{"id":85771,"date":"2007-05-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-05-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-uoi-and-vls-vs-sunair-hotels-ltd-and-ors-on-16-may-2007"},"modified":"2016-08-13T02:03:53","modified_gmt":"2016-08-12T20:33:53","slug":"union-of-india-uoi-and-vls-vs-sunair-hotels-ltd-and-ors-on-16-may-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-uoi-and-vls-vs-sunair-hotels-ltd-and-ors-on-16-may-2007","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India (Uoi) And Vls … vs Sunair Hotels Ltd. And Ors. on 16 May, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Company Law Board<\/div>\n
Union Of India (Uoi) And Vls … vs Sunair Hotels Ltd. And Ors. on 16 May, 2007<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 2008 143 CompCas 274 CLB, 2008 81 SCL 283 CLB<\/div>\n
Author: M H R-1<\/div>\n
Bench: V Yadav<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
Vimla Yadav, Member<\/p>\n
1. In this order I am considering Company Petition   No. 1 of 2004 filed on 9.12.2003 by the U.O.I, through the Department of Company Affairs, New Delhi (now Ministry of Company Affairs) and Company Application   No. 172 of 2003 filed on 25.8.2003 by M\/s VLS Finance Limited in its Company Petition   No. 45 of 1998 after CP   No. 45\/98 had been dismissed by the Company Law Board on 13.6.2001. VLS Finance Ltd. had filed CP   No. 45\/98 against M\/s Sunair Hotels Ltd. under Sections 250,397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 alleging that M\/s VLS Finance Ltd. holds 24.17% shares of M\/s Sunair Hotels Ltd. in which respondent   Nos. 3 to 5 fraudulently allotted shares worth   Rs. 21 crores to respondent   Nos. 3 to 27 and therefore, VLS Finance Ltd. sought cancellation of the allotment of these shares as null and void and consequential rectification of the Register of Members by deleting the names of R-3 to 27 in respect of these shares. After CP   No. 45\/1998 was dismissed by the Company Law Board on 13.6.2001, however, CA   No. 172\/2003 under Section 340 read with Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was filed in CP   No. 45\/1998 by VLS Finance Ltd. on 25.8.2003. praying as under:\n<\/p>\n
Prayer:\n<\/p>\n
In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner prays to this Hon’ble Court to be pleased to:\n<\/p>\n
a. Order for a preliminary inquiry into the offences committed by the Accused persons during the course of the judicial proceedings and after recording the findings of their offences, make complaint to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for the prosecution of the accused persons in accordance with the law; and\/or;\n<\/p>\n
b. Order to take the accused into custody and send in custody to the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and\/or;\n<\/p>\n
c. Pass such other and further order(s) as it may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of the justice.\n<\/p>\n
VLS Finance Ltd. made UOI as one of the respondents in CA   No. 172\/03 (UOI was not a respondent in the original CP   No. 45\/1998 which stood disposed of on 13.6.2001). On 18.12.2003 UOI through Under Secretary, Department of Company Affairs, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi filed reply to VLS Finance Ltd.’s CA   No. 172\/03 as an intervener in the petition and sought investigation under Section 237(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, this reply was taken as Company Petition and was allotted CP   No. 1 of 2004. UOI’s prayer in CP   No. 1\/04 is as under:\n<\/p>\n
 Prayer<\/p>\n
In view of the aforesaid, petitioner prays to this Hon’ble Board to be pleased to:\n<\/p>\n
d. Allow the Central Govt. to intervene in the application filed by M\/s VLS Finance Ltd. Under Section 340 of Criminal Procedure Code and take this petition Under Section 237(b) on record.\n<\/p>\n
e. Pass orders directing investigation under Section 237(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 into the affairs of the respondent company namely, M\/s Sunair Hotels Ltd.\n<\/p>\n
f. Any such other of orders as may be deemed fit and appropriate in the case and circumstances of the case.\n<\/p>\n
2. UOI’s petition (CP   No. 1\/04) is nothing but VLS’s CA   No. 172\/03 annexed to it and made the basis of CP seeking order under Section 237(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 into the affairs of the respondent company i.e. the Sunair Hotels Ltd. In support of the case for investigation, the Central Government relied upon para  Nos. 8,11,12,16,17 and 23 of VLS Finance Ltd.’s CA   No. 172\/03.VLS Finance Ltd. vide its CA   No. 172\/03 in CP   No. 45\/1998 filed on 25.8.2003 sought an inquiry into the offences under Sections 193, 196, 199,200,465,467,468,471 read with 120-B of the IPC which are alleged to have been committed by Respondent  Nos. l to 5 in respect of the production of false and fabricated documents and giving the same as evidence during the proceedings of CP   No. 45\/98. In the said petition the applicant had made allegations against the respondents that they have fabricated the records of the
\nR-1 namely Suair Hotels Ltd. and R-2 namely Sun Aero Ltd. (subsidiary company of R-1) and got allotted 20991600 (Two Crore Nine lacs Ninety One Thousand Six Hundred) shares of   Rs. 10\/- each at par, of the Respondent   No. l to the Respondent   Nos. 3 to 27 without bringing in any cash consideration as alleged in the books of account of the R-1. It was alleged in the said petition that after getting   Rs. 70,00,000 (Rupees Seventy lakhs only) from the petitioner, the Respondent   No. 3 in connivance with other persons rotated
\nRs. 1 crore, 21 times between 16.3.1995 to 20.3.1995 and thereby showing as if the cash contribution had been brought into the accounts of M\/s Sunair Hotels Ltd, towards the share allotment\/subscription money, and got allotted 20991600(Two Crore Nine lacs Ninety One Thousand Six Hundred) shares against alleged cash receipt. That in the garb of the above referred transaction the respondent   Nos. 3, 4  and 5 got issued shares of the Respondent   No. 1 to themselves and their family members worth   Rs. 21.crores, without actually contributing any cash. That in their replies the respondents justified the transaction and also claimed that 20991600 shares of the R-1 were allotted to them and their family members against cash. In support of their claim they also submitted that one Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 10.3.1995 was executed between M\/s Sun Aero Ltd. and M\/s H.J. Consultants Pvt. Ltd. for the purchase\/sale of 13 properties of the respondent   Nos. 3 to 27. That throughout the proceedings of the above said petition the respondents had a clear cut stand that M\/s Sun Aero Ltd. had made an advance sum of   Rs. 21 crores to the owners of the 13 properties and have legitimized their claim before this Hon’ble Board on the basis of the said Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter referred to as the MOU) dated 10.3.1995.\n<\/p>\n
3. During the course of hearing before the Hon’ble Company Law Board the standing counsel of the Central Government reiterated the contents of the application under Section 340 numbered as 172\/2003 before the CLB. Reliance was placed on para   Nos. 8, 11, 12, 16, 17 and 23 of CA   No. 172\/03. As VLS Finance Ltd. had mentioned that properties stated in MOU dated 10.3.1995, were never authorised for sale. It was contained that the alleged MOU dated 10.3.95 is false and fabricated document. Reliance was placed on the Income tax Order which had highlighted the irregularities pertaining to following:\n<\/p>\n
a. Undisclosed income Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act by way of credit entry in the share capital account.\n<\/p>\n
b. siphoning of funds by booking of bogus purchase and services through various companies.\n<\/p>\n
c. Siphoning of borrowed funds by booking bogus expenditure.\n<\/p>\n
d. Siphoning of funds by booking bogus commission<\/p>\n
e. Unaccounted income by way of receipt and unaccounted cash from bogus contract, purchase, advertisement etc.<\/p>\n
The Central Government has pointed out that as per the judgment of Bombay High Court in the matter of Ketan Parekh the Hon’ble Court had observed that past acts of the company too fall within the ambit and scope of Section 237 of the Companies Act as it is an act of past presentia, the use of word “is being conducted” in Section 237 of the Act coves the past acts also. Further, in this connection the Hon’ble MP High Court in the case of Jiyaji Rao Cotton Mills Ltd. has observed that in Section 237 of the Companies Act, the use of word, “the affairs of the Company” is wide enough to cover the investigation of various nature. Besides this the Central Govt. also relied on the judgment of the CLB ‘in the matter of Mukta Arts Ltd. wherein while ordering investigation into the affairs of the company the Hon’ble CLB has opined that the investigation can be ordered to settle the suspicion. Similarly, in the recent judgment of CLB in the matter of Shonk Technology Ltd. and Shonk Technology International Ltd., it has been held by the CLB that investigation is nothing but a fact-finding commission, therefore, orders for investigation was allowed. Hence, prayer for investigation.\n<\/p>\n
4. Counsel for VLS Finance Ltd argued that from the submissions of the respondent themselves, it is apparent that had there been no Memorandum of Understanding dated 10.3.1995, then there was no possibility\/question of payment of   Rs. 21 crores by the R-1 to respondent   No. 2 and consequently no payment could have been made to M\/s H.J. Consultants Pvt. Ltd. In the absence of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 10.3.1995 the rotatory\/circular transactions between the parties was not possible and ultimately the shares could not have been issued. In the absence of the reliance on the Memorandum of Understanding dated 10.3.1995 the Hon’ble Board would have definitely reached to a different conclusion\/opinion and orders. The existence of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 10.3.1995, during he course of the judicial proceedings of the above mentioned petition\/case has had a huge and a definite bearing\/impact\/effect on the opinion formed by this Hon’ble Board as the order dated 13.6.2001 is revolving around these documents, which has taken the position of a considerable material aspect\/point in the case. The whole case of the respondents was dependant on the existence\/legitimacy\/validity of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 10.3.1995. Further, it was pointed out that the Income Tax Department, Delhi, had conducted search and seizure operations and consequent proceedings against the respondents and all their related companies. During the block assessment proceedings of the above persons and their associates the statements of Shri B.C. Gupta, Shri K.C. Gupta, Shri S.K. Gupta and Shri Robin Gupta were recorded on oath under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act. All these persons voluntarily made their statement and stated that Shri S.P. Gupta, alongwith one Shri V.K. Bindal who is nephew of Shri S.P. Gupta and also their Chartered Accountant and also the Auditor of the Respondent   No. 1, was managing the books of accounts, for all of them has done  all these transactions in their books of accounts. They further stated that they neither got their respective properties valued in the year 1995 nor entered into any agreement or agreed to enter into any agreement to sell with M\/s H.J. Consultant Pvt. Ltd. or to authorize it or sell their properties or agree to sell their properties to any one. They were not even aware about the number of shares allotted to them or from were the money was arranged for to get these shares allotted. It was argued that in the light of the above facts it is prima facie clear that the owner of the properties mentioned in the Memorandum of Understanding dated 10.3.1995 is apparently false and fabricated document and the submissions made by the respondents in their replies are not true statements with regard to the authenticity of the documents and the consequent transactions of rotation of money and issuance of the shares against cash. These facts reflect that the Memorandum of Understanding dated 10.3.1995 is a forged and fabricated document which was so forged by the respondents to be produced as an evidence before this Hon’ble Board in support of their allegations. VLS Finance Limited the allegations contained in para   Nos. 8, 11, 12, 16, 17 and 23 (on which U.O.I, has also placed reliance in CP   No. 1\/04) comments thereon are discussed in the ensuing paragraphs.\n<\/p>\n
5. It was argued that the accused have committed their offences of forgery by making the MOU dated 10.3.1995 with the intention to cause damage to the R-1 and the petitioner and also to support their false claim with dishonest intentions to commit the fraud. The accused persons fraudulently and dishonestly have used the forged Memorandum of Understanding dated 10.3.1995 as genuine knowing fully well that it is a forged an fabricated document. It was contended that the applicant company was the petitioner in the above petition and its rights have been affected due to the production of the false and fabricated documents and false evidence, by the respondents during the course of the judicial proceedings. Under the circumstances the applicant company has preferred to file the present application to initiate an inquiry against the respondent   Nos. 1 to 5 and other unknown persons the commission of offences under Sections 193, 196, 199, 200, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with 120B of the Indian Penal Code, during the proceedings of the above petition.\n<\/p>\n
6. The counsel for Shri B.C. Gupta and others (R-21, 22 and 23) reiterated the arguments of VLS Finance Ltd.\n<\/p>\n
7. Counsel for Respondent   Nos. 1 to 9 argued that the petition is not maintainable because investigation under Section 237(b) can be directed if there are circumstances suggesting a continuous conduct with an intention to defraud members of a company or to reveal which has been hidden or not apparent so far. It cannot be instituted for any alleged action which is not continuing and which has already been surfaced so far by any of the interested parties or the authorities. Reliance was placed on the judgmeuts in the cases of Dr. Kamal Dutta v. Ruby general Hospital Ltd. (2005) 60 SCL 133 CLB New Delhi; Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. S.D. Aggarwal<\/a> (1969) 39 Com. Case 781 : AIR 1969 SC 7070; S.L. Verma v. Delhi Flour Mills Co. Ltd. and Ors.; Kumarunni v. Mathrubhumi Printing and Publishing Co. Ltd. (1983) 54 Companies Act, 1956. Cases 370 (Ker.); Sreenivasan (Petition) v. Yoosuf Sagar Abdulla and Sons P. ltd (1983) 53 Com. Cases 485 (Ker); Rashmi Seth (Mrs.) v. Chemon India (P) Ltd. (1995) 82 Com. Cases 563 (CLB); Hiralal Gulabchand P. Ltd. Re. (Nos. 11 and 12\/90\/CLB). It was argued that it is not understood as to how this petition is maintainable because it does not contain allegation of any offence committed by the company or its management vis-a-vis the affairs of the company. Even in the application under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code VLS Finance Ltd. has not alleged that the affairs of the company are being conducted in a manner as prescribed under Sub-Clauses (i) and (ii) of the Clause (b) of Section 237. In that application what the applicant has alleged is non disclosure of certain facts before the CLB by the respondents and nothing else and the same cannot by itself become a fraud, etc. in the management of affairs of the company. The mere fact that as shareholder is feeling dissatisfied about the way in which the affairs of the company are being conducted is not enough to get an order of investigation. It was pointed out that Jal Hotels Ltd. – a subsidiary of Japan Airlines Ltd. is managing the Hotel. The business of the company is being conducted in the best – possible manner which has enhanced the share value and net worth of the company. The estimated market value of the hotel as a going concern is around 400 crores as against investment of   Rs. 83 crores. Since the hotel was completed by 2000 and till then in which VLS did not contribute anything over and above   Rs. 15 crores and the financial institutions also did not grant loans exceeding   Rs. 42 crores, the balance funds were arranged by Guptas only what is the grievance of VLS now for the same is not understood, argued the counsel for Sunair Hotels Ltd. and Ors. It was argued that admittedly the estimated cost of hotel project was   Rs. 85 crores and for which equity capital as one of the sources. VLS has deliberately concealed an important fact that is 85 crores included cost of land development rights to the extent of   Rs. 17 crores which was to be met out of capital contribution of the promoters only as the balance of   Rs. 68 crores being 80% of the total cost of the project, was the cost of construction of the hotel in terms of the MOU dated 29.8.94. Further, as the project cos estimated by VLS was   Rs. 89 crores, which included an agreed cost of land by it at   Rs. 21 crores, the difference of   Rs. 4 crores already had independent source\/investment already made by the promoters and therefore, out of the project cost of   Rs. 89 crores, only   Rs. 85 crores was committed by VLS. But it is also important, it was argued, that at no place in any letter to the financial institutions the project cost was shown at   Rs. 85 crores by VLS but everywhere the cost of construction was shown at   Rs. 68 crores. What other purpose was then for VLS to admit a cost at   Rs. 85 crores in the MOU is not on record, it was argued. Thus always there was an intention to give benefit equivalent to 20% of the total project cost to the promoters for land contribution even in the impugned MOU and which as correctly appreciated by the CLB in its order dated 13.6.2001. This is an important fact deliberately concealed by VLS before the CLB as well as before the High Court, it was argued, with an intention to mislead the courts\/authorities by suppressing\/twisting facts to suit their goals. The promoters had brought in   Rs. 21 crores, how does it concern VLS which knew that their worth was   Rs. 4 crores and they had to arrange funds. It was the concern of Sunaero to see the title of the properties being acquired by it as per MOU dated 10.3.95. MOU dated 10.3.95 is not a part of MOU dated 11.3.95 to which Sunaero\/H.J. Consultants are not parties to. MOU dated 10.3.95 is beyond the approach of VLS. The grievance of VLS that MOU dated 10.3.95 is not been mentioned in MOU dated 11.3.95 whereby the so called highly professional financial consultant (VLS) joined hands with Sunair Hotels Ltd. vide the MOU for financial assistance to finance the Hotel project, is not understood. It, it was further argued, so highly professionally managed VLS was not able to appreciate the facts, sources and other circumstances committing a huge amount of several crores, VLS itself is to be blamed. VLS cannot raise this issue as there is no impact of MOU dated 10.3.95 on their status. Respondents cannot raise their disputes with other respondents. Then, it was further argued, the said MOU is over 10 years old. Neither CLB nor the Ministry of Company Affairs can go into the genuineness of the MOU and cannot order investigation Under Section 237(b) on the basis of MOU dated 10.3.95 which does not concern the applicant. Further, it was argued that if there is a fraud, then, the police is already investigating the matter and parallel investigation and that too of criminal nature cannot be allowed as per the scope and spirit of Section 237 of the Act. As regards the contentions of R-21 to 23, it was argued that they had collided with VLS to harm the interest of the company and their statements even before the Income Tax Deptt. were contradictory and not admissible as the respondents had had no opportunity to cross examine them.\n<\/p>\n
8. CA   No. 268\/06 is VLS’s application for early disposal of CP   No. 1\/04. CA   No. 172\/03 of VLS which forms the basis of UOI’s prayer for ordering investigation Under Section 237(b) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
9. I have considered the pleadings and the documents filed therewith as well as the arguments of the counsels for the parties. Certain facts deserve mention:\n<\/p>\n
a. U.O.I has prayed for ordring investigation Under Section 237(b) based on VLS’s CA   No. 172\/03, particularly relying on paras 8,11,12,16,17 and 23 of the application in CP   No. 45\/98.\n<\/p>\n
b. CP   No. 45\/98 dismissed vide CLB’s order dated 13.6.2001 stands remanded to the CLB vide Hon’ble Delhi High Court order dated 16.12.2005 which is being heard by this Bench itself wherein these specific paras of CA   No. 172\/03 have been replied to by the parties as under-\n<\/p>\n
 Para 8.                      VLS Finance Ltd.reiterated.    Sunair Hotels Ltd.\nCA   No. 172\/03                 Breach of Gupta's              clarified\nThat the bank statement       Rs. l crore was already br-      Rs. 21 crores physically\nof M\/s Sunair Hotels Ltd,    ought by Gupta's before        brought in cash by Gupta's\nthe respondent   No. 1,        11.3.95 and no contribution    through Bank accounts to\n(which are on record of      towards  Rs. 21 crores but ma-   discharge their liability.\nthe above mentioned com-     nipulated the accounts by      Not only the cash was br-\npany petition) would ind-    cleverly rotation of  Rs. l      ought but was used by Re-\nicate that as payment to-    crores 21 times. The allot-    spondent to discharge its\nwards the  Rs. 21 crores       ment has been made without     liability towards Sunaero\nfor the Hotel Development    any cash brought and for the   admitted by VLS. Gupta's\nRights, the Company issued   assets of the company through  sold the properties and\na cheque to the 2nd resp-    unscrupulous accounting by     contributed the cash for\nondent for a sum of   Rs. 1    merely book entries, in viol-  getting the shares. VLS\ncrore on 16.3.1995.          ation of Section 75(h) and         has no right to ask as\nThis   amount comprised      77 of the Companies Act.       to whom the Gupta's sold\nof  Rs. 70 lacs paid           After falsely depicting        their property.\nby the petitioner as         induction of funds of          Promoters have not taken\nshare application money.      Rs. 21 crores share allo-       any benefit of the asset\nOn the same day, the         tment form has been fil-       of the company and shares\nsecond respondent issued a   ed on 15.3.95 with the         were allotted for cash\ncheque of   Rs. l crore to     ROC.                           contribution.\none M\/s H.J. Consultants                                    Each party discharged its\nPvt.Ltd., issued a cheque                                   liability in instalments\nfor the same amount to one                                  as was admitted as correct\nM\/s Janki Exports Interna-                                  by the CLB in its earlier\ntional, another entity of                                   order, g. No defaults Under Section\nthe 3rd respondent, which                                   75 and 77 of the Act a sh-\npaid this amount to the 3rd                                 ares were allotted for cash\nrespondent, who had paid                                    because an undisputed and\nthis amount back to the                                     admitted cash liability of\ncompany as his contribution                                  Rs. 21 crores of Sunair to\ntowards share capital. This                                 Sunaero was discharged and\namount of  Rs. l crore was                                    so shares were allotted ag-\nrotated 4 times on                                          ainst cash as a debt payable\n16.3.1995 and 2 times on                                    in cash was liquidated. The\n18.3.1995 and it was shown                                  rotation was not unlawful\nthat the 3rd respondent had                                 and does not effect the\ncontributed 6 crores as                                     MOU.\nshare capital. Again on\n20.3.1995 a sum of  Rs. l\ncrores was rotated 15 times\nbetween the R-1, M\/s H.J.\nConsultants, M\/s Janki\nExports International and\nM\/s Sunair Hotels Ltd. All\nthe transactions were by\nmeans of cheques on the\nsame branch of Syndicate\nBank in which all the\nparties had the Accounts\nand interestingly all the\ncheques were signed by the\nR-3.\nPara 11                      Gupta's who have been\nThat in their replies the    allotted shares are not        Admitted that the\nrespondents justified the    the owners of the pro-         particulars of the 14th\ntransaction and also clai-   perties listed in the          property were incorrectly\nmed that 20991600 shares     MOU and some of the pr-        mentioned.\nof the R-1 were allotted     operties are not even          VLS cannot agitate their\nto them and their family     listed in the balance          proceedings as there is\nmembers against cash. In     sheet of seller companies.     no impact of the MOU da-\nsupport of their claim       The number of properties       ted 10.3.95 on their st-\nthey also submitted that     have been mentioned as 14      atus. Respondents cannot\none Memorandum of Unders-    whereas 13 properties are      raise any of their dis-\ntanding (MOU) dated 10.3.    listed in the MOU.             putes with other respo-\n1995 was executed between    The shares allotted to         ndents. Their reply has\nM\/s Sun Aero Ltd. and M\/s    some of the persons bear       to be restricted to cha-\nH.J. Consultants Pvt. Ltd.   no correlation to the          llenge the prayer for\nfor the purchase\/sale of 13  value of the property          relief filed by the pet-\nproperties of the respond-   allegedly owned by the         itioner.\nent  Nos. 3 to 27.             said persons.\n\nPara 12                      The MOU dated 10.3.95          MOU dated 10.3.95 is not a\nThat it was also submitted   between Sunair and HJ          part of MOU dated 11.3.95\nby the respondents that a    Consultants is not even any    to which Sunaero\/HJ\nsum of  Rs. 21 crores were     agreement to sale does not     Consultants are not parties\nadvanced by M\/s Sun Aero     confer any rights. The         entered into VLS by Sunair\nLimited to M\/s H.J.          price of each of the           and its promoters. Since the\nConsultants Pvt. Ltd, for    promoters were to be fi-       MOU dated 10.3.95 is\nthe purchase of the ment-    xed after a period of 5        beyond the approach of\nioned 13 properties vide     years and balance 14 cr-       VLS, no question for the\nMemorandum of                ores was to be paid after      transaction therein. Further\nUnderstanding dated          a period of 5 years then       it should be known to VLS\n10.3.1995. It was also       properties to be transf-       that interested directors may\nclaimed in their affi-       erred. The buying and          not be able to participate in\ndavits that M\/s H.J.         selling of the properties      resolution unless formalities\nConsultants Pvt. Ltd.,       (on paper) were all done       required thereto were\nwas an agent of              within the same family, the    complied with. Further\nthe owners\/sellers of the    Gupta's have also , not        there is no illegality in\nproperties, and was duly     produced any agreement or      transfer of sale and\nauthorized to enter into     authorization of the owners    purchase of properties\nan agreement on behalf of    of the proprieties for all-    within the family. Sunaero\nthe owners of the respec-    eged sale of their proper-     to ensure necessary\ntive properties. The Resp-   ties. The sellers have not     verification. No complaint\nondent   Nos. 1 to 5 in su-    obtained Income Tax permi-     from Sunaero who infact\npport of their claim\/su-     ssion under the Chapter        has also got the refund of\nbmissions also produced a    XX-C of the Income Tax Act.      Rs. 21 crore from Promoters\ncopy of the Memorandum of                                   within time directed by\nUnderstanding dated                                         CLB. Furthermore\n10.3.1995 and valuation                                     necessary permission would\nreports of 13 properties.                                   have been taken provided\nThey also claimed that the                                  by law before registering\ndeeds of these properties                                   transfers or handing over\nare in their possession.                                    properties to Sunaero\n                                                            Chapter XXC prescribed to\n                                                            apply for permission 120\n                                                            days before.\n\nPara 16                      Some Guptas who have           The promoters have brought\nThat throughout the          been allotted shares are       in  Rs. 21 crores in Sunair\nproceedings of the above     not the owners of the          who has allotted shares to\nsaid petition the            properties listed in MOU.      them. Furthermore it was\nrespondents had a clear      Some properties alleged        the concern of Sunaero to\ncutst and that M\/s Sun       have been sold are not         see the Title of the\nAero Ltd. had made an        even reflected in the ba-      properties being acquired\nadvance sum of  Rs. 21         lance sheet of the seller      by it as per the MOU dated\ncrores to the owners of      company. Respondent   No. 1      10.3.95 attached with reply\nthe 13 properties and        mentioned in his reply 14      specifically mentioned 13\nhave legitimized their       properties whereas only 13     properties. The particulars\nclaim before this Hon'ble    properties are listed in       of 14 properties were\nBoard on the basis of the    MOU of 10.3.95.                incorrectly mentioned.\nsaid Memorandum of\nUnderstanding (hereinafter\nreferred to as the MOU)\ndated 10.3.1995.\n\nPara 17.                     The alleged payment by Rl      Let the VLS prove the\nThe submissions of the       to HJ Consultants Pvt.Ltd      allegations because it was\nrespondents reveal that      and the circular transac-      not supposed to know such\nthere would have been no     tions between the parties      payments between the\npossibility\/question         was not in the knowledge       group concerns of the\nRs.21 crores by R1 and       of VLS. Also because the       promoters because these\nR2 in the absence of MOU     agreement dated 11.3.95        transactions cold not have\ndated 10.3.95. Consequ-      with the petitioner has        made any impact on its\nently there would have       not mentioned, at all          MOU dated 11.3.95 if the\nbeen no payment to M\/s HJ    about the MOU dated            highly professionally\nConsultants Pvt. Ltd. and    10.3.95.                       managed V.L.S. was not\nthe rotatory\/circular                                       able to appreciate the facts,\ntransaction between the                                     sources and other\nparties and ultimately                                      circumstances committing a\nshares could not have                                       huge amount of almost\nbeen issued.                                                 Rs. 200 crores, including\n                                                            investment of   Rs. 17 crores;\n                                                            VLS could itself be blamed\n                                                            for the failure.\n\nPara 23                      The allegations made in        Similarly what evidence the\nInvestigation of the case    the charge sheet are           police has gathered is not\nFIR   No. 90\/2000 registe-     denied, the said FIR,          known to the respondents as\nred Under Section            charge sheet and               nothing has been confronted\n420,406,409,467,468,471,     proceedings pursuant           so far despite the facts that\n477A, 120B of the IPC,       thereto have been              more than five years have\nconcluded that the MOU       challenged by way of           elapsed since the FIR was\ndated 10.3.95 was a false    Criminal Misc. Petition        lodged by the police on the\nand fabricated document        No. 1 163\/03 before            complaints of VLS. There\nto cover up the illegal      Hon'ble High Court of          also VLS must be using its\nactivities. A charge         Delhi and the Hon'ble          money\/influence power to\nsheet has been filed. A      High Court has stayed          create false evidence which\nrequest for further inv-     the proceedings of             will ultimately not be able\nestigation to bring more     framing of charges. The        to face the truth in the\nand effective evidence       E.O.W. Crime Branch            court.\nhas been allowed by the      collected the said evi-\nCourt on 1.8.03.             dence on sustained\n                             investigation in case\n                             FIR  No. 99\/2002 regist-\n                             ered with P.S.\n                             Connaught Place, New\n                             Delhi.\n \n\n<\/pre>\n
10. As on date when I am passing this order, hearing in CP   No. 45\/98 remanded by the Hon’ble Court is still to be concluded as the petitioner\/applicant has been seeking long adjournment insisting on disposal of CA   No. 172\/0.3 first.\n<\/p>\n
c. In CA   No. 172\/03 VLS Finance Ltd.’s case is that of perjury – “MOU dated 10.3.95 is a false and fabricated document” and hence also order for inquiry under Section 237(b).\n<\/p>\n
i. Similar prayer for inquiry is the main prayer in CP   No. 45\/98 to be decided de noro.\n<\/p>\n
ii. The case for the impact of MOU dated 10.3.95 and MOU dated 11.3.95 is yet to be made out and passed.\n<\/p>\n
iii. A parallel inquiry for alleged perjury is already on the matter is being investigated in FIR   No. 90\/2000 as admitted by the parties.\n<\/p>\n
d. The fact that VLS Finance Ltd., a Non Banking Finance Company with sufficient funds and infrastructure available for arranging finances has invested in the equity of the respondent company even after dismissal of VLS’s petition   No. 45\/98 by the CLB cannot be ignored.\n<\/p>\n
e. Nor can the fact be ignored that the project of Sunair Hotels is successfully functional.\n<\/p>\n
11. In view of the foregoing and looking at the economic realities no case has been made out for ordering investigation under Section 237(b) of the Act. It is time that the scope of investigation under Section 237(b) is wide enough to include the past acts of the defaulter as if it is an act of past presentia. Under Clause (b), the CLB may even take the initiative suo motu. But before ordering an investigation, it must satisfy itself whether the circumstances of the case fall under one or (sic) of the Sub-clause (i), (ii) or (iii). Unless, in its opinion, such circumstances exist, cannot order an investigation. The material placed before the CLB must be sue as to justify an order for deeper probe into the affairs of the company. The (sic) fact that a shareholder is feeling dissatisfied about the way in which the affairs (sic) the company were conducted is not enough to get an order of investigation. This particular power of the CLB is not of judicial or quasi-judicial nature. It is a power of administrative nature and can be exercised by the CLB on the basis of an honestly held opinion that any of the circumstances specified in the clause does exist. The power has to be exercised carefully on proper facts and circumstances because of its far reaching consequences. The Board has an onerous duty to form an opinion with regard to the existence of the intent to defraud…(condition contained in Section 237(b) to be satisfied, before or any investigation Under Section 237(b) of the Act. The facts and circumstances of the present case, to my mind, prima facie do not demonstrate and establish the existence of pre-requisite necessary to form my opinion in terms of Section 237(b) of the Act. Hence, I find no justification to order investigation under Section 237(b) of the Act in this case.\n<\/p>\n
12. CP   No. 1\/04 of U.O.I, and CA   No. 172\/03 of VLS Finance Ltd. are hereby dismissed. Intervener’s application of R-21 to 23 and VLS’s application   No. 268\/06 also stand disposed off. No order as to cost.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Company Law Board Union Of India (Uoi) And Vls … vs Sunair Hotels Ltd. And Ors. on 16 May, 2007 Equivalent citations: 2008 143 CompCas 274 CLB, 2008 81 SCL 283 CLB Author: M H R-1 Bench: V Yadav ORDER Vimla Yadav, Member 1. In this order I am considering Company Petition No. 1 of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-85771","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nUnion Of India (Uoi) And Vls ... vs Sunair Hotels Ltd. And Ors. on 16 May, 2007 - 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\/union-of-india-uoi-and-vls-vs-sunair-hotels-ltd-and-ors-on-16-may-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India (Uoi) And Vls ... vs Sunair Hotels Ltd. And Ors. on 16 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-uoi-and-vls-vs-sunair-hotels-ltd-and-ors-on-16-may-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-05-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-12T20:33:53+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=\"27 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-uoi-and-vls-vs-sunair-hotels-ltd-and-ors-on-16-may-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-uoi-and-vls-vs-sunair-hotels-ltd-and-ors-on-16-may-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India (Uoi) And Vls … vs Sunair Hotels Ltd. And Ors. on 16 May, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-05-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-12T20:33:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-uoi-and-vls-vs-sunair-hotels-ltd-and-ors-on-16-may-2007\"},\"wordCount\":3782,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-uoi-and-vls-vs-sunair-hotels-ltd-and-ors-on-16-may-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-uoi-and-vls-vs-sunair-hotels-ltd-and-ors-on-16-may-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-uoi-and-vls-vs-sunair-hotels-ltd-and-ors-on-16-may-2007\",\"name\":\"Union Of India (Uoi) And Vls ... vs Sunair Hotels Ltd. And Ors. on 16 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-05-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-12T20:33:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-uoi-and-vls-vs-sunair-hotels-ltd-and-ors-on-16-may-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-uoi-and-vls-vs-sunair-hotels-ltd-and-ors-on-16-may-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-uoi-and-vls-vs-sunair-hotels-ltd-and-ors-on-16-may-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India (Uoi) And Vls … vs Sunair Hotels Ltd. And Ors. on 16 May, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Union Of India (Uoi) And Vls ... vs Sunair Hotels Ltd. And Ors. on 16 May, 2007 - 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\/union-of-india-uoi-and-vls-vs-sunair-hotels-ltd-and-ors-on-16-may-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India (Uoi) And Vls ... vs Sunair Hotels Ltd. And Ors. on 16 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-uoi-and-vls-vs-sunair-hotels-ltd-and-ors-on-16-may-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-05-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-12T20:33:53+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":"27 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-uoi-and-vls-vs-sunair-hotels-ltd-and-ors-on-16-may-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-uoi-and-vls-vs-sunair-hotels-ltd-and-ors-on-16-may-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India (Uoi) And Vls … vs Sunair Hotels Ltd. And Ors. on 16 May, 2007","datePublished":"2007-05-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-12T20:33:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-uoi-and-vls-vs-sunair-hotels-ltd-and-ors-on-16-may-2007"},"wordCount":3782,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-uoi-and-vls-vs-sunair-hotels-ltd-and-ors-on-16-may-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-uoi-and-vls-vs-sunair-hotels-ltd-and-ors-on-16-may-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-uoi-and-vls-vs-sunair-hotels-ltd-and-ors-on-16-may-2007","name":"Union Of India (Uoi) And Vls ... vs Sunair Hotels Ltd. And Ors. on 16 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-05-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-12T20:33:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-uoi-and-vls-vs-sunair-hotels-ltd-and-ors-on-16-may-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-uoi-and-vls-vs-sunair-hotels-ltd-and-ors-on-16-may-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-uoi-and-vls-vs-sunair-hotels-ltd-and-ors-on-16-may-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India (Uoi) And Vls … vs Sunair Hotels Ltd. And Ors. on 16 May, 2007"}]},{"@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\/85771","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=85771"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/85771\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=85771"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=85771"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=85771"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}