{"id":120174,"date":"2010-11-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010-3"},"modified":"2014-08-11T14:16:04","modified_gmt":"2014-08-11T08:46:04","slug":"ms-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010-3","title":{"rendered":"M\/S. Duo Properties Pvt Ltd vs Mr P Dayananda Pai on 30 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S. Duo Properties Pvt Ltd vs Mr P Dayananda Pai on 30 November, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: C.R.Kumaraswamy<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OP KARNATAKA, EANOALORE\nDATED THIS THE 30\" DAY OF NOVEMBER 2010\nBEFORE\nTHE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE C R KUMARASWAMY\n\nCRIMINAL PETETION NO.4898\/2010\nBETWEEN:\n\n1 M\/S DUO PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.\nA COMPANY REGISTERE UNDER   \nCOMPANIES ACT,     g\nHAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NZOJZS,  \"\nULSOOR ROAD, BANGALORE 4.2 I \nREP. BY ITS DIRECTORS ' \"\nMR. T.PHANI MAHESH  \nMR. A.M.SHARATH CHANDRA.  \n\n2 SRI T PHA'NI,IMAHE:S'H_  _\nS\/O SRI ._T-- CVA'43%-1WART'H_i\\EA\u00abF{AYAN\nAGEDAB-OUT 4'S'YEARE'\u00bb_, \nDIRCTOR I V  ' , \nM\/S DUO 'PROPERTIES ('P3 LTD.,\nNO.'::8, ULSO-O_R'R'OAD,\nE+A%NGAi_O_RE 42';  ..... .. \u00bb\n\n<3'  'MR M 'SHARATH CHANDRA\n' S,\/O AB Mu rm\/.EN KATE GOWDA\n= AGED AE'5O.u"I: 49 YEARS,\nDIRCTOR"  '\nMrs DUOPROPERTIES (P) LTD,\n NO.'2,8,'i~ULSOOR ROAD,\nI BANGALORE 424  PETITIONERS\n\n '_'(EEY"I._VS'RI;" RAVI B. NAIK, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR W5. A K S\n\nV'  .___ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES)\n\n\/\n\n. J,\n{P\n\n\n\n[Q\n\nANS :\n\nMR P. DAYANANDA PAI\ns\/O LATE P NARASIMHA PAI\n\nAGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,\n\nNO.10\/1, LAKSHMINARAYANA\n\nCOMPLEX, GROUND FLOOR\n\nPALACE ROAD, \nBANGALORE 52. .  RESPONDENT <\/pre>\n
(BY M\/S. S MAHESH & COMPANY, ADVOCATES)<\/p>\n
CRL.R FILED U\/S.482 OF CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE Tj-fO.R’TH’E_j
\nPETITIONERS PRAYING THAT THIS HONjsLE COURTv,M’AYgEsE
\nPLEASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE “”PRQCE.;EDIi\\:\u00ab~23S”~*IN’.
\nC.C.NO.27o87\/09 PENDING ON THE FILE:–Oi.-“9 THE-.>'<v';AjC.MrA,~<\/p>\n
BANGALORE. V  _ _ V .  _ _
\nTHIS CRL.P IS COMING ON EO'R._VADMIssxON 'r'H:3 'E1Ay,..THE _ w
\nCOURT MADE THE .FOLLC)W'IE\\lG:\n<\/p>\n
ORD”R<\/p>\n
  _filed under Section 482 of
\nCr.P.C. by the”learh.edAZ.I:.{2ntJ’n_sel’for the petitioners praying to<\/p>\n
quash the-.e_ntire Dro’ceedihgs’.’in CO. No. 27087\/2009 pending<\/p>\n
‘fVo.o”thel’fil:e  X\\:’~Add|.AC”i9\/i’i91, Bangalore.<\/p>\n
 V”I’A–hgja\\j’eVV’vheard learned Counsel for the petitioners<\/p>\n
 as well as lvearoed Counsel for the respondent.<\/p>\n
   The primary facts of the Case is as under:<\/p>\n
Ohe Mr.P Dayananda Pai has presented a complaint<\/p>\n
it “‘~bVefore the XV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.<\/p>\n
G \/<\/p>\n
The accused has issued a cheque bearing No.197998 dated<\/p>\n
26.02.2009, drawn on The Dhanaiakshmi Bank<\/p>\n
M.G.Road Branch, M.G.Road, Bangaiore, for <\/p>\n
Rs.2,00,00,E)OD\/~ (Rupees Two Crore Only). The’es’a.i.d’1A\u00a2r.e4que’<\/p>\n
I.\n<\/p>\n
was presented for encashment ;and_”pVh’e_g <\/p>\n
ciishonoureci on the ground of “insufficie’nt_efunds’T..ev51ThVer’eafte’r, <\/p>\n
iegal notice was issued on  Inluspiite\ufb02fofwlegal
\nnotice, the accused failed ‘to’pay.thie_’ain\ufb01.ouVnt.and thereby they
\nhave aileged to have comrnitted anVoffen.c\u00e9-e\ufb01punishabie under<\/p>\n
Sections 138 arids_”14%i\u00a7fj;.c:i’t)”if hlegotia’i3ie”I:nstrt:.mVents Act, 1881.<\/p>\n
4.   ‘of..c._Si’i.Ravi B Naik, learned
\nSenior Counsel’  of the petitioners that the<\/p>\n
order sheet ‘dated  has not been signed by the<\/p>\n
V_.–~iwearneVd’3,Ad__diTVvCI\\iii\\Ii–,i..[3?.\u00a7mga|ore. He further submits that<\/p>\n
Tc-ogngi’2’a.nce.__”taker:.._by the learned Magistrate is without<\/p>\n
  appii’ca’tiion.V The cheque has not been presented<\/p>\n
 \u00e9 within six.. rhonths from the date of handing over of the cheque<\/p>\n
 ttiij’theic–omp|ainant. The attention of this Court: was invited to<\/p>\n
 ___”$’ection”138(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act.<\/p>\n
\u00a36″\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
5. Learned Counsel for the respondent relies on the<\/p>\n
ruling in the case of Surendra Singh and Others Vs State of
\nUttar Pradesh reported in AIR 1954 SC 194, wherein at<\/p>\n
para 14 of the said ruling reads as under:<\/p>\n
“14. As’ soon as the judgment is de|i.?\u00e9reAd\u00a7”~1’sj”‘  A<\/p>\n
that becomes the operative pronoAuncem.en’tv-ofthe:
\nCourt. The law then providesjtor
\nwhich it is to be authenticated an__d”mA.adelcertair… it
\nThe rules regarding this’ld_i:ffer but
\nform the essence of the ithereviis
\nirregularity in carr\u00bb;}:j4i>1~g them’:aiout.:’i’t..ais curable.
\nThus, if a judgment not toll”bieV.signed and<\/p>\n
is inadvertentl’-,(_ ac.tedV”:on_:’ ‘executed, the<\/p>\n
proceleldyingi\u00e9gaf,  would be valid
\nbecause   can be shown to have
\nbeen xraliadiity de_li’i,’ere’:(:j”;…s.iivouId stand good despite
\ndefects ulrrr’ the .”mode of its subsequent<\/p>\n
 e.suthentication.””‘ “””\n<\/p>\n
 ‘HeAlial.\u00a7o.,_”re.lie.s” on another ruling in the case of Ashok<\/p>\n
 Yeshwa\u00abnt.\u00ab._’Baci’aAve l\/s Surendra Madhavrao Nighojakar<\/p>\n
mother reported in (2001) ‘3 scc 725, in Head Notes<\/p>\n
 A;.arivd”B;”it is held that:\n<\/p>\n
“A. Six months’ period has to be<\/p>\n
calculated for purpose of proviso (a) from the<\/p>\n
sf<\/p>\n
5<\/span>
\ndate mentioned on the face of cheque and not<\/p>\n
from any earlier date when drawer actuaiiy gave
\ncheque to drawee —- High Court rightly dismissed<\/p>\n
appeiIant~drawer’s appeai against issue of process<\/p>\n
against him — Words and Phrases — “post dated__.___<\/p>\n
cheque\ufb02<\/p>\n
8. Post dated cheque, remains abili  ‘V’.<\/p>\n
exchange tiii the date written oenmtghe face”of]i+, <\/p>\n
on that date it becomes a cheque.  j;\n<\/p>\n
And it is further heid’itf;-at:\n<\/p>\n
“For prosecuting a pe-rson “for an” *effe.E1’ce
\nunder Section 138 vofirjhe ‘megnovtiiaibgivegiInstruments
\nAct it is inevitabie that_t’he c’hei;ue’~~is’p..res’ented to<\/p>\n
the :’ban__keAr’ikirith_i_n\u00ab.a ‘p_e”rio__d.o.i’ six months from the
\ndate on which__’itfi’s. ‘drai2v\u00abn~~”or within the period of
\nits_validii’ty ‘whViLf._he~..(e’r~.–“is eariier. When a post<\/p>\n
da;tedi’*chequ’e’—!SVV_i(ii_ritten or drawn, it is oniy a biil<\/p>\n
”  e>\u20ac’cha_n’g.e and so long the same remains a biii<\/p>\n
  provisions of.Section 138 are not<\/p>\n
‘i tap’piica.b’ie_to the said instrument. The post dated<\/p>\n
checiue becomes a cheque within the meaning of<\/p>\n
 A. Section 138 of the Act on the date which is
\n“-written thereon and the 6 months’ period has to<\/p>\n
 be reckoned for the purposes of proviso (a) to
\n‘ Section 138 of the Act from the said date.”<\/p>\n
ex<\/p>\n
6<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
6. The Eearned counsel for respondent reties on<\/p>\n
Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act — Presumptions
\nas to negotiabie instruments sub ciause (b) reads as under:<\/p>\n
(b) as to date — that every negotiabie_…__
\ninstrument bearing a date was made or drawn on<\/p>\n
such date.”\n<\/p>\n
7. It is the contention of the iearned _Senio.r’C.ou.4nsei’<\/p>\n
that since the ordersheet dated <\/p>\n
proceedings has to be quashed.  _<\/p>\n
8. Section 465 of the Cr.’|5’\u00a7C,.,V’d’i’eadsVas ‘f’oE–iow\ufb02s:,:
\n“465. Finding   reversi\ufb02bie<\/p>\n
by reason ofre.rror’,,o’rnisS.i_on or irreguiarity.<\/p>\n
(i’}…,_%%Subject,_t’o.t.he provisions hereinbefore
\ncontained, ndfindinlg, sentence or order passed<\/p>\n
.  _byV’a*=””Co’u.rt ofv\ufb02connpetent jurisdiction shait be<\/p>\n
‘ reversed jaitered by a Court of appeal,
\n*,co–nfirn*ia.tji–oVn=Vor revision on account of any error,
\no’rniss..ion*”‘ or irreguiarity in the Compiaint,<\/p>\n
 _ sgumzrndns, warrant, prociamation, order,
\n ,jud_gment or other proceedings before or during
\nttriai or in any inquiry or other proceedings under
\n“this Code, or’ any error, or irreguiarity in any
\nsanction for the prosecution, unless in the opinion<\/p>\n
of that Court, a failure of justice has in fact been<\/p>\n
occasioned thereby.\n<\/p>\n
(2) In determining whether any <\/p>\n
omission or irregularity in any proceeding “-u__nd,er,:  <\/p>\n
this Code, or any error, or irreglllyaritymin”vany” <\/p>\n
sanction for the prosecution ‘h__asi_–occassi.o’rt.ed-  <\/p>\n
failure of justice, the Court.4_shall’*–ha’ve re_gs;1rdv”to
\nthe fact whether the object-i.o’Vr:-.could\u00bband:\u00e9;ho’ulVd'” ‘V
\nhave been raised at anV,..e-ar’iier*–…stage’-in the<\/p>\n
proceedings.”\n<\/p>\n
9. In the ci\u00a7se’_gcf  !\\’i:!_  A Abraham and
\nOthers in ‘i\/ivefkw Goenka Vs Padam
\nSambhaV:vv_Ja_iniA inf Cr\/.A.No.84 9\/2002, Hari<\/p>\n
Narain   ‘ Bihar and Others in<\/p>\n
v4,..Crl.A.bltj.848\/20O2..reported in (2002) 6 scc 670 at para<\/p>\n
C23 ‘ re’a~ds as ‘uride*r:__<\/p>\n
 a grave illegality is committed,<\/p>\n
the :;’u’per’ior courts should not interfere. They<\/p>\n
 A, ,sho’ti.l,_r.l\u00e9:’ allow the Court which is seized of the
\n .,:ri9iatter to go on with it. There is always an
\n appellate Court to correct the errors. One should<\/p>\n
C keep in mind the principle behind Section 465<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C. Any and every irregularity or infraction<\/p>\n
of a procedurai provision cannot constitute a
\nground for interference by a superior Court
\nuniess such irreguiarity or infraction has caused
\nirreparable prejudice to the party and requires to _<\/p>\n
be correct at that stage tends to defeat the ends’.
\nof justice instead of serving those ends.
\nshouid not be that a man with enough meatns
\nabie to keep the iaw at bay. That4wou’|’d'”rne’an'”= ”<\/p>\n
the faiiu re of the very system.”\n<\/p>\n
10. In the decision off\ufb02fioljanciecffif1’aya’tA”\u00ab1[&7–orl1a–3 Vs
\nEmperor reported in AIR. 1930–~–~.\u00e9}’:’i’I7\u00a7iOOf7 7’7’r-theii H0n’b|e
\nHigh Court of Rangoon heid”a’s’und\u00e9;r:i\u00ab:   <\/p>\n
“(A) 5′ cfimjinaij”%i\ufb01}\u00a7C\u20acAi\u00a755}-[355 V’ai’3\u00abdV’V’367 ~–<\/p>\n
Omissiongfi  before passing
\nsentence shotuiduV_not’—utitiate triai unless it
\noccasionsubbfaiiutreuof’justice – Criminal P.C.,
\n$53k “i i
\n  E.-jhough itv\ufb02isfdesirabie that Magistrates
\n‘   the express provisions of the law,
\n the\ufb01jjmiistsion to write a judgment before
\npronou’n’c’i”ng a sentence should not necessariiy<\/p>\n
 so Vjvitiate: the trial, unless such omission has in
\n  occasioned a faiiure of justice: 14 Ali. 242
\n and 27 Mad. 237, not Fo||.; 23 cai.5o2, Rei.on.<\/p>\n
:9 I,”\n<\/p>\n
VJ<\/p>\n
9<\/span><\/p>\n
([3) Criminal P.C., S 367 — Omission to
\nsign judgment is mere irregularity curabie by
\nCriminal P.C., S537.\n<\/p>\n
Where a Magistrate prepares a judgment
\nbut does not sign it, such omission to sign the
\njudgment amounts to a mere irregularity <\/p>\n
If<\/p>\n
on.\n<\/p>\n
curable by S.537: A.I.R. 1925 Ali. 299, <\/p>\n
11. Applying the principles laid <\/p>\n
mentioned ruling, in my view, in case, if-,tha Vordve’ri..,:sh,eetghas <\/p>\n
not been signed, it is a curabile-,,:ii—regu|’a’i’ity. under the
\nprocedural law. Such om\u00abi_sk;ion._ wgill. n’o_t\u00bb. cause in failure of<\/p>\n
justice. Forther,”j;’th.i:s\u00a7:.;o~bj’ection’ ‘h’as–‘not been raised by the<\/p>\n
accused intthe ,_Trial  first time, in this Court this<\/p>\n
objection hasxibeern Vra._ised.’iiiiherefore, the contention of the<\/p>\n
:_.-“Iea_rne’3,.:i’Sen,.ior_ Cou’nse.!…,t’nat the order sheet has not been<\/p>\n
and’v.t:he,r’ei:ore., the proceedings have to be quashed has<\/p>\n
i  no forceland the same cannot be accepted.<\/p>\n
 , ,1,2…vv…*aa’he next contention urged by learned Senior<\/p>\n
4’C,ou.nse|.i5is that cognizance taken by learned magistrate is<\/p>\n
 ‘:’wit.h.out application of mind and therefore it is bad in iaw.<\/p>\n
. W:4(<\/p>\n
10<\/span>
\n:13. In this regard, the impugned order reads as<\/p>\n
unden<\/p>\n
“Heard the learned Counsel for the
\ncomplainant. Perused the original complaint and<\/p>\n
documents produced alongwith the complaint and:T\u00a5s<\/p>\n
the sworn statement of the complainant. <\/p>\n
basis of the material available on record.  ‘V’.
\nsatisfied that the complainant has  ‘-
\nprimafacie case for an offence
\nof the N I Act, Hence, I’ proceedl’-_to pas_s.A’t\u00bbhe it
\nfollowing:   A’
\n0 R
\nRegister a crirnln’a_l  accused<\/p>\n
in Register No.III for an ofvfeV3n:ce__._punishable u\/s
\n138 ,orth’er isiegoiiitaiugimm\u00e9nts Act, 1881, and
\nissue’su’mmo_n’s:’fto:the’-accused hy’.RPAD for the<\/p>\n
aforesaid’offencexl  and postage paid.
\nRetu”l’nab|e by _V1’8’\/12′,-’09.”\n<\/p>\n
 ‘c’aire_’Eu| perusal of impugned order, it is clear<\/p>\n
 “that theuilearnedjfp\ufb02nagistrate has perused the original Complaint<\/p>\n
 documents produced alongwith the complaint and also<\/p>\n
‘A .,statement and on the basis of the materials available<\/p>\n
“a.V%”‘on_’Vre5cord, he was satisfied that there was prima facie case<\/p>\n
ll”-against the petitionermaccused. The learned Magistrate has<\/p>\n
z\u00bb ,_r’
\n*5 g\/’<\/p>\n
focused his attention to the averment made in the complaint.<\/p>\n
Therefore, it is difficult to say that the learned Magistrate”-\u00abhas<\/p>\n
not applied his mind. Therefore, the contention raisedloy\u00e9si\u00e9thiet V.<\/p>\n
learned Senior Counsel that the cognizance tal__<en: isfha'd'h<\/p>\n
law has no force.\n<\/p>\n
15. The last. contention ‘d_rg~ed by\u00bb _le\u00e9lrrledi..,,5enio%r <\/p>\n
Counsel for petitioner is that pt.hx\u00e9\u00a7’\u00bbv.,ci’l.eque.’ ‘has  been
\npresented within 6 months”‘f.tom’the’dat’e[V’:a:f”lh.anding over the
\ncheque to the compi’ai_nan:t’;” aI’sQ:’a.i_nu.i’ted’iattention of this<\/p>\n
Court to Section i\u00bbi3’85\u00a7f(_l:a–) of’:.i’l_eg..pti?_\u00ab’blie infstriiment Act.<\/p>\n
16.  ti;Vi.es?\u00bbv_r’eg;ta4r’d,:’:’I’ea’rned._”C’oensel for the respondent<\/p>\n
has reliedv’A’on’~the’  case of Ashok Yeshwant<\/p>\n
Badavejivspp  n\ufb01adhavrao Nighojakar reported in<\/p>\n
  wherein the Hon’b|e Supreme Court has<\/p>\n
 months’ period has to be calculated for<\/p>\n
A pur’p.o_\u00e9}es of proviso (a) from the date mentioned
\n A_;o’n_. the face of cheque and not from any earlier
\n date when drawer actually gave cheque to<\/p>\n
C d rawee.” \u00a7 <\/p>\n
1″)<\/p>\n
1..\n<\/p>\n
Further, Section 118(b) of the Negotiable Instruments
\nAct as to date -~\u00ab that every negotiable instrument bearing a
\ndate was made or drawn on such date. Six months has to be<\/p>\n
calculated from the date mentioned in the cheque. Therefore,<\/p>\n
it is difficult to accept the contention of the |earnedj”Sef\u00abn_io–r’<\/p>\n
Counsel that the cheque has not been presented <\/p>\n
period of six months from the date on which   <\/p>\n
17. There is no precise p;ri_nciple~sh’t’hat can applied <\/p>\n
to quash the proceedings. Each’V’li’ca;’se_has’~.th’erefo.re to be
\nconsidered on its own mer:i_t’~~.and”Apthereafte’r..a decision has to
\nbe taken to quashthe   The learned<\/p>\n
Magistrate:._’ha:sfocusedgp’l1.igs”attenti’on to the averments made<\/p>\n
in the complaint.’  cognizance of the offence.<\/p>\n
v4..,txvermen_tpp made V”ir.~–.. hth_eAh,comp|aint constitutes the offence<\/p>\n
Aa.l_legVed.__  the principle laid down in the decisions<\/p>\n
V citeds’u\u00abp’ra.’i’:e_’;g:,._  SCC 726 and also not signing of the<\/p>\n
 order s.heet.be’ing an curable irregularity, I am of the opinion<\/p>\n
 “thatp’itiii-sh not rarest of rare case where this Court can exercise<\/p>\n
 -in*hei;epntppower to quash the proceedings.<\/p>\n
\u00a3f;\/<\/p>\n
13<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
18. In that View of the matter, E pass the following:<\/p>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
This Criminal Petition is dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court M\/S. Duo Properties Pvt Ltd vs Mr P Dayananda Pai on 30 November, 2010 Author: C.R.Kumaraswamy IN THE HIGH COURT OP KARNATAKA, EANOALORE DATED THIS THE 30″ DAY OF NOVEMBER 2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRJUSTICE C R KUMARASWAMY CRIMINAL PETETION NO.4898\/2010 BETWEEN: 1 M\/S DUO PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. A COMPANY REGISTERE UNDER […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-120174","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S. Duo Properties Pvt Ltd vs Mr P Dayananda Pai on 30 November, 2010 - 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\/ms-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010-3\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S. Duo Properties Pvt Ltd vs Mr P Dayananda Pai on 30 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010-3\" \/>\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=\"2010-11-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-08-11T08:46:04+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010-3#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010-3\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S. Duo Properties Pvt Ltd vs Mr P Dayananda Pai on 30 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-08-11T08:46:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010-3\"},\"wordCount\":2203,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010-3#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010-3\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010-3\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Duo Properties Pvt Ltd vs Mr P Dayananda Pai on 30 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-08-11T08:46:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010-3#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010-3\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010-3#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Duo Properties Pvt Ltd vs Mr P Dayananda Pai on 30 November, 2010\"}]},{\"@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\/S. Duo Properties Pvt Ltd vs Mr P Dayananda Pai on 30 November, 2010 - 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\/ms-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010-3","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S. Duo Properties Pvt Ltd vs Mr P Dayananda Pai on 30 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010-3","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-08-11T08:46:04+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010-3#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010-3"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S. Duo Properties Pvt Ltd vs Mr P Dayananda Pai on 30 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-08-11T08:46:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010-3"},"wordCount":2203,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010-3#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010-3","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010-3","name":"M\/S. Duo Properties Pvt Ltd vs Mr P Dayananda Pai on 30 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-08-11T08:46:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010-3#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010-3"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010-3#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S. Duo Properties Pvt Ltd vs Mr P Dayananda Pai on 30 November, 2010"}]},{"@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\/120174","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=120174"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/120174\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=120174"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=120174"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=120174"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}