{"id":134455,"date":"2009-05-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-05-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-sadashiva-rao-vs-the-municipal-corporation-on-26-may-2009"},"modified":"2017-08-18T09:20:07","modified_gmt":"2017-08-18T03:50:07","slug":"t-sadashiva-rao-vs-the-municipal-corporation-on-26-may-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-sadashiva-rao-vs-the-municipal-corporation-on-26-may-2009","title":{"rendered":"T Sadashiva Rao vs The Municipal Corporation on 26 May, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
T Sadashiva Rao vs The Municipal Corporation on 26 May, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: K.L.Manjunath & Swamy<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH cook\": or KAKNATAKA AT  -. \nDATED THIS THE 26\"' DAY OF MAY';.::201f}\u00a7 ._  \"'     \n\nPRl:LSEN'1'_  \n\n'l'Hi:3 HON'BL\u00a3:ZBi..l\u00a3 MR.;us1'1c:~e: \n\nas  '  \n'i'H!:3 HON'BLl:'.B LE MR.JUS'i'iCE.VV:.L  \nR.F.\ufb01; '..s_I\ufb02c:.2\u00ab\u00a7%A2\"&:i\" .I'g\u00a3'{)u(:)\"i-._  \nB1:l'l'Wl:1!:lN:  'A % '   X \nMR. T Sadashiva Rae'  \n\nS\/0 Babu Rap,   : \nDead by LR3:  TL\n\n1. Smt.I}s ha__Ran   k   \nWfo late TL Sadashixfarao,' \u00ab  \nAgesi 53%years;\u00bb 1} _ \" ' %\n\n 'V    Ran,\n  v\"gfg)'1ateTifS\u00e91dasl;iva Rae,\n' ~agc\u00bbd_\u00ab aB<"2!i_\ufb01 \n\n 3. Lk M\u00a7}nevi\u00a7ra}n\u00abx1 Ran T\n\n SE0 laie._T' Sadashivarao,\n\nx V' \u00bb  about 30 years,\n\nM are Riat Shiva Ragh Kadri,\n\n   Mangaiore 02. APPELLANTS\n\n(By Sri Hatikrishsza S H0213. ~\u00ab~ Advacate)\n\n\n\nhi\n\nAnd:\n\nI. The Muaicipal Corporation\nRep. by its Commissiener,\nMangaiorc.   \n\n2. The State ofKarnataka.,\nRep. by its Deputy Commission.e:1;.___  "     %\nT).K .Mangalore. 'L'   ' '\n\n(By Sri K V Narasimhan .Advrab\u00e9{te '~:&;%{R1\nSzi Sangamcsh G Patii---\u00e9  \ufb01\ufb01dvcgatg} _\n\nREA is \ufb01led u1's:_ 96__ of \u00abV;f,5f\u00a7)'<:edure against the\n\njudgment and   in O S N0.2521'I 99} on the\nme nfthe II Adds. --{AI'.xiVV\u00a7'*'i"V\u00a7.J1\ufb01%ig\u00a2"(\u00a7\u00e9*;Dn.} & cm, Mangalore dismissing\nthe suit for declA\ufb01z*2_Lt'i(}n \ufb01nd Vif\u00a7j'u1j\u00a3$i\u00e9:\u00a7uii1;".money_\n\n  This ';3'p}'}\u00a73| ;;0mjfig' 0;; f:or hearing before the Court may,\n A  J, , fd\u00a7Iiver\u00ab:\u00a7{\u00a7m'\u00a3H}1 t: following:\n\n " 3     JULXJMENT\n\n"Hie  plainti\ufb01" has approached tms Court challenging the\n\n' " --Ti\u00e9ga1_it3I and cdrg\u00e9bmess of the judgment passed by the I} Add}. Civil Judge\n\nV iqangalore dated 15\/1\/2001 in 0 S No.252\/91. The Suit was\n\n  by the plaintiff to declare that the texminaticn of contract made by\n\n\u00a37,\n\n\n\nthe respondent in null and void and to grant a decree for --j"iiJit}1b<\/pre>\n
court costs and current interest.   ‘<\/p>\n
2. The facts leading to this case are es<\/p>\n
3. The plaintiff is a contractor.\n<\/p>\n
by the respondent ~defenziei:i,   ij:;~ee:1ent on
\n20\/-,7\/1939 for  in Sy.No.62\/21
\nof Idya    the work was for
\nes.2?,29,34e}g,V   Rs.28,0GO\/- as E.M.D. He<\/p>\n
was  tdeemptxiete within 90 days.\n<\/p>\n
4. Accerdiitg to \u00a7h\u20ac!_ p1aV’;i21t’eeyfer3;iefc1ts, the defendant did not take any<\/p>\n
action’ to   of the site for construction<\/p>\n
 V.   VeCc.e-p-tanee of the tender. The defendant agreed to
\n  emtent at current scheduie rates. In spite of the
\ngeeg\u00e9gz   the defextdant failed to supply the steel and
\n tkte current schedule rate and possession of the property<\/p>\n
 not handed over in full. The piain\ufb01ff was required. to
\n, ‘. 1% K;\n<\/p>\n
V’  ebns\ufb01uct the buziiding a: an area where 35 shops were located. The<\/p>\n
shops No.25 to 35 were not handed over to the plaintiff to demeljsh<\/p>\n
;–<<\/p>\n
'*3.\n<\/p>\n
16% per annum from the date of suit till the <\/p>\n
However. the court hekl that it had no  me:  <\/p>\n
in View of the arbin-ation clause.\n<\/p>\n
on Issue No.5. the suit of ‘_ =—- a1xpe–\u00a7Iaent”cai\u00a7_1e”ete””be<\/p>\n
 Chailengmg the  presen’
\nWe have heard the leamegi counsc} f,~t11 the pariiesryv ”<\/p>\n
It is  p1.\u00e9:;m_\u00ab;\u00a7f  that the trial court has<\/p>\n
cenLtn{‘d;e\u20aci4’an  that the suit of the plaintiff was not<\/p>\n
 for   ie., (312) the respondent ~– defendant did<\/p>\n
  an apgnlitafien’ 11\/ s 34 of the Arbination Act to stay the<\/p>\n
*’ in View of the arbitration ciause in the<\/p>\n
 c:}.1′:’ii:rac\u00a3_t1.&ie: the civil suit: filed by the plaintiff was not<\/p>\n
 nlainininable. According to the learned counsel for the appellant<\/p>\n
  once the respondent participated in the proceedings without<\/p>\n
K   a little \ufb01nger in regard to the arbitration proceedings and<\/p>\n
having \ufb01led the written statement, it is not open for the defendant to<\/p>\n
contend that the suit filed by the plaintiff was not xtnajntainable in<\/p>\n
eve<\/p>\n
 10.<\/p>\n
View of the arbitration clause and (b) altematively he also’:<\/p>\n
that there was no agreement for referring the matter ioan
\nand clause 30 of the agreement  iipon by
\ndefendant cannot be considered as   <\/p>\n
requires the appellant to drive ‘oefosfe””the athitrator.   V<\/p>\n
view, he relied upon the ju<ig;;zent;of Coo.tt'2'1t Ptmjab S fate\n<\/p>\n
-v. Dim: Not}: reported it:   also the another<\/p>\n
judgment in K  2\\rf’:\u00a7t\ufb01_’D. KN ride: e\u00e9c\u00e9iigaagvgq’ reported in AIR 1998 so<\/p>\n
1297.   twto contmds that clause 30 of
\nthe agree’irtent4’_ca1znotVTbe:  are an arbitration clause in order to<\/p>\n
drive the aprvelhnt to go the arbitrator. Therefore, he requests<\/p>\n
 ‘~ the {to szet ast\u00a7i\u00e9’tt:e.\u00ab}’adgrr1ent and decree of the trial court and<\/p>\n
V’     favout.\n<\/p>\n
Fer x(.:)\u00a7tii?itVE:t,”I’\u20ac1j;i1_i’Itx’\u00a7.<Zi'V.(f\u00a3)t2ItS\\'3:t for the respondent contends that in View<\/p>\n
V –V of   the agmtent, it has to be held that there isg\u00e9\ufb01rbi\ufb02a\ufb01on
\nK  artti suit filed by the piaintiff was not maintainable. He<\/p>\n
 aitetn\u00e9itive137 contends that even if Issue No.5 is reversed by this<\/p>\n
"  "Court, the respondent can contend that the \ufb01nding of the trial \u00a330111'! in<\/p>\n
at<\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n
11.<\/p>\n
holding that the piainti\ufb01 would be entitled for a sum of
\nwith Current interest at 16% per annum  in  ” he ‘A ”
\nrequests the Court to reconsider the eit\ufb01fe ‘evidez’tce “a.nd~  <\/p>\n
since the respondent was not requited….to \ufb01le’-an  ofw . L’<\/p>\n
the findings on other issues  viewd.offthe of\ufb01lleisuit of the
\nplainti\ufb01 relying upon  I-3i11_e_   Civil Procedure.
\nHe contends that even he can’   to take a different
\nView on the iseue\u00e9”hetdp..3;%gaj,;t$t.\u00a2_titeresponciegnt; defendant.<\/p>\n
Having lteard the  for the parties, this Court is<\/p>\n
required to consider fo1}.ovwihg points in this appeal.<\/p>\n
 V. (1) \u00a7F’\\’b.e’t}ie:r.t}:1e trial.._Court}3as committed an error in holding that it<\/p>\n
 V’  :2-gdj\ufb01tiedietion to entertain the suit in View of clause 30 of the<\/p>\n
‘  <\/p>\n
-(9.) If  held in the affimtative, whether the respondent can
\n .,  -perntitted to urge the points which are held against him in View
\na   -9% order 41 Rule 22, if it is so, whether the findings of the trial<\/p>\n
”   “Court on other issues are required to be interfered with?<\/p>\n
ta
\n(3) Whether the interest awarded at 16% per annum from the date of<\/p>\n
the suit is on higher side and requires to be interfered   L’  <\/p>\n
It is net in dispute that pursuant to tender invited by the  ‘
\nthe plaintiff became the successful tenderer’ and he  t”<';~_
\ncomplete the work of construction of a     _<\/p>\n
days from the date of entmstment work"  in h' V<\/p>\n
regard to the terms and condi.-tipns o'f,the.. But  dispute<\/p>\n
is whethe;-vtth\u00e9' chm? :51: "error in not cempleting the
\nwork within the   whether the defendant was<\/p>\n
entitled to terxttirzate the-_aAgree1z1"ent on account of latches on the part<\/p>\n
'V "c\u00bbf_the  'So  point is concerned, it is not in dispute
\n   has appointed an Engineer Mrjagadeesh to<\/p>\n
— ht   0ver’se_erhthev_Weekiletttrusted to the plaintiff by the respondent 14<\/p>\n
 a. months  the execution of the agreement. If the defendant has<\/p>\n
   an Engineer 14 maonths after the execu\ufb01on of the<\/p>\n
  egxe\u00e9ement, it is impossible for the eon\ufb01actor to execute the W\ufb01rk<\/p>\n
  iwithjn 90 days in the absence of an Engineer appointed by the<\/p>\n
respondent. E:<.P14 is the letter addressed by the Chief Of\ufb01cer ef<\/p>\n
fy,<\/p>\n
in favour of the plainti\ufb01f. But the defendant has not <\/p>\n
appeal. Even if he has got preferred any appeal, as  ~<\/p>\n
out by the learned counsel for the respendergt, he   K V'<\/p>\n
grounds requesting this Court ta set asifte tlz\u00e9e   <\/p>\n
Court. But on re~appre<:iation of \ufb021eTe\u00a7idenceh\u00a3 PW-_~u1T' * L'<\/p>\n
the documents relied on by the par\ufb02es.~-tee var\u00e9-not.  \u00a31' positirjn to take
\na di\ufb01erent View on the other     has rightly held
\nthat the termjrtatiovn ef the      and the amount
\nspent by' *1&e':%Iaief?1f\u00a3 55%: in   by the respondent. While
\ncon\ufb01rming:VL?;e";::ointsV}:eid.  of the plaintiff by the trial Court,<\/p>\n
we are of the    of current interest from the date<\/p>\n
 'V bf.  ciate efifeaiizeiion at 16% per axmum on Rs.1.24,?40\/– is<\/p>\n
   the suit transaction is of the year 1989.<\/p>\n
— VV   Thee  rate by the Banks itself could not be more<\/p>\n
   7% to  Be that as it may. when the Court is awarding intearest<\/p>\n
   of suit 11\/’ 3 34 of Code of Civil Procedure, it cannot be<\/p>\n
H  “*-‘i1 1ere\u00a7\ufb021an 6% per annum. Se only to \ufb01\ufb01t extent, we have to modify<\/p>\n
V’ ‘~  ihe \ufb01ndings of the trial Court on other issues.<\/p>\n
5%<\/p>\n
13.<\/p>\n
V th _ <;Oi\\5}"1{A(;T(\u00a7i{<\/p>\n
So far as Point No.1 is concerned, it is not in dispute tha\u00e9\ufb01ts <\/p>\n
30 of the agreement, the de\ufb01sion of the    <\/p>\n
Administration is final, conclusive and the saxziefl one<\/p>\n
parties. It wouid be useful fo1':_us.V to  to  uvthe',<\/p>\n
agreement, which reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
CLAUSE 30:- Except  the contract and
\nsubject to the  ‘by..,C;overnnm1t un\ufb01er the
\nCode Rules   Director of Municipal
\nA.   be \ufb01nal conclusive and
\nbin\u00e9ing  2.21  ti”-:e4V”co:1\u00a7itz*e.ict upon all questions relating to the
\nmeaning of   tiesigns, drawings and instructions
\nhereto ‘before 4.VnaenVtioi~:ect’  as the quality of workmanship; or<\/p>\n
 V’   the’wor1< or as to any other questton relating to the<\/p>\n
  \ufb01cations, es&ma' tee, instructions orders or those<\/p>\n
ooedi\ufb01ohs  to execute the same.\n<\/p>\n
C1*i\ufb02\ufb02” Ui*’l*’1C.ER
\nTOWN M.UNiCL{‘AL COUNCIL, SUKATHKAL.<\/p>\n
   arising dtzxing the progess of the work, or after the<\/p>\n
t’ V”  corrrpletiorz of abandonment thereof.<\/p>\n
\ufb02y<\/p>\n
\u00a5<\/p>\n
iii.\n<\/p>\n
A perusal of clause 38 of the agreement clearly  .
\ndecision of the Director of Municipal A(Zt11ftiJ.’t\u00a7StIa’\ufb01fJit”  ” *
\nboth the parties rela\ufb01ng to the speci\u00a31’catiQns,;’ ‘aw<\/p>\n
ins\ufb01uctions and as to the   th\u00e9fwcrrkm, .1′ tiie <\/p>\n
materials used on the work 0;’ as to  to the
\nmeaning of the sped\ufb01catimt” orders or those
\nconditions or fa\ufb02ur9_:to__exec1it\u00e9”.t,!i(\u00a7n\u00a7.;’  Supreme Court
\nwhzne considerigxgthe   STATE vs., DINA
\nNATH, ‘ ‘iaas\ufb01lteld as under in paragraph<\/p>\n
“15. In the dcc’isio’n Ccfurt in case of State of U}? V.
\n‘I’i;;!:i=3;r (Zhand'(sup1f_e_1_t,_t’his court hewever held that the<\/p>\n
V   ciaiise  in that decision between the parties did
\n  iimft t\u00e93:’t;a;\u00a7’1j..arbitt’ation agreement. In that decision,<\/p>\n
fiti$”Vt30i:t&I*.f.V’v’fit!\ufb021\u20ac1’ held that clause under consideration
\nbefcirc ttscriiywhich provided that except where otherwise<\/p>\n
  \ufb01ptecifi\u00e9cis in the contract the \u00e9ecisien of the<\/p>\n
,, \/ .  5.gpc;;intending Engineer for the time being shalt be final,
\nc\u00bb:)ncIus_ive and binding on ail the parties to the contract<\/p>\n
 Winpon all questions relating t0 the meaning d the<\/p>\n
specifications etc. and the decision of the Superintsending
\nEngineer as to the quality workmanship etc. shall be final,
\nconclusive and binding between the gaarties aims not<\/p>\n
constitute an arbitration agreement but while ff  ‘V’
\nsuch a conclusion this Court referred to a decision ._<\/p>\n
Iammu and Kashmir High Court inthe  of
\nChand V. State of Jammu 8: Kashmir  JR:  ”   T<\/p>\n
In the Dewan Chanel case (supr;4.)_ the  claufee titans  <\/p>\n
as follows: – “For any dispute  the contr\u00e9etor
\nthe Department the decieion of the’ Chief”Engineef”PW;D
\nIammu 81: Kashmir, will i$e””\u00a7inel__;iii\u00a7I ehaggg upon the
\ncontractor. This Court in~–th.at=deciseiontihlieiti\ufb01vtit strong
\nreliance on the   the
\ncontractor a%nd\ufb02’o_”the”  “aim. ‘ approved the
\nconclusion\u00e9iarl\ufb01seed By the] ‘& K”  Court. It came to
\nthe conictusion  that clause that there
\ndid not e3’cistL  as the decision of<\/p>\n
the Segserintending Engiizeefsin connection with the work<\/p>\n
 :x::. was meant for supervision and<\/p>\n
 execution of –tlie-wort: and administrative control over it<\/p>\n
  However, in Clause 4 of the Wort:\n<\/p>\n
Qrciet in  case, which speci\ufb01cally states that in<\/p>\n
   oi’.  dispute between the appellants and the
\nit * ‘:–.con\ufb01:a_ctinsg panties, the matter shall be refened to the<\/p>\n
 ‘Snne\ufb01ntending Engineer. Therefore, the use of the words<\/p>\n
n   feiiy ciispute” would clearly mean that it would lead to<\/p>\n
it ” ‘ . conclude that the said agreement was in fact an arbitration
\nand thus these words do not restrict the scope of the<\/p>\n
contract.”\n<\/p>\n
w<\/p>\n
Therefore, the question is whether there is scope  ”  9 <\/p>\n
matter to arbitsa\ufb01on and whether there is  .’<\/p>\n
to us, in this case, by reading clause\u00bb3ii’  the”agi*eeme;.1t; ‘  of
\nMunicipal Administration caemot be _ as ” and
\ndecide the dispute. His poweeeexre  to the iesuance of
\nspecification, d.esig11s_,’d..rewings   and aiso to
\nverify the   used on the work.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore, the  the   View of clause 36 of the
\nagreement,V \ufb021e’e_22it   has to be reversed, since<\/p>\n
there is no disoute\u00e9 in \u00a3:11e_case which could be referred to an<\/p>\n
 “arI%>1tra\u00a3of’iarg5:iV:that too  there is no clause for referring the matter<\/p>\n
to aI1V’a1f:bi\u00a7’tii*ioti._’   ‘ 1- .\n<\/p>\n
  if t11e~ces:e of the defendant is accepted for the sake of argument,
\n   opinion the trial Court is not jus\ufb01\ufb01eci in disn\ufb01wing the
\n  Sgince the defendant has participated in the civil suit under the<\/p>\n
 ‘ \u00bb. ._}%rb1tra\ufb01.on Act, 1940 when there is an age-ement of arbi\ufb02etion if any<\/p>\n
legal proceedings are initiated without exhaus\ufb01ng the remedy of<\/p>\n
arbihation, the defendant is bound to make an application u\/:5  of<\/p>\n
the Act to stay the legal proceedings and request the
\nmatter to arbitration in terms of the ageement. But  K
\nthe instant case, the defendant has ente1*ec\u00a7L    <\/p>\n
From 26\/ 11\/ 1991 case was adjoumed frotn. ttine to    L\u00bb<\/p>\n
various applications \ufb01led by the under  -“’39  2 and
\nOrder 6 Rule 9 of Code at ‘Civil ad the mm
\nstatement was filed on 24\/1  clear that the<\/p>\n
defendant has pa;’V’u’eij3eted  without making an<\/p>\n
appucaeoim\/s 3\u00abiVVof~.tI{:ej:’Arf’bitt:aiior\u00a2 Act, 1940. When the defendant<\/p>\n
has failed to   34 aed having par\ufb01cipated in the<\/p>\n
_ .. V;.>roceec-‘tiitgtgus of the eivil  he cannot contend that the suit \ufb01led<\/p>\n
 tsi\ufb01ot maintainable. Therefore, on this point also, the<\/p>\n
 Court on issue No.5 has to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
 Accordtiig.l3\u00e9’twe4eI1swer all the points in favour of the appellant and<\/p>\n
=  V ‘  -the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
‘  ” result, the appeal is allowed with costs. The judgment and<\/p>\n
decree passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.} at Mangalore in O S<\/p>\n
.-w<\/p>\n
a1<d*<\/p>\n
No.25}:\/1991 dated 15\/1\/200: are hereby modi\ufb01ed
\nappellant ~\u00bb plaintiff is entitled for recevexy' of ;u '<\/p>\n
interest at 6% per anmzm from the dfite   u ?'o\u00a7<\/p>\n
realization.   .\n<\/p>\n
 x\ufb01age<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court T Sadashiva Rao vs The Municipal Corporation on 26 May, 2009 Author: K.L.Manjunath & Swamy IN THE HIGH cook”: or KAKNATAKA AT -. DATED THIS THE 26″‘ DAY OF MAY’;.::201f}\u00a7 ._ “‘ PRl:LSEN’1’_ ‘l’Hi:3 HON’BL\u00a3:ZBi..l\u00a3 MR.;us1’1c:~e: as ‘ ‘i’H!:3 HON’BLl:’.B LE MR.JUS’i’iCE.VV:.L R.F.\ufb01; ‘..s_I\ufb02c:.2\u00ab\u00a7%A2″&:i” .I’g\u00a3'{)u(:)”i-._ B1:l’l’Wl:1!:lN: ‘A % ‘ X MR. T […]<\/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-134455","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nT Sadashiva Rao vs The Municipal Corporation on 26 May, 2009 - 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\/t-sadashiva-rao-vs-the-municipal-corporation-on-26-may-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"T Sadashiva Rao vs The Municipal Corporation on 26 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-sadashiva-rao-vs-the-municipal-corporation-on-26-may-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-05-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-18T03:50:07+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-sadashiva-rao-vs-the-municipal-corporation-on-26-may-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-sadashiva-rao-vs-the-municipal-corporation-on-26-may-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"T Sadashiva Rao vs The Municipal Corporation on 26 May, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-18T03:50:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-sadashiva-rao-vs-the-municipal-corporation-on-26-may-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2117,\"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\\\/t-sadashiva-rao-vs-the-municipal-corporation-on-26-may-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-sadashiva-rao-vs-the-municipal-corporation-on-26-may-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-sadashiva-rao-vs-the-municipal-corporation-on-26-may-2009\",\"name\":\"T Sadashiva Rao vs The Municipal Corporation on 26 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-18T03:50:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-sadashiva-rao-vs-the-municipal-corporation-on-26-may-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-sadashiva-rao-vs-the-municipal-corporation-on-26-may-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-sadashiva-rao-vs-the-municipal-corporation-on-26-may-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"T Sadashiva Rao vs The Municipal Corporation on 26 May, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"T Sadashiva Rao vs The Municipal Corporation on 26 May, 2009 - 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\/t-sadashiva-rao-vs-the-municipal-corporation-on-26-may-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"T Sadashiva Rao vs The Municipal Corporation on 26 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-sadashiva-rao-vs-the-municipal-corporation-on-26-may-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-05-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-18T03:50:07+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-sadashiva-rao-vs-the-municipal-corporation-on-26-may-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-sadashiva-rao-vs-the-municipal-corporation-on-26-may-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"T Sadashiva Rao vs The Municipal Corporation on 26 May, 2009","datePublished":"2009-05-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-18T03:50:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-sadashiva-rao-vs-the-municipal-corporation-on-26-may-2009"},"wordCount":2117,"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\/t-sadashiva-rao-vs-the-municipal-corporation-on-26-may-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-sadashiva-rao-vs-the-municipal-corporation-on-26-may-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-sadashiva-rao-vs-the-municipal-corporation-on-26-may-2009","name":"T Sadashiva Rao vs The Municipal Corporation on 26 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-05-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-18T03:50:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-sadashiva-rao-vs-the-municipal-corporation-on-26-may-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-sadashiva-rao-vs-the-municipal-corporation-on-26-may-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-sadashiva-rao-vs-the-municipal-corporation-on-26-may-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"T Sadashiva Rao vs The Municipal Corporation on 26 May, 2009"}]},{"@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\/134455","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=134455"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/134455\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=134455"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=134455"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=134455"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}