{"id":69917,"date":"2002-05-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-05-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-modi-vs-k-k-modi-and-ors-on-20-may-2002"},"modified":"2018-01-30T01:00:02","modified_gmt":"2018-01-29T19:30:02","slug":"m-k-modi-vs-k-k-modi-and-ors-on-20-may-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-modi-vs-k-k-modi-and-ors-on-20-may-2002","title":{"rendered":"M.K. Modi vs K.K. Modi And Ors. on 20 May, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Delhi High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">M.K. Modi vs K.K. Modi And Ors. on 20 May, 2002<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: J Kapoor<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: J Kapoor<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>  J.D. Kapoor, J.  <\/p>\n<p> 1. Modipon Limited has two divisions, Chemical<br \/>\ndivision and Fibre division. Chemical divisionis<br \/>\ncontrolled and managed by Group &#8216;A&#8217; company which is<br \/>\nrepresented by Mr. M.K. Modi, defendant No. 2. Fibre<br \/>\nDivision is controlled by Group &#8216;B&#8217; company which is<br \/>\nrepresented by Mr. K.K. Modi. Mr. K.K. Modi owns 12.65%<br \/>\nshares whereas Mr. M.K. Modi owns 9.07% shares. The<br \/>\nlitigation landed them in Supreme Court where on 7.1.1998<br \/>\nfollowing interim order on the application of Mr. M.K. Modi<br \/>\nwas passed which reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;For a period of eight weeks from<br \/>\ntoday, neither Mr. K.K. Modi nor Mr. M.K. Modi will<br \/>\nthat would in any way directly or indirectly<br \/>\ndestablise the control and management of the<br \/>\nFibre Division of Modipon Limited by Mr. K.K. Modi<br \/>\nand of the Chemical Division of Modipon Limited<br \/>\nby Mr. M.K. Modi.\n<\/p>\n<p>Liberty to apply for variations if<br \/>\ncircumstances change.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>2. The appeal against the said order was finally<br \/>\ndecided by the Supreme Court on 4.2.1998 wherein aforesaid<br \/>\ninterim order of 7.1.1998 was ordered to continue to<br \/>\noperate in terms thereof with liberty to the parties to<br \/>\napply to the High Court for any variation of this order in<br \/>\nthe event of any change in the circumstances.\n<\/p>\n<p>3. Subsequently plaintiff filed this suit wherein<br \/>\non 5.3.1998 following order was passed with the consent of<br \/>\nthe parties:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned senior<br \/>\ncounsel appearing on behalf of plaintiff states<br \/>\nthat interim order passed by Supreme Court in<br \/>\nI.A. No. 3\/97 in S.L.P. No. 18711\/97 dated January<br \/>\n7, 1998 be continued. Learned senior counsel<br \/>\nappearing on behalf of the defendant states that<br \/>\nhe has no objection to the continuation of the<br \/>\ninterim order in terms of the order by the<br \/>\nSupreme Court in its judgment.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>4. Through the instant application, the<br \/>\napplicant\/defendant No. 1 seeks modification in the earlier<br \/>\npart of the order dated 7.1.1998 whereby Mr. K.K. Modi and<br \/>\nMr. M.K. Modi were restrained from acquiring directly or<br \/>\nindirectly any further shares of Modipon Limited. By this<br \/>\norder, they were given liberty to apply for variation in<br \/>\nthe event of change in circumstances.\n<\/p>\n<p>5. As is apparent from the aforesaid order,<br \/>\nplaintiff agreed that he will have no objection to the<br \/>\ncontinuation of interim order in terms of the order of the<br \/>\nSupreme Court i.e. order dated 4.2.1998. Till date both<br \/>\nthe parties have maintained sanctity of the said order as<br \/>\nnone of them has acquired any shares directly or<br \/>\nindirectly in Modipon Ltd. and therefore control and<br \/>\nmanagement of fibre division by Mr. K.K. Modi and Chemical<br \/>\ndivision by Mr. M.K. Modi has remained intact.\n<\/p>\n<p>6. A piquant situation has cropped up by a public<br \/>\nnotice issued by UPSIDC on 25.4.2002 inviting offers for<br \/>\nthe sale of its equity shares which constitutes 16.61% of<br \/>\nthe total equity of the company. What is irking defendant<br \/>\nNo. 1\/applicant is that through this notice offer has to be<br \/>\nmade by a single party for the entire block of shares<br \/>\nowned by UPSIDC and since none of the parties owns 16.61%<br \/>\nthere is every likelihood of third party bidding for it.<br \/>\nIt is contended that if a third party comes to own 16.61%<br \/>\nshares it will destablise the control of both the parties<br \/>\non Modipon Ltd and practically will oust both of them from<br \/>\nthe company as the third party will not be bound by MOU or<br \/>\nby the order of Supreme Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>7. In order to save the company from going into the<br \/>\nhands of third party who will not be bound by MOU and to<br \/>\nkeep the control of the company among themselves defendant<br \/>\nNo. 1 is seeking modification in the order dated 4.2.1998<br \/>\nand the order dated 5.3.1998 referred above by way of<br \/>\npermitting it as well as plaintiff to individually bid and<br \/>\npurchase shares held by UPSIDC and to make a public offer<br \/>\nin terms of SEBI Takeover Code and to purchase the shares<br \/>\nso offered as also to make competitive bids and purchase<br \/>\nshares in the case of public offer by any other party.\n<\/p>\n<p>8. SEBI Takeover Code provides that if a person<br \/>\nacquires more than 15% of the equity share capital of a<br \/>\ncompany, he is obliged to make a public offer to the<br \/>\nshareholders of the company for acquiring at least an<br \/>\nadditional 20% of the equity share capital. Thus, if the<br \/>\nsaid 16.61% share holding is acquired by a third party, the<br \/>\nthird party would necessarily proceed to acquire pursuant<br \/>\nto the public, offer at least an additional 20% block of<br \/>\nshares or even more in Modipon Limited thereby adding up<br \/>\nto a total shareholding of at least 36.61% or more.\n<\/p>\n<p>9. It is contended by Mr. S. Ganesh, learned Senior<br \/>\nCounsel for the applicant\/defendant No. 1 that 78.28% of<br \/>\nthe shareholding is outside the control of the plaintiff<br \/>\nand the defendants and there is every likelihood that<br \/>\nholders thereof may participate in a public offer for<br \/>\npurchase of shares of Modipon Ltd. issued by any third<br \/>\nparty. As a result shares held by non-controlling parties<br \/>\nwill be acquired by third party and such a party would be<br \/>\nin commanding and controlling position of company.\n<\/p>\n<p>10. The problem against variation of said order is<br \/>\nthat of plaintiff. Plaintiff is short of funds and has no<br \/>\nmoney to purchase. It is also facing liabilities to be<br \/>\ndischarged in the form of debts towards financial<br \/>\ninstitutions and banks and has financial constraints and<br \/>\ncrunch.\n<\/p>\n<p>11. It is in view of this position of plaintiff that<br \/>\ndefendant No. 1\/applicant has submitted written offer to<br \/>\nthe effect that any shares that would be acquired either<br \/>\nby Mr. K.K. Modi or Mr. M.K. Modi pursuant to this court&#8217;s<br \/>\norder would be shared equally between them in terms of<br \/>\nwritten proposal already filed with the court and since<br \/>\nthe latter part of injunction order is not being<br \/>\ndisturbed, the control and management of Fibre Division<br \/>\nwill continue with plaintiff. Permission to purchase the<br \/>\nequity of UPSIDC is only with the sole object to save the<br \/>\ncompany from going into hands of strangers.\n<\/p>\n<p>12. According to Mr. Manmohan, learned counsel for<br \/>\nthe plaintiff the apprehension of defendant No. 1 is highly<br \/>\nmisplaced as the Modi Group holds as a whole about 49.57%<br \/>\nshareholding in Modipon Ltd. and even if a third person<br \/>\nacquires 16.61% shareholding of UPSIDC there is no threat<br \/>\nto the control and management by either Group A or Group<br \/>\nB. It is pertinent to mention that in order to discharge<br \/>\nits liabilities towards financial institutions and Banks,<br \/>\nplaintiff was permitted to sell 50% of its share by this<br \/>\ncourt but it is stated that the said order has been stated<br \/>\nby the Division bench and till date neither plaintiff is<br \/>\nhaving money for making payment to financial institutions<br \/>\nnor has any source to purchase shares being offered by<br \/>\nUPSIDC. The said 50% shares come to be about Rs. 30 crores<br \/>\nwhich is to be paid to financial institutions and Banks.\n<\/p>\n<p>13. After looking to the problem of the parties in<br \/>\nretrospective and prospective scenario and in order to<br \/>\nallay the apprehension of plaintiff that by getting<br \/>\npermission to acquire shares of UPSIDC, the defendant<br \/>\nNo. 1\/applicant will not only get absolved from the terms<br \/>\nof the MOU but also will have exclusive control and<br \/>\nmanagement of the company resulting in destablising are<br \/>\nstatus quo, the permission to the defendant No. 1\/applicant<br \/>\nto purchase shares of UPSIDC is granted subject to the<br \/>\ncondition that payment will be made by the defendant<br \/>\nNo. 1\/applicant towards 50% shares of UPSIDC on behalf of<br \/>\nplaintiff and this payment shall only be confined to<br \/>\nmaking purchase of shares of UPSIDC and will not be deemed<br \/>\nas payment made to the plaintiff for discharging his<br \/>\nliabilities to the banks and financial institutions. This<br \/>\norder is being made in order to save the company from<br \/>\ngoing into the hands of strangers and to maintain the<br \/>\norder of the Supreme Court that control and management of<br \/>\nChemical Division by Mr. K.K. Modi and Fibre Division by<br \/>\nMr. M.K. Modi, plaintiff shall not be destablished. The<br \/>\napplication is allowed in the aforesaid terms.\n<\/p>\n<p> dusty  <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court M.K. Modi vs K.K. Modi And Ors. on 20 May, 2002 Author: J Kapoor Bench: J Kapoor JUDGMENT J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. Modipon Limited has two divisions, Chemical division and Fibre division. Chemical divisionis controlled and managed by Group &#8216;A&#8217; company which is represented by Mr. M.K. Modi, defendant No. 2. Fibre [&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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-69917","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>M.K. Modi vs K.K. Modi And Ors. on 20 May, 2002 - 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\/m-k-modi-vs-k-k-modi-and-ors-on-20-may-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.K. Modi vs K.K. Modi And Ors. on 20 May, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-modi-vs-k-k-modi-and-ors-on-20-may-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-05-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-29T19:30:02+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-modi-vs-k-k-modi-and-ors-on-20-may-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-modi-vs-k-k-modi-and-ors-on-20-may-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.K. Modi vs K.K. Modi And Ors. on 20 May, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-05-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-29T19:30:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-modi-vs-k-k-modi-and-ors-on-20-may-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1364,\"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\\\/m-k-modi-vs-k-k-modi-and-ors-on-20-may-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-modi-vs-k-k-modi-and-ors-on-20-may-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-modi-vs-k-k-modi-and-ors-on-20-may-2002\",\"name\":\"M.K. Modi vs K.K. Modi And Ors. on 20 May, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-05-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-29T19:30:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-modi-vs-k-k-modi-and-ors-on-20-may-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-modi-vs-k-k-modi-and-ors-on-20-may-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-modi-vs-k-k-modi-and-ors-on-20-may-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.K. Modi vs K.K. Modi And Ors. on 20 May, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"M.K. Modi vs K.K. Modi And Ors. on 20 May, 2002 - 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\/m-k-modi-vs-k-k-modi-and-ors-on-20-may-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.K. Modi vs K.K. Modi And Ors. on 20 May, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-modi-vs-k-k-modi-and-ors-on-20-may-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-05-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-29T19:30:02+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-modi-vs-k-k-modi-and-ors-on-20-may-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-modi-vs-k-k-modi-and-ors-on-20-may-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.K. Modi vs K.K. Modi And Ors. on 20 May, 2002","datePublished":"2002-05-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-29T19:30:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-modi-vs-k-k-modi-and-ors-on-20-may-2002"},"wordCount":1364,"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\/m-k-modi-vs-k-k-modi-and-ors-on-20-may-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-modi-vs-k-k-modi-and-ors-on-20-may-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-modi-vs-k-k-modi-and-ors-on-20-may-2002","name":"M.K. Modi vs K.K. Modi And Ors. on 20 May, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-05-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-29T19:30:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-modi-vs-k-k-modi-and-ors-on-20-may-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-modi-vs-k-k-modi-and-ors-on-20-may-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-modi-vs-k-k-modi-and-ors-on-20-may-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.K. Modi vs K.K. Modi And Ors. on 20 May, 2002"}]},{"@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\/69917","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=69917"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69917\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69917"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=69917"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=69917"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}