C6, it has been<\/p>\n
         recited therein that there was a liability of the three promoters<\/p>\n
         of M\/s Shivaka Industries i.e. accused No.1 to 3 under the buy-<\/p>\n
         back agreement that was worked out as Rs.48,20,356\/-,<\/p>\n
         Accused No.4 had given a offer to the complainant vide letter<\/p>\n
         (Ex.C3) for purchasing the shares of M\/s Shivaka Indusries as<\/p>\n
         per the terms and conditions contained in FAC, on behalf of<\/p>\n
         the promoters of M\/s Shivaka Industries.        That offer was<\/p>\n
         accepted by HAIC (Complainant Corporation) with a express<\/p>\n
         condition that the promoters had to sign a tripartite agreement<\/p>\n
         and that agreement was not signed till the date of notice and<\/p>\n
         admittedly, till date.    The Complainant Corporation had<\/p>\n
         accepted the cheques of the accused No.4 subject to the<\/p>\n
         condition that the promoters had to sign a tripartite agreement
\n Criminal Misc. No.A-778-MA of 2007                         -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                  ****<\/p>\n
         within a week. There would have been liability of the accused<\/p>\n
         No.4 only when the tripartite agreement would have been<\/p>\n
         signed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         35.   The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that<\/p>\n
         the accused No.4 had made the offer vide Ex.C3, which was<\/p>\n
         accompanied with the cheques and it was accepted by the<\/p>\n
         Complainant Corporation vide its resolution Ex.C-11, so the<\/p>\n
         cheque in question was issued against the legal liability. But<\/p>\n
         this court does not find merit in such arguments. Admittedly,<\/p>\n
         the accused No.4 had made an offer to the Complainant<\/p>\n
         Corporation vide Ex.C3 to purchase shares of M\/s Shivaka<\/p>\n
         Industries on behalf of the promoters on the same terms and<\/p>\n
         conditions as agreed between the promoters of M\/s Shivaka<\/p>\n
         Industries and the Complainant Corporation. In response to<\/p>\n
         that offer, the Complainant Corporation passed resolution<\/p>\n
         Ex.C11.   The accused No.4 was allowed to purchase the<\/p>\n
         shareholding of the Complainant Corporation on behalf of the<\/p>\n
         promoters as per the revised terms as indicated in the agenda<\/p>\n
         placed before the Board of Directors before the meeting in<\/p>\n
         which the said resolution was passed. No such agenda has<\/p>\n
         been produced or proved in the present proceedings. But one<\/p>\n
         thing is clear that the offer of the accused No.4 was not<\/p>\n
         accepted as givne in the letter Ex.C3. Certain new terms and<\/p>\n
         conditions were imposed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         xxx               xxxx                    xxxxx<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
         41.       In the instant case, the offer of the accused No.4<\/p>\n
         vide Ex.C3 was not accepted as it is but certain conditions
\n Criminal Misc. No.A-778-MA of 2007                               -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                       ****<\/p>\n
             were imposed, meaning thereby the offer was accepted with a<\/p>\n
             variance, so it amounted to counter proposal offer, which was<\/p>\n
             not accepted by the accused, so there was no contract<\/p>\n
             between the Complainant Corporation and the accused No.4<\/p>\n
             to buy the shares of M\/s Shivaka Industries. When there was<\/p>\n
             no contract, the question of any legal liability of the accused<\/p>\n
             No.4 to issue the cheque in question and also on the date<\/p>\n
             when the cheque was presented by the complainant<\/p>\n
             Corporation for encashment, does not arise at all. When there<\/p>\n
             was no liability on the part of the accused No.4 to issue the<\/p>\n
             cheque, it rightly instructed its banker to stop the payment and<\/p>\n
             accordingly, the main ingredient of the offence under Section<\/p>\n
             138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act i.e. the cheque has to<\/p>\n
             be issued in discharge of any debt or liability, is not proved.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant argues<\/p>\n
that the impugned order deserves outright invalidation in view of the fact<\/p>\n
that there was a presumption        of existence of liability in terms of the<\/p>\n
provisions of Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which<\/p>\n
(presumption) had not rebutted by the M\/s Golden Land by adducing any<\/p>\n
evidence to that effect.\n<\/p>\n
             Learned counsel for the appellant otherwise is not in a position<\/p>\n
to contest the factual finding by the learned Trial Court that no tripartite<\/p>\n
agreement between the appellant and M\/s Golden Land came to be<\/p>\n
executed.\n<\/p>\n
             It may be noticed that M\/s Golden Land had otherwise nothing<\/p>\n
at all to do with the contract between the appellant and the promoters. It is<\/p>\n
only in the event of inability on the part of the promoters to comply with the
\n Criminal Misc. No.A-778-MA of 2007                             -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                     ****<\/p>\n
buy-back clause that M\/s Golden Land are averred to have agreed to buy-<\/p>\n
back the equity shares of SIL held by HAIC. M\/s Golden Land had agreed<\/p>\n
to do so in pursuance of arrangement which it had with the promoters.<\/p>\n
That matter came up for consideration before the Board of Directorsat its<\/p>\n
meeting held on 17.11.1997 wherein the Managing Director of the<\/p>\n
corporation was authorised “to enter into a supplementary agreement with<\/p>\n
private promoters in such cases where the private promoters fail to buy<\/p>\n
back the shareholding of the Corporation on due dates as per the Financial<\/p>\n
Collaboration Agreement entered into with them for setting up project<\/p>\n
under the assisted\/joint sector scheme.” The resolution further resolved<\/p>\n
that “the Managing Director of the Corporation is authorized to impose<\/p>\n
penalty @ 3% from the date of default over and above the interest rate<\/p>\n
being charged at the time of release of equity in the project by other<\/p>\n
Development Financial Institutions for term loans or the prevailing rate of<\/p>\n
interest being charged by Development Financial Institutions for terms loan<\/p>\n
of 5 years tenure on the date of default, which ever is higher. In case of<\/p>\n
further default penal interest @ 3% over and above the agreed interest be<\/p>\n
charged besides retaining the option of proceeding against the promoters<\/p>\n
and the company as per the original FCA.” The resolution further provided<\/p>\n
that “M\/s Golden Land Development India Limited is allowed to buy back<\/p>\n
the shareholding of HAIC on behalf of the promoters as per the revised<\/p>\n
terms as indicated in the agenda placed before the meeting.”<\/p>\n
            It is, thus, apparent that appellant and M\/s Golden Land had<\/p>\n
to enter into supplementary which would have governed the agreement<\/p>\n
between them.     As already noticed, no such agreement came to be<\/p>\n
executed between them at all. It cannot, thus, be said that M\/s Golden<\/p>\n
Land had undertaken any liability on behalf of promoters which (liability)
\n Criminal Misc. No.A-778-MA of 2007                            -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                    ****<\/p>\n
could be enforced by a resort to provisions of Section 138 of the<\/p>\n
Negotiable Instruments Act.   Though there can be no dispute with the<\/p>\n
provisions of law that a non party to the contract can issued a cheque in<\/p>\n
respect of debt incurred by another and the non honouring of that cheque<\/p>\n
(on account of insufficiency of funds) would render that party liable to<\/p>\n
prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it is<\/p>\n
evident in the present case no legal agreement came to be executed as<\/p>\n
between the appellant and M\/s Golden Land.\n<\/p>\n
           In the light of the above discussion, the petitions are held to be<\/p>\n
denuded of merits and are ordered to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
December 17, 2008                                  (S.D. ANAND)\nPka                                                    JUDGE\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Criminal Misc. No.A-778-Ma Of … vs K.L.Jindal And Others on 17 December, 2008 Criminal Misc. No.A-778-MA of 2007 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Criminal Misc. No.A-778-MA of 2007 Date of decision : 17.12.2008 Haryana Agro-Industries Corporation Ltd. …..Appellant Versus K.L.Jindal and others …Respondents 2. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-50711","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nCriminal Misc. No.A-778-Ma Of ... vs K.L.Jindal And Others on 17 December, 2008 - 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\/criminal-misc-no-a-778-ma-of-vs-k-l-jindal-and-others-on-17-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Criminal Misc. No.A-778-Ma Of ... vs K.L.Jindal And Others on 17 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/criminal-misc-no-a-778-ma-of-vs-k-l-jindal-and-others-on-17-december-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-12-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-02T17:42:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"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\\\/criminal-misc-no-a-778-ma-of-vs-k-l-jindal-and-others-on-17-december-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/criminal-misc-no-a-778-ma-of-vs-k-l-jindal-and-others-on-17-december-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Criminal Misc. No.A-778-Ma Of … vs K.L.Jindal And Others on 17 December, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-02T17:42:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/criminal-misc-no-a-778-ma-of-vs-k-l-jindal-and-others-on-17-december-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2144,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/criminal-misc-no-a-778-ma-of-vs-k-l-jindal-and-others-on-17-december-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/criminal-misc-no-a-778-ma-of-vs-k-l-jindal-and-others-on-17-december-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/criminal-misc-no-a-778-ma-of-vs-k-l-jindal-and-others-on-17-december-2008\",\"name\":\"Criminal Misc. No.A-778-Ma Of ... vs K.L.Jindal And Others on 17 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-02T17:42:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/criminal-misc-no-a-778-ma-of-vs-k-l-jindal-and-others-on-17-december-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/criminal-misc-no-a-778-ma-of-vs-k-l-jindal-and-others-on-17-december-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/criminal-misc-no-a-778-ma-of-vs-k-l-jindal-and-others-on-17-december-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Criminal Misc. No.A-778-Ma Of … vs K.L.Jindal And Others on 17 December, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Criminal Misc. No.A-778-Ma Of ... vs K.L.Jindal And Others on 17 December, 2008 - 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\/criminal-misc-no-a-778-ma-of-vs-k-l-jindal-and-others-on-17-december-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Criminal Misc. No.A-778-Ma Of ... vs K.L.Jindal And Others on 17 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/criminal-misc-no-a-778-ma-of-vs-k-l-jindal-and-others-on-17-december-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-12-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-02T17:42:48+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/criminal-misc-no-a-778-ma-of-vs-k-l-jindal-and-others-on-17-december-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/criminal-misc-no-a-778-ma-of-vs-k-l-jindal-and-others-on-17-december-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Criminal Misc. No.A-778-Ma Of … vs K.L.Jindal And Others on 17 December, 2008","datePublished":"2008-12-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-02T17:42:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/criminal-misc-no-a-778-ma-of-vs-k-l-jindal-and-others-on-17-december-2008"},"wordCount":2144,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/criminal-misc-no-a-778-ma-of-vs-k-l-jindal-and-others-on-17-december-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/criminal-misc-no-a-778-ma-of-vs-k-l-jindal-and-others-on-17-december-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/criminal-misc-no-a-778-ma-of-vs-k-l-jindal-and-others-on-17-december-2008","name":"Criminal Misc. No.A-778-Ma Of ... vs K.L.Jindal And Others on 17 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-12-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-02T17:42:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/criminal-misc-no-a-778-ma-of-vs-k-l-jindal-and-others-on-17-december-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/criminal-misc-no-a-778-ma-of-vs-k-l-jindal-and-others-on-17-december-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/criminal-misc-no-a-778-ma-of-vs-k-l-jindal-and-others-on-17-december-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Criminal Misc. No.A-778-Ma Of … vs K.L.Jindal And Others on 17 December, 2008"}]},{"@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\/50711","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=50711"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50711\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=50711"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=50711"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=50711"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}