Allowed

Idfc limited v. Mr. Sidhartha Ray and Anr.

DRT29 Jan 2025TA/172/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

IDFC Ltd filed an original application under Section 19 of RDB Act, 1993 against personal and corporate guarantors. The Debt Recovery Tribunal examined defenses regarding management change and shareholder agreements, held the guarantees valid, and allowed recovery from guarantors.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondent Nos. 1 to 2 to pay jointly and severally Rs.31.41 crores with cost and interest @ 13.30% within 30 days.

Idfc limited versus Mr. Sidhartha Ray and Anr. — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

ir ,E

¶2

Before SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI, Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribuna!-Il, Delhi

¶3

TA No.172 OF 2022

¶4

IDFC TIMITED VS MR. SIDHARTH RAY &ANR

¶5

Reserved on : 06.O1.2O25

¶6

Pronounced on : 29.O1.2025

IDrc Ltd

-^{Applicant bank}

Vs.

Mr. Siddharth Ray

¶11

SPA Enterprises Ltd

¶12

Defendants

¶13

Present: Ms. Usha Singh, Counsel appears for applicant bank.

¶14

Mr. Rajinder Wali, counsel along with Mr. Khalid Abdullah, counsel for defendants.

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank, on 26.08.2005 through Ms. Vinita Sinha, Authorized Representative of the applicant bank, under Section 19 ofthe RDB Act, 1993 against the defendant nos. 1 and 2 for recovery of a sum of Rs.31.41 crores together with cost, charges and pendentellite and future interest @13.30o/o from date of filing of this O.A. tillthe realization in full.

¶17

The brief facts of the case are that at the request in the year 2003, a Company called M/s Data Access India Ltd.(DAIL) approached the Applicant company for grant of loan and applicant company has granted credit facility of Rs. 5 crores. vide sanction letter dated 25.09.2003. The above said facility secured by way of first mortgage and charge in favour of the Lender in a ei

¶18

¶19

TANO. 172of2022

¶20

form satisfactory to the lender of all the^Borrower's immovable^propefties, both^present and future and^by hypothecation in favour of the lender of all the borrower's movable including machinery spares, tools and accessories, furniture, flxtures, vehicles and other movable assets, present and futures, and all the borrower's book debts and along with assignment of all the rights, Utles, interest, benefits, claims and demands whatsoever of the borrower in the^project documents, duly acknowledge and consented to be the relevant counter^parties to such^project documents, clearances, agreements, authorizations, government^permits, no objections, licenses, insurances of or maintained by the borrower. The defendant no.1 executed a^personal guarantee under a guarantee agreement dated 25.09.2003. The applicant company on further request of Dail also sanctioned a further Term loan of Rs. 25 Crores on 21.01.2004. The above said loan secured by a the loan together with interest, liquidate damages, premia on prepayments, costs expenses and other monies whatsoever stipulated in this agreement shall be secured by (a) a first moftgage and charge in favour of the Lender in a form satisfactory to the Lender of all the Borrower's immovable properties, both present and future. (b) a first charge by way of hypothecation in favour of the Lender of all the Borrower's movables including movable machinery, machiner spares, tools and accessories, furniture, fixtures, vehicles and othe movable assets, present and future. (c) a first charge in favour of Lender on the Borrower's operating cash flows, book debts, receivables, commissions, revenues of whatsoever nature and wherever arising, present and future. (d) a first charge in favour of the Lender of all intangibles, goodwill, uncalled flpitat, present and cA

¶21

¶22

TA NO. 172 of 2022

¶23

future. (e) a first charge by way of assignment or creation of charge I favour of the Lender of (i) all the right, title, interest, benefits, claims and demands whatsoever of the Borrower in the Project Documents (including but not limited to the International Long Distance License Agreement), duly acknowledged and .consented^{to by the relevant counter-paftiesto such} Project Documents, all as amended, varied or supplemented from time to time. (ii) all the r'rghts, title, interest, benefits, claims and demands whatsoever of the Borrower in the Clearances. (iii) all the right title, interest, benefits, claims and demands whatsoever of the Borrower in any letter of credit guarantee, performance bond provided by any party to the project Documents; and (iv) all Insurance Contracts/Insurance Proceeds. (f) a first charge on the Trust and Retention Account, Debt Service Reserve Account and other reserves and any other bank accounts of the Borrower wherever maintained. (g) pledge of 100% shareholding of SPA, directly or indirectly, in the equity share capital of the Borrower, including the shares held by pNIL, present and future. (h) irrevocable and unconditional guarantee of SPA' guaranteeing the pedormance of obligations of the Borrower hereunder, in form and substance acceptable to the Lender. (i) irrevocable and unconditional personal guarantee of Mr. Siddharth Ray, guaranteeing the performance of obligations of the Borrower hereunder, in form and substance acceptable to the Lender. The defendant no.1 executed a personal guarantee dated 21.01.2004 and the defendant no.2 executed a Corporate Guarantee dt. 21.01.2004. It is further submitted that the applicant company came to know that a winding up petition under Sections 433 and 434 of Companies Act, 1956 hg_s !,'en preferred against

TANO. l72of2o22

the company DAIL before the Hontle Delhi High Court being CP No.29212004 and a Provisional Liquidator has been appointed by the Honble Delhi High Court on 26.10.2004. Further, the Hontle Delhi High Court was pleased to restrain DAIL from dealing with receivables in any manner except in ordinary course of its business. The applicant company prayed for appropriate orders directing that the provisional liquidator appointed by the Hontle High Court should maintain status quo in respect of the movable assets including intangible of DAIL which were charged to the applicant company. It is submitted that in view of the proceedings in respect of Data Access(India) Ltd. pending before the Honble Delhi High Couft, the applicant is not at present approaching this Tribunal for any relief against DAIL but is confining the present application only in respect of the obligations of guarantors of DAIL under the Rupee Loan Agreements.

¶28

It is further submitted that the on refusal of the company DAIL to pay the applicant had on 02.03.2005 issued a recall notice to DAIL with regard to the various defaults committed by the DAIL but they failed to repay the due amounts. The applicant company thereafter issued separate legal notices both dated 24.03.2005 to the guarantors i.e. defendant no.1 & 2 to pay to the applicant company the total amount of Rs.29.35 Crores in respect ofthe amounts due and payable by the DAIL to the applicant under its guarantee agreements as on 28.02.2005, but failed to recover the same. Thus, the present O.A ffA is preferred by the applicant Company to recover its dues.

€)

TA NO. ll2 of 2022

On notice by this Tribunal, defendant nos.¹ to 2^put appearance through counsel and filed written statement.

¶33

In the written statement the defendants have submitted that Ms. Vinita Sinha is not the authorised representative of the applicant company and therefore, not competent to sign, verify and institute the present OA. It is submifted that the defendant no. 1 was the founder promoter and Managing Director of a company run under the name and style of M/s Data Access India Limited (DAIL) or the principal debtor. Under the able stewardship of the defendant no. 1, the principal debtor registered a meteoric rise and rose to become one of the largest long distance telephony seryice companies in India. The company netted a turnover of Rs. 632 Crores for the fiscal year 2002-2003 against Rs.48 Crores in 2001-2002 and increased its market share in ILD seryices sector from nil to around 36 percent in a span of nine months. The company with the purpose of expanding its operations had taken loans of varying amounts from the applicant and one such loan was for an amount of Rs.5 Crores. A term loan agreement for this amount was executed by and between the applicant and DAIL on 25.09.2003. Owing to the defendant no.l's position as the Managing Director of DAII the defendant no. 1 was required to furnish personal guarantee for the said amount of Rs.5 Crores. The said loan was however first secured against the securities i.e. (a) a first mortgage and charge against all the Borrower's immovable properties, both present and future (b) a first charge by way of hypothecation against all the Borrower's movables and all the Borrower's book debts, re_ceivables, commissions, g)

¶34

TANO. 172of2022 6

¶35

revenues,^present or future^(c) assignment of all rights, title, interest, benefits and demands of the Borrowerⁱⁿ the Project Documents (d)^pledge of shares held in the Borrower by Pacific Net Invest (PNI), SPA and CHPL. For another term loan of Rs.25 Crores, the Second Term Loan agreement was executed on 21.01.2004. For this term loan Corporate Guarantee of defendant no. 2 was executed along with a^{personalguarantee} of defendant no. 1 on 21.01.2004. The said loan was however first secured against the securities i.e. (a) a first mortgage and charge against all the Borrower's immovable properties, both present and future (b) a first charge by way of hypothecation against all the Borrower's movables (c) a first charge against all the Borrower's book debts, receivables, commissions, revenues, present or future (d) a first charge against all intangibles, goodwill, uncalled capital, present or future (e) assignment of all rights, title, interest, benefits and demands of the Borrower in the Project Documents (f) a first charge on the Trust and Retention Account, Debt Service Reserve Account and other reserves and any other bank accounts (g) pledge of shares held in the Borrower by Pacific Net Invest (PNI), SPA and CHPL. The applicant company seeing the financial need and the promising growth prospects of the company agreed to provide the above mentioned term loans. Taking advantage of the fact that the defendant was keen to obtain the money expediently to harness its growth which was at a critical stage, the defendant was therefore made to enter into terms which were totally bipaftisan and one sided. It is submitted that the loan agreements were supported by the personal guarantees of the defendant no.l even though there was enough security provided for the loan granted to

e^'\

TA NO. 172 of 2022

the company. The net block of the borrower as of September 2003 was Rs.88 Crores and the additional borrowing of Rs.25 Crores were disbursed for acquisition of additional capital assets thereby taking the net block of the borrower beyond Rs.100 Crores all of which continues to remain as^principal security against the above loan. The defendant was made to sign standard contracts on the dofted line favouring the applicant company. It is submitted that since the execution of the loan agreements the^principal debtor then under the management ofthe defendant no. t^had been^paying interest amounts at regular intervals as^has been mentioned in the loan agreements. The company then to shore up its finances fufther sought to issue an Initial Public Offering in the month of March 2004. The said IPO of the company was however lvithdrawn on the last day before the opening of the issue owing to certain clarifications that came to be sought by the regulator SEBI and it was to await further approval of SEBI. Around this time one Cheran Enterprises Private Limited represented by its Managing Director, Mr. K.C. Palanisamy, investors showed keen interest in investing in the company as a strategic investor and new promoter. Consequently, after negotiations and on the representations made by the new investors, the defendants entered into a share holders' agreement dated 01.07.2004 with the new investors through Cheran Holdings (h/t.) Ltd. (CHPL) and one M/s KCP Associates Holdings h/t. Ltd. (KCPAHPL), special purpose vehicles which were ostensibly set up for this acquisition by CEPL. Vide this share holders agreement the shares held directly and indirectly by the defendants in DAIL were sold and transferred to the investors for a consideration of about RfAcrores. Out of this

e)^'.

TA NO. 172 of 2022

consideration an amount of Rs.24,61,43,628 were^paid directly to applicant company towards discharge and foreclosure of loan^granted to the defendant no. 2. All securities, including immovables and movables of defendant no. 2 were discharged. A final detailed amended shareholders agreement was executed on 26.08.2004 which reduced in writing the rights and obligation of the^parties in respect of the management and operation of the^principal debtor company. The management of the^principal debtor company which was earlier run under the original promoter, the defendant no. 1,^passed into the hands of the new management appointed by the investors headed by Mr. K.C. Palanisamy together with other nominee Directors of the Investors with effect from 01.07.2004 and all the powers of the earlier Board Members were withdrawn in the Board meeting held on the same day i.e. 01.07.2004. The company consequently was taken over by the new management together with all its assets, liabilities and its overseas. It was resolved in the Board of Directors meeting held on 01.07.20M that the existing guarantees of the defendants will be replaced by fresh guarantees of the investors, once the money that the new investors bring into the company is repaid. It was inter alia on this promise that the defendanE transferred management and control to the new investors. It is submitted that the rights and liabilities of the parties and the mode of control of the principal debtor company came to be crystallized in the shareholders agreement dated 26.08.2004. It is submitted that owing to its position as the one of the major lenders of the company and especially owing to the terms and conditions as contained in the term loan agreements, the applicant comDany was apprised of all q)'

¶44

¶45

TA NO. 172 of 2022

¶46

the decisions that came to be taken by the company. The applicant even agreed to release the shares pledged with it to enable parties to effect transfer of shares and re-pledge it back by the new investors. Vide the shareholders agreement dated 26.08.2004, the following arrangement was entered into by the relevant parties to which the applicant was a primary participant -^{(a) As security170,761,755 equity shares (i.e. the} shareholding of PNI and SPA in the principal debtor company) were pledged with the applicant company for the loans taken from it (b) The applicant company then temporarily released these pledged shares in the principal debtor company to allow and effect the transfer ofthese shares from the defendant no. 2 to the new investors, CHPL and KCHPL (c) as per the shareholders agreement the defendant no.2 transferred some of these shares to the new investors. CHPL then re-pledged these shares with the applicant company. Defendant no.2 also re-pledged its balance shares in the principal debtor company as a security to applicant company for the principal debtor company's loan. Owing to the said transfer the defendant no.2 lost its control over the principal debtor company and became a minority shareholder holding only about 14olo, while PNI (which was now controlled by the new investors) came to control 5lo/o of the principal debtor and the new investors controlled another 11% (d) therefore almost 760/o of the entire share capital of the principal debtor company (i.e. the aggregate holding of principal debtor company i.e. PNI 51olo & SPAl4o/o & CHPL 11olo) is pledged with applicant company and (e) CHPL & KCPAHL on the other hand holds 760lo equity in PNL IT is submitted that the defendants are merely minority shareholders in the princip-al_d3btor company and the

("\

TA NO. 172 of 2022

control of the company rest with the^new management controlled by one Mr. K.C. Pataniswamy. It is submitted that the applicant has full knowledge of the above mentioned transaction and knew fully well that control ofthe company had been transferred to the new investors and consequently the liabilities of the defendants in the natural course of events were to be finally extinguished. The applicant in clear collusion with the new investor group have therefore, chosen to move against the defendants who are merely minority shareholders as opposed to the new investor held Company. At the time when the control of the company was transferred to the investors the company was earning monthly revenue of Rs.60 Crores and enjoyed about 28olo market share of Indian ILD market. A bare perusal of the agreement would show that the investors were required to infuse funds to the extent of Rs.75 crores for running the company. It is an admitted position that this sum of Rs.75 crores has not yet been injected by the Investors into the company. The applicant being one of the main financiers of the principal debtor was wellaware of allthese agreements. On the other hand a debt was due from Data Access America Inc., a subsidiary of the principal debtor, to the principal debtor amounting to Rs.78 crores for the seruices rendered by the principal debtor. This debt which was agreed to be returned by this subsidiary :f the principal debtor to the principal debtor, was earmarked for meeting the principal debtor's trade debts including liabilities of BSNL and other statutory liabilities including the servicing of the applicant company's loa.n. However, the new management illegally and fraudulently siphoned off the said remittance by DAA to its own companies. Various

¶51

Era

¶52

TANO. 172of2022 11

¶53

Government authorities includingtheEnforcement Directorate, the Economic Offences Wing of the Delhi Police and the Official Liquidator are investigating this misappropriation of funds legitimately received for the benefit of the^principal debtor. Since the investors did not stick to the commitment of injecting fresh funds and principles of corporate governance were not being followed, Mr. Siddhartha Ray, defendant no. 1 tendered his resignation from the Board of Directors of the defendant company on 30.08.2004. It is submitted that during this time a company petition came to be filed bearing C.P. No. 292 of 2004 by one of the creditors of the principal debtors and vide ib order dated 18.11.2004, Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri was pleased to direct the winding up of the company, the principal debtor. The applicant herein had approached the Hon'ble Court vide its application bearing CA. No. 179 of 2005. The Hon'ble Court has directed the Official Liquidator to take control of all assets of the company. Therefore, it is prayed that the Official Liquidator may be made a party to these proceedings being necessary for the proper adjudication of these alleged claims. It is submitted that in view of the above directions of the Hon'ble Company Court Judge, the proceedings before this Hon'ble Tribunal are premature. It is submitted that the applicant company was present before the Hon'ble Company Court where it had raised it's claim and admittedly filed these proceedings while the matter was still pending before the Hon'ble Company Couft. Thus, the applicant has in clear violation of all known tenets of law have initiated parallel proceedings during the pendency of the matter before the Hon'ble Company Court. Owing to the impleadment of the applicant as a creditor in C.P. No. 292 ol ZaE+ the appticant cannot

€),

TA NO. 172 of 2022

raise a similar claim against the alleged existing guarantors before this Hon'ble Tribunal. It^is submitted that the principal debtor was under the control and management of the investor Cheran^group of companies based in Chennai. In collusion with the applicant, the investors apparently filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the applicant before the Courts in Madras in which reportedly some orders have been passed in favour of the investors against any proceedings against the principal debtor or the investor group. This fact has been conveniently suppressed by the applicant. The suit filed in Chennai courts are motivated and collusive in nature as the same is done to initiate these proceedings against the defendanb herein. It is submitted that the guarantees were given by the defendants when the control of the company was with them and with the new investors entering the company's management the consequent liability has also been transferred to that effect. All the transactions and events have been within full knowledge of the applicant, thus they are estopped from raising any claim of recovery against the defendants. It is further submitted that pursuant to the shareholders agreement dated 01.07.2004, in the meeting of the Board of Directors of principal debtor held on the same date which the applicant was fully aware, it was understood that the guarantees of the defendanS became subject to thetime period of repayment of loan of Rs.75 crores which were to be injected by the investors/new management. Thus, it was already understood by all the concerned parties including the applicant that the liabilities of the defendants with respect to the guarantees for the company they did not control had come to an end but keepi4q in regard the promise of e)(

¶58

¶59

TANO. 172of2022

¶60

injection of the proposed Rs.75 Crores of investors funds, the same were to be continued till the time the investors funds were repaid. It is submitted that the investor's fund was never released and in fact the investors siphoned of the monies owed to the company. Thus it cannot fall on the applicant to raise a claim against the defendants since they were fully aware of the transfer of the liability. It is submitted that in any case the guarantees are subject matter of pending litigations in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in various matters. The guarantees are subject matter of OMP No. 104 of 2005 and vide order dated 05.07.2005 the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has directed status quo qua the subject matter of the dispute which includes the guarantees. Thus, the applicant cannot attempt to invoke the said guarantees knowing fully well of the proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. It is submitted that application as has been filed is also bad for conjoining of two separate causes of action arising out of two separate agreements. Especially when the guarantees as alleged are different in both the agreements. Under the term loan agreement dated 25.09.2003 only defendant no. 1 is the alleged guarantor and under the second term loan agreement dated 21.01.2004 both defendant no. 1 & defendant no. 2 are parties. Term Loan Agreement dated 25.09.2003 is a term loan for a period of 36 months but under the second term loan agreernent dated 21.01.20M no such date/duration is provided for, thus evidenUy the debt has not matured. Accordingly, it is prayed to dismiss the present application with exemplary cost.

¶61

Both parties have filed their respective evidence.

TA NO. 172 of 2022

Heard the Ld. Counsels of both the parties and perused the record.

¶66

The Ld. counsel of the applicant^{has submitted} that the defendants stood as^{personal guarantor and} corporate guarantor of the loan and therefore,^{they are} jointly and severally liable with the borrower for the repayment of the loan. It is submitted^{that the applicant} has filed the^present OA against the^{guarantors only} and therefore, the OA is liable to be allowed^{and it} cannot be dismissed merely because the^applicanthas not filed any OA against the actual borrower.^{On the} other hand the Ld. counsel of^{the defendantshas} submitted that the applicant^{has recovered the entire} amount from the sale of the^{pledge shares of the} borrower and therefore, the defendants^{are not liable} for any repayment. In this regard I^{have gonethrough} the record. From^perusal of the^{record it is clear that} there is no evidence on the^{recordthat the entire due} amount has been^{recoveredby the applicant from the} sale of the^pledged shares of the^{borrowercompany.} Therefore, the^present OA cannot^{be dismissed on this} ground.

¶67

The next contention of the Ld.^{counselof the} defendants is that the respondent^{havesigned the} documents merely because he^was the^principle director of the company. It is submitted that that^the defendant was made to sign the contract^{on doted lines} favouring the applicant company. But the contention of the defendant cannot be accepted. The defendant^is running such a huge company and must have a team of legal experts for entering into various contiacts. Therefore, the contention of the defendant that^{he has}

TA NO. 172 of 2022

signed the contract without^{going throughthe} same cannot be accepted.

¶72

The next contention of the Ld. counsel of the defendants that a shareholder agreement^{was executed} and the defendant was replaced from the^management and new management was appointed by the^investors headed by Mr. K.C.Palanisamy together with other nominated directors. It is submitted that the defendant, therefore, discharged from the liability as the defendant was replaced by the shareholder agreement and therefore, the defendants are not liable. On the other hand the Ld. counselof the applicant has submifted that the applicant has taken the^{personal guarantee} of the loan and therefore, merely because the defendant was replaced by the other director, the liability of the defendant cannot be discharged. In this regard I have gone through the record. From perusal of the record it is clear that along with other security the defendant no.1 Sidharth Ray has executed irrevocable and unconditional personal guarantee^guarantying the performance of the obligation of the borrower on 25.09.2003. The another loan was sanctioned on 21.01.2004 and in the said Rupee Term Loan Agreement the defendant no.1 has again executed a personal guarantee in favour of the applicant bank under a guarantee agreement date 21.0L.2004. Therefore, it is clear that the defendant no.1 has executed^personal guarantee in respect of both the loans and therefore, merely because he was discharged from the management, his liability cannot be deemed to be discharged.

¶73

The next contention of the Ld. counsel of the defendant is that the applicant.was given shares in the

¶74

¶75

TANO. 172of2022

¶76

winding up proceedings by the Hontle Delhi High Court and therefore, the entire debt has been satisfied. In this regard he has filed the^{judgemnetpassed} by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court titled Pacific Convergence Corporation Limited Vs. Data Access^(India) Ltd. 125 (2005) Delhi Lawtimes page 335. I have gone through the above^judgement. From^perusal of the above judgement it is clear that cerLain shares in the winding up of the Data Access company has been awarded to the applicant company. But it is not^proved that the entire dues of the applicant has been satisfied by getting the amount in the winding up of the Data Access company. Therefore, the contention of the defendants has no force.

¶77

From perusal of the record it is clear that the defendant has stood as^personal guarantor in the two loans and the defendant no.2 has stood as corporate guarantor in the two loans and the borrower company has failed to maintain the financial discipline and therefore, the account of the borrower has been declared as NPA. Demand notice has been issued to the borrower and the guarantor and the defendants have failed to repay the amount and therefore, the TA of the applicant is liable to be allowed. The contents of the TA are duly^proved by the evidence filed by the applicant.

¶78

There is an IA pending by which the defendants have sought discharge from the liability. As the TA is being allowed, these pending IAs are being disposed of as being infructuous.

¶79

In the light of the above discussions, the present TA deserues to be allowed against defendants.

/-^

TA NO. 172 of 2022

ORDER

I hereby allow this T.A. of the Applicant^{Bank and} direct the defendant nos. 1 to 2 to^{pay jointly and} severally to the applicant bank within 30 days^from today, a sum of Rs.31.41 Crores along with^cost, expenses and interest @ 13.30olo from the date of^flling of this O.A. which has become TA till the date of realization.

¶85

In case of failure to deposit the above amount within the stipulated^period, the same shall^be recovered from the sale of^personal movable^and immovable assets of the defendant no. 1 to^2.

¶86

Recovery Certificate be^{issuedforthwith and be} sent to Recovery fficer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi.

¶87

The registry of this Tribunal is hereby directed to issue free copy of the order and send the same to^both the parties.

¶88

Pafties are directed to appear before^{the Ld.} Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhi on 27.03.2025.^Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.

¶89

File be consigned to records.

¶90

!^{s"</sup> *r Date : 29.01.2025 (susHrl KUrvl-AR nA#ocu PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi This^judgement has been signed, dated and}

¶91

pronounced in open court.

¶92

e"\

¶93

Date : 29.01.2025

¶94

(SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi

¶95

Idfc limited v. Mr. Sidhartha Ray and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idfc limited v. Mr. Sidhartha Ray and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases