{"id":138272,"date":"2010-02-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sathya-granites-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2010"},"modified":"2014-08-01T18:03:48","modified_gmt":"2014-08-01T12:33:48","slug":"ms-sathya-granites-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sathya-granites-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"M\/S Sathya Granites vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S Sathya Granites vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 February, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: V.Gopalagowda And A.S.Bopanna<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT 01%' KARNA'l'AKA AT BANGALORE\nDATEI) TIIIS mg IIRI DAY OF FEBRUARY 2O'i.':.C)'\u00bbI.\nPRESENT J2 V%\n\n'I'III:: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE v GORAIRGICIVIQA  II  M\n\nAN D\n\n'I'i~iE2 HOE\\E'BLE Ix\/IR.JuVs'I'ICi;._I\u00e9I,r,)'I*._ \nNANDIHALL1.Sf-INDUR;TALU'}\u00a3 _   _ \n\nBELLARY DISTRICT'   \" \nBYITSIIRQ-PR'ILTI*0-I2--_V ' ._  _   \n\nPKPOUNRQXQ  \" I  I  '  l~\"i3'}'I'l'IONI:3R\n\n[BY SR1 JA'I'AIUs*I'RII;s\n v_I.I\\p*iif:g.A: 'A \"\nOR 1)  ' ' '\n\nThe petitiiiiiuer if; c\u00e9\u00a71l1~i:1;g 'iif:-.V.q1i~e:-j,-I.i\"01'1 {he auction\n\nnotice d\u00e9iiedi;O_  \\.?.\u00bbV'VfvV1V'iV(?}1 is inipugned at\nA\ufb02D\u20acXLli\u20acVfAN  While assaiiing the saici\n\nauctmz-3.LI1o{4i1\"i{:a1.iVcji1.O'-\u00a3:h\u00e9 petiiiicinei' is seekiiig fol' the\n\n ()\\}'\u20ac:i' thg waste dumps of iron-ore which is incthided\n\n'in '3_4h{f':  1':=.'(;ii:Oi--i:1c:e1t,i0r1. The pet:iti<mers are c?()m'eric1ii1g\n\ni.i1ai:\u00ab..i:h6:'y' eavii\u00e9r entiitied to lift: the baiarice quamiity as per\n\n _"i:he% leiiiitr. of intent. which was issued in their favoiir.\n\nJ\u00bb;\n\nan\n\n\n\n2. The brief facts are that the petitioners were the\n\nhighest bidders for the sale of iron ore dl11"i1pS\ufb01..bty'.44_\u00a7tIh_C\n\nresp0ndent.--c0mpar1y. In this regard. the  .\ndated 1 1.12.2008 was issued in faxioiir ofthe'-\u00a7e.ti'tiei1erz \nBy the said letter of intent, t.he7-.'qt:_arrtity\u00bb._Vof \n\nMTS of iron ore dumps weyli'-'?"4""\u00ab1llott:eciV i;<1\u00bb_ iii-\\$c:i31"'--VVo.f-'the = L'\n\npetitioner. The right;_.ivhichi...wa's_ agreed " 'u.pori,i\u00a7 was at\nR521} per metric  charges\nand the other    agreed in\nthe letter :".thV\u20ac"'-Hievent of market\n\ufb02uctuatitm  agr'eed'}t0 between them is to\nbe appiied. silt  revision. the said rate\n\nis to be paid byVt.h_eA'p_eti~tLiener and thereafter the waste\n\n tsbe xl"ift'e--d;V In this regard, the sale award\n\nr_d-ziteda.  was also entered into. Subsequent\n\nthereto, 'there it appears to have been upward revision of\n\n ratesiiwhieh has led to the present dispute between\nit  ju"t1'ie._i;:iarties. The correspondence exchanged between\n\n Hthie parties would indicate this aspect of the matter.\n\nt\n\nIn\n\n\n\nSu.bsequent,ly since the pei.itiorie1's have failed to ag1'ee\n\nfor payment of the higher amount, the 1'esp\u00a7.).r1id.ei1.i-\n\ncompany has proeeedecl further 1.0 disposse (_).E"\u00a7V__t1i'c\u00a7 .\n\ndumps by the impugned n0i:ifieatVii(;)Vn\u00bb. In?'i'}iai':"v.ievv."ihe \n\npetitioiiers are before this Court. \n\n3. The responcierits\u00e9-..__()11 beifigf 1".-.c')'t"ii1V"'i'<2\u00a7i_ have\nappeared and filed their ()bjeIei,Vi0:1V stia't;e.111e1'1i'.} Apart\nfrom attempting to ju'st:i'fy ighe-it aei:i<)\ufb02ni _wi1h regard to\n\nthe upward rexxisi011v_-"of.iihe  have also\n\ne()ntendeC1~ --t;ih'at.  pei:1i,.ion"'1taei4f  not maintainable\niI1E1SI}1L1'C'_1"1",';1S' t,h_e're. 'z11fe'rA...s'{:yera1 disputed \u00a3"aei:s to be\n\nC0nSi(i\u20acI'\u20acdh"aI1dVi71,11'i,'3T1C1'~""[,1'1(31'\u00a33?  aiso an E1I'bi1',I'2Hi()11\n\n :,,ind_icat.eei"r*------i-:1 the tender instructions and\n\n _i.i"ze1fef0r'e,"if all the petitioner has any grievance. the\n\nsaid__iremr\u00e9tiyii-_is\u00a3 to be availed. With regard to the fixation\n\nWei' the "1'a_f.7e relating to the iron ore dumps, refereiiee has\n\nV"'bewe\u00bbr1':.'made to the formula which is required to be\n\n .V _ag"}p1ied fer the purpose 0% upward revision wh.ere.!:)y the\n\ndo\n\n\n\nLJX\n\nprice prevailirig for the iron ore fines  to be taken into\n\nconsiderat,ion and the1'eafte:' the price has be \\i\u00bbro_1'ked\n\nout for the wasi.e clumps. At, this stage,_;\u00e9'in--t:e--.__:ih.;e \n\npetitioners are unable to accept:  the" \n\nrespomierm company has procteededzt7urt,her'"-t:o*iiaetieeA\n\nthe riotificatiori. Hence, it is-'v'cr'o.I__1.t.ericle'ci \nis justified. it was also   the  of this\nCourt their. out of the total'  i'cipip.\u00e9;4oio00 l\\\/ITS, the\npetitioners  1\\\/ITS at. the\n\npresent.  wQri<;e(:l-.;'oifit, at R3429 per metric\n\nton. T "era-titled to lift the balance\n\nquar1t,it.y_ of '1'~\/I_'f["S,:':"whit:h the I'<3Sp()I1C1\u20ac3I'll.S are\n\nprepared to"~.per1.11i: the'~pet.it.io1'iers to lift provi(ied the\n\nl V'  _said_ ifatbe .AisVvt.agreed' 'to; "\n\nV *   light of the rival eoriti.er1t.ior1s, the perusal\n\nofthe ]:)fc1.]l)'t3':IfS3'V.W()1l1C1 indirratie that in fact. there was a\n\nH_t.encle,r'V iiqotiiicatiori in which the petitioner had\n\n arid the tender itself was floated by\n\ni\n\n'4\n\n\n\n(W\n\niI1(t()rp(3re1l.ing..;" ccrtai1'1 C<m<.1iti0ns in the ir1S1.r1.1(ttir1s\n\nisstleci to the tenderar. In the said i11st,ructio1'1s,'.C1';1_t1str\n\n12 p1'ovides for arbitration. V'5.\u00bb'1'1CI1\u20acV\u20acfl' there 'i_:-:\u00a7_a1'diS'tptite_. .\n\nbetween the p211'ti\u20acs. The p\u20actiti()1'_1,C..f\u00bb_11ercf1f1\"f3*eti'_1*1g\"awaltV \n\nof the said clause  thereafter 1't':'a}{er1'\"qpzuft: \n\nproceedirlgs and has St1bscq:,}:\u00a2'1fltly \nthe: sale awarded in h\ufb01is fe1vQtz,1.1;:A'2;r1Ci\ufb01thc;'l\u00e9tttir  int:er1t\nwas also issued.   indicated\nthat the parttig\ufb01s,-l;'11ie: a;thtt:r21ti<3r1 clause.\nThat apart,'    along with the\n  that the mspo11de111.--\n(:omp2111i';z'W';1S  ci1'sput:cs with c1e1't:ai.n\n\nother exp()rt:31'S 1ie1'z,1t4ingV1-.5 the sale of the iron Ore fines.\n\n  regard. a'S"a--:--1r;t19a(:t.1.ea}t' \u00a7f:'iSpL1t,e. it would not be appmpriat.e for this\n\nV'-\u00bbC0urt \"1..<) &-;Xerc:ise:-. _i.t,S disc:reti()1'1 under AI"T.'.i(.'.l('-.' 226 of the\n\n "\u00ab(;()I;13f;.it.L1ti0I1 ()fII1dia.\n\nck\n\n\/r\n\n\n\n5. The teamed Counsel for the petitioner would\n\nhowever contend that the orders which are p1*od:ies:_de.at.\n\nAm1ex'ureswR22 to 28 are not the orders w'r'i'i'(i:<l<j.V'~biaiae \n\n"' .'\n\nbeen passed in a similar cirCu1nst,a1'1ce as\u00bb..i..ii'*;o'ived in \n\nthe instant case. It. is cont.ende.d thatf?irigthose \n\nthere was mutual riegotiatzic-t1ei.._beti2tre.en  \nthe C.'.()I1'[FE1(.'.1' had been  it in the\npresent case. the petrit_i'orier    bidder. In\nthis petition. hehas  subsequent\nnot.ifieat.ion_   right. is being\ndefeated';   of the matter and\nperusingtth\u00e9te ;'_n.t.he earlier cases re.fer1"ed\n\nto. t.hough_"=,th'e V fa_.etia,1a'iv..9inat.rix in those  were\n\n ..tC1ifi?315t,*=11:]'+'itVti"1tis C<)'L1'1v-t.--~--3aad noticed that: there was contract.\n\nbe'tWes:n'--v.th:%"p.a1*t:ies. Be that. as it may. Even in the\n\ninstant _c:a.S}:f:,'V' though the petitioner herein was a\n\n"s11e(:es'eV:fLiil bidder in the auction. which had been\n\n"--eL;:1d4ii't:t.etl by the respondents. s1.1bseq1.1ent t'heret:.o.<\/pre>\n
Vb  u there is a sale award and also a 1et:t:e1′ of intent,. Even<\/p>\n
39.<\/p>\n
with regzird to the letter of ii’1t.ent and the sale award.
\nthe p21rt:ies had riegotiated the terms and the rate<\/p>\n
re1aI:ir1g to the waste dumps was fixed. F’urther, iri–.._t11e<\/p>\n
said letter of il’11l(’31’1t itself, the clause with i”c:g2iifd–t(5′–theV<\/p>\n
upward revision of the rate was agreed to \\\\.ri1’e1_”eii’i’ti1,. ‘\\.m;<, <\/p>\n
iitdieated that the market. \ufb02L,1(?{.L';t1{ii(5i}' wouldhet–_Vt:akeri<\/p>\n
into co1'isideratio11 and the rate would be jworked etitg<\/p>\n
In a situation of this r1att1re';'e\u00bb._WheI1 s'ueh~t-erriis have
\nbeen 21gi'ee*d and Wh\u20aci'i__ the p:ai't.ie's.._i'1e2i've a dispute with
\nregard to fixation of t.heV"i<ateV__ahd–'"'ais'o'jvwit11 regard to
\nthe mam1e'r.eiiij; vvhieh  pet.itfi'o1"i'Ver ccmteiids that they
\nhave been iaskcdi t1o"e\u00ab.ii'ft,_. dumps from zmotiher site<\/p>\n
VVhiCh_W()'L11d~ 'c1VC1(i_("v-:1'1A"3:()V'H'1E\u00a5 tr2.msport.at.ioI1 costs, these<\/p>\n
 C'<1'1'i  fa(:t1ia1"a'spe(?t.s which require evidence and<\/p>\n
"th'eV17e'aft.ver_ 'V'C.\u00a3f_).1i:(}lL1Si()r1 would have to be reached. In<\/p>\n
the first ,plaLj:.e\ufb02 there is an arhitrat'i(m eiziuse avaiidb_le<\/p>\n
" -'~__V"whieh 21135 provides for mutual discussior-1. Even if the<\/p>\n
 T 'p_e'i:;iti_o}her is of the View that it is not an e\ufb01itiacious<\/p>\n
.. remedy. it is only by way? of eivii sm't t"h.at: the petitioners<\/p>\n
"c<\/p>\n
9<\/span><\/p>\n
(:31)  their g1″i\u20ac’,V’\u00a31l’}C.C’. l'{3d1’\u20acSS\u20acd. ‘i”‘I’1(%r(-‘.=.f(‘)I'(‘. to iihztt’<\/p>\n
<3xt.ent:. vvea are of the View that with regard to the i'2'u._.'.tu.al<\/p>\n
dispute. this Court need not adve1't to ft:rt:her"ti'etgxi=I_$59.1' <\/p>\n
the me1'itS of the case Si1'1(',('. the Same \\?\\\u00bb-'()-'.:i}C1.I"}~2i\\~iE{:E,() 't;\u00a23" <\/p>\n
agitated before the appropriate :1='.ort.m'1.zf1 'Watt()r1iy"=h()}:\u00e9i.A<\/p>\n
that the present petition is' riot 11iai1its1i1iz;a'bk: v?1Vi1('1 _}t:i1e
\ndis(:r\u20acti0r1 VCSt'.\u20acd in US t1hd'e_r A1*tici'c\u00ab. 226 E01" the<\/p>\n
Constitution of India 1166.51 _1f1L)t. Eieg e'X{\u00e9L1=ci'ss3d.<\/p>\n
6. Having vcorne t_(_)_ti1.\u00a2 a_b(jve””ctQi’:~\u00e9i}1.z\u00absi(m, we have<\/p>\n
aE1″eady\u00ab””I’1e.tibf?;3d V”fif.}1e”‘-.C011t<\u00e9f1't;iii on behalf of the<\/p>\n
I’\u20acSpOHCi\u20acUi’.S  p1*epa1’ed to permit the<\/p>\n
petit1’o_ne1’s to lift qt1a11t.ity of  metric<\/p>\n
 rat\u00e9v’of—-Rs.4~29\/~ per metric ton so 215:, to<\/p>\n
 _1″Ii?1k\u20ac’ :.u”p_t.h\u00e9’qVLIar1tit.y for the amount which  in credit.<\/p>\n
If the peti’ti0f1ers are willing to lift the same. the<\/p>\n
‘n.rfesp0n”c1Ve\u00a7-1t: shall permit them and the rate 2211’ RS429<\/p>\n
V”-:a.1″ri\\\u00ab’\u00e9;j at for the said pu1’p0s-at wit} remain subject. to the<\/p>\n
 of the dispt1t.e\u00a3hat may be raised by the<\/p>\n
we<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court M\/S Sathya Granites vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 February, 2010 Author: V.Gopalagowda And A.S.Bopanna IN THE HIGH COURT 01%’ KARNA’l’AKA AT BANGALORE DATEI) TIIIS mg IIRI DAY OF FEBRUARY 2O’i.’:.C)’\u00bbI. PRESENT J2 V% ‘I’III:: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE v GORAIRGICIVIQA II M AN D ‘I’i~iE2 HOE\\E’BLE Ix\/IR.JuVs’I’ICi;._I\u00e9I,r,)’I*._ NANDIHALL1.Sf-INDUR;TALU’}\u00a3 _ _ BELLARY […]<\/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-138272","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S Sathya Granites vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 February, 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-sathya-granites-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S Sathya Granites vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sathya-granites-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-02-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-08-01T12:33:48+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=\"9 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-sathya-granites-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sathya-granites-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S Sathya Granites vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-08-01T12:33:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sathya-granites-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":602,\"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-sathya-granites-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sathya-granites-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sathya-granites-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2010\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S Sathya Granites vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-08-01T12:33:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sathya-granites-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sathya-granites-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sathya-granites-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S Sathya Granites vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 February, 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 Sathya Granites vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 February, 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-sathya-granites-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S Sathya Granites vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sathya-granites-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-08-01T12:33:48+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sathya-granites-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sathya-granites-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S Sathya Granites vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-08-01T12:33:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sathya-granites-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2010"},"wordCount":602,"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-sathya-granites-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sathya-granites-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sathya-granites-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2010","name":"M\/S Sathya Granites vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-08-01T12:33:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sathya-granites-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sathya-granites-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sathya-granites-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-11-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S Sathya Granites vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 February, 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\/138272","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=138272"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/138272\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=138272"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=138272"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=138272"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}