{"id":142009,"date":"2005-04-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-04-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-makhija-construction-enggr-vs-indore-development-authority-and-on-19-april-2005"},"modified":"2018-11-24T16:28:11","modified_gmt":"2018-11-24T10:58:11","slug":"ms-makhija-construction-enggr-vs-indore-development-authority-and-on-19-april-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-makhija-construction-enggr-vs-indore-development-authority-and-on-19-april-2005","title":{"rendered":"M\/S Makhija Construction & Enggr. … vs Indore Development Authority And … on 19 April, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
M\/S Makhija Construction & Enggr. … vs Indore Development Authority And … on 19 April, 2005<\/div>\n
Author: R Pal<\/div>\n
Bench: Ruma Pal, C.K. Thakker<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  2694-2695 of 2005\n\nPETITIONER:\nM\/s Makhija Construction & Enggr. P. Ltd\n\nRESPONDENT:\nIndore Development Authority and Ors\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 19\/04\/2005\n\nBENCH:\nRuma Pal & C.K. Thakker\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
(Arising out of SLP) Nos. 21113-21114 of 2001)<\/p>\n
RUMA PAL, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe appellant’s grievance is that his tender for allotment
\nof land reserved for educational use was not accepted by the
\nrespondent- authority.  The tender notice was published on
\n22nd September 1993.  It invited tenders from “registered
\ninstitutions who manage educational activities or are constituted
\nfor this purpose” for 10,340 sq. mtrs. of land reserved for
\neducational purposes under the respondent-authority’s scheme.
\nOf the tenders submitted the three tenderers  were  the
\nappellant, Jagriti Bal Mandir Society (hereafter referred to as
\n‘Jagriti’) and Crescent Public school (hereafter referred to as
\n‘Crescent’) who bid Rs. 261 per Sq.m., Rs.201 per Sq.m. and
\nRs. 177.60 per Sq.m. respectively.  The appellant, as its name
\nsuggests,  is a construction company.  However, one of its
\nobjects in its Memorandum of Association is claimed to be to
\nconstruct and establish schools.  Because the appellant did not
\nhave any experience of managing an educational institution its
\ntender was rejected  on 28th December  1993 and , the
\nrespondent authority allotted the land in equal halves to Jagriti
\nand Crescent.\n<\/p>\n
The appellant and Jagriti filed writ petitions in the Gujarat
\nHigh Court.  The appellant’s grievance was that he was the
\nhighest tenderer having quoted for the land at Rs.261 per sq.
\nmtr. and that his tender was rejected unreasonably.  Jagriti’s
\ngrievance was that it had bid for the land at  Rs.201 per sq. mtr.
\nwhich was higher than the bid of Crescent which had offered
\nonly Rs.177.60 per sq. mtr.  Jagriti, therefore, claimed that the
\nwhole of the land should have been made available to it.
\n\tBoth the writ petitions were disposed of by an order dated
\n4th March 1998 by which the Court directed the respondent-
\nauthority to consider the representations of the appellant and
\nJagriti.  The matter was re-considered by respondent No. 1 and
\nagain by resolution dated 7th December 1998, the decision
\ntaken earlier was re-affirmed.   Pursuant to the decision, a letter
\nof allotment was issued to Jagriti and Crescent.
\n\tThis led to a second round of litigation by the appellant
\nand Jagriti reiterating their earlier stand.  Both the writ petitions
\nwere allowed by a common order on 29th February 2000.  The
\nlearned Single Judge was of the view that the requirement in
\nthe tender that the tender would be accepted only from
\nregistered institutions which are engaged in educational
\nactivities had an alternative which was ignored by the
\nrespondent No.1, namely, that the institutions constituted for
\nthat purpose could also participate.  Since the appellant’s
\nmemorandum showed that the appellant was constituted, inter-
\nalia, for setting up schools, it could not be disqualified on this
\nground.  The respondent No. 1 was accordingly required to
\ndecide the representations of the appellant and Jagriti afresh
\nwith a speaking order without being influenced by the earlier
\nrecommendations or earlier resolutions.
\n\tThree appeals were preferred from this order before the
\nDivision Bench.  One appeal was by Jagriti and two by
\nCrescent. Jagriti’s appeal was dismissed for default.  One of
\nCrescent’s appeal was dismissed on the ground that the Single
\nJudge had done substantial justice.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe respondent No. 1  authority then reconsidered the
\nmatter again and by a resolution dated 18th September 2000, in
\nkeeping with the observations of the High Court, held that the
\nappellant was competent to tender and accept the tender. Its
\ntender was accepted and allotment of the entire plot of 10,340
\nsq. mtrs.  was made to the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
\tImmediately after this, Jagriti’s Letters Patent Appeal  was
\nrestored and ultimately after hearing the parties allowed by the
\nimpugned order. The learned Single Judge’s decision  was set
\naside and the respondent No. 1 was given the liberty to
\nimplement and give effect to the advertisement published by it
\non 22nd September 1993.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe appellant has challenged the decision of the Division
\nBench contending that the dismissal of Crescent’s Letters
\nPatent Appeal from the order of the learned Single Judge
\noperated as res judicata and that in any event, the
\nadvertisement had been misconstrued by the Division Bench to
\nmean that the tenderers had to be engaged in education
\nwithout considering that the advertisement allowed institutions
\nwhich were merely constituted for the purpose of education to
\napply.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe respondents have submitted that there was no
\nquestion of the order of the Division Bench dismissing
\nCrescent’s appeal operating as res judicata against Jagriti
\nbecause Jagriti was only a co-respondent in Crescent’s appeal.
\nIt is also argued that the principle of res judicata would only
\napply if there was a hearing and a decision –  both which were
\nabsent when the order on Crescent’s appeal was passed.  On
\nthe question of the eligibility of the appellant to apply, it was
\ncontended that irrespective of the construction of the
\nadvertisement since Jagriti had established experience in the
\nfield of education it was better qualified than the appellant.   It is
\nsubmitted that the appellant could not be said to have been
\nconstituted for the purpose of education.  The objects of
\nMemorandum of Association merely list possible fields of
\ndiversification.  It is also submitted that there was nothing in the
\nadvertisement from which it could be assumed that the tender
\nwould be given to the highest bidder.  In fact, money was not
\nthe sole governing factor.  In this connection, reference was
\nmade to Government Order dated 28th August 1986 from
\nMadhya Pradesh Tender Advertisement Law Manual.  It
\nrecords that the Government had taken a decision that public
\ninstitutions like educational, religious and charitable institutions
\nmay be allotted space for the purposes for which they were set
\nup by determining the price of land allotted on the principle of
\n‘No Profit No Loss’ basis.\n<\/p>\n
On the merits, Jagriti’s submissions appear to be correct.
\nThe tender notice had asked for bids from registered institutions
\ncarrying on educational activities.  The clear implication of the
\nlanguage is that the institution must be one which is constituted
\nfor the purpose of educational activities, if  it does not already
\nmanage educational activities.  The tender notice specified,
\ninter alia, that the tender form had to be accompanied with
\n“description of activities managed earlier by the society”.  In
\nresponse to the appellant’s tender, by letter dated
\n1st December, 1993, the respondent No.1 had informed the
\nappellant that it was required to submit the detailed particulars
\nof the educational activities of the institution.
\nThe appellant admittedly has no experience in
\neducational activities of any sort. The question then is- Was it
\nconstituted for educational purposes? Out of 67 objects
\nmentioned in its Memorandum of Association, the main objects
\nof the appellant were to carry on the business of constructing,
\nbuilding, roads, bridges etc. and to act as a supplier of
\nhardware, paints, sanitary fittings, construction material and so
\non. The objects incidental or ancillary to the attainment of the
\nmain objects, are specified in Clauses 3 to 28.  Other objects
\nare mentioned in Clauses 30 to 67.  These include a wide
\nvariety of possible diversification of the appellants businesses.
\nThe last Clause reads:\n<\/p>\n
” 67. To establish and construct
\nshopping markets, show rooms Nursing
\nhomes, schools, clubs houses, cinemas,
\noffice premises and other buildings for
\ncommercial purposes on lands seized
\nand licence basis”.\n<\/p>\n
We do not read this as in any way justifying the
\nappellant’s claim that it was constituted for educational
\npurposes.  To be ‘constituted for’ means the primary objective
\nof the constitution.  The primary objective of the appellant was
\ncertainly not to carry on educational activities.    Besides the
\nlanguage of Clause 67 does not indicate that even this object is
\nto carry on the running of the management of the school, but
\nrather pertains to the construction of school buildings. Where
\nthe object was to carry on the business, this has been
\nspecifically so stated in the remaining objects clauses, for
\nexample in Clauses 30-31, 34-37, 40-42, 44-64 and 66 of the
\nMemorandum.\n<\/p>\n
The importance of the requirement for being involved with
\neducational activities will also appear from the Regulations for
\nTransfer of Property and Other Ancillary Matters, 1987 framed
\nunder the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh
\nAdhiniyam 1973, where Regulation 33 (which refers to the
\nrespondent No.1 as ‘the Authority’) says  that:-\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tThe Authority may transfer any property
\near-marked in the layout of any scheme
\nfor fulfillment of any community needs
\nlike education, medical, social, etc. by
\ndirect negotiations with such registered
\ninstitutions which run hospitals, schools
\nor to such bodies dedicated to science,
\nart, music, literature etc. or engaged in
\nother social or community purposes.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tThe Authority shall determine the rate of
\npremium on “No profit No loss basis”,
\neach year commencing from 1st
\nOctober, at which such property shall be
\ntransferred to such institutions or
\nbodies.”\n<\/p>\n
The fact that the appellant had bid the highest was, in the
\ncircumstances, immaterial as the object of allotting the land to
\nan educational institution was not the making of profit.  The
\nlearned Single Judge was therefore wrong in construing the
\nadvertisement dated 22nd September, 1993 in the manner he
\ndid and the Appellate Court erred in dismissing Crescent’s
\nappeal.  In our opinion the appellant was not competent to
\nparticipate in the tender.\n<\/p>\n
However, the appellant is entitled to succeed on the
\nground that the order of the Division Bench disposing of
\nCrescent’s appeal operated as res judicata to bind not only
\nCrescent but also Jagriti and the appellant. It makes no
\ndifference that Jagriti was a co-respondent with the appellant.
\nThe principle of res judicata has been held to bind co-
\ndefendants if the relief given or refused by the earlier decision
\ninvolved a determination of an issue between co-defendants
\n(or co-respondents as the case may be). This statement of the
\nlaw has been approved as far back as in 1939 in Munni Bibi
\nvs.  Trilokinath 58 I.A. 158,165, where it has been said that to
\napply the rule of res judicata  as between co-defendants three
\nconditions are requisite.\n<\/p>\n
“(1.) There must be a conflict of interest
\nbetween the defendants concerned; (2.) it
\nmust be necessary to decide this conflict in
\norder to give the plaintiff the relief he claims;
\nand (3.) the question between the defendants
\nmust have been finally decided.”\n<\/p>\n
This view has been consistently followed by this Court.
\n[See:  Iftikhar Ahmed Vs. Sahid Meharban Ali, (1974) 2 SCC
\n151  where the principle was extended to bind co-plaintiffs;
\nMahboob Sahab vs. Syed Ismail AIR<\/a> 1995 SC 1205].\n<\/p>\n
In the present case the facts show that all the three
\nconditions were fulfilled.  There was a conflict of interest
\nbetween the two co-respondents in Crescent’s appeal, namely
\nbetween Jagriti and the appellants. For the purposes of
\ndeciding the relief, if any, to be granted to Crescent it was
\nnecessary for the Appellate Court to decide whether the
\nappellant was entitled to participate.  Although, the decision of
\nthe Appellate Court is cryptic, nevertheless, it cannot be said
\nthat the Court had not applied its judicial mind to the merits of
\nthe case.  The exact language of the order disposing  of the
\nCrescent’s appeal reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
” Heard.\n<\/p>\n
  Dismissed as the order of the Hon’ble Single
\nJudge has done substantial justice, it also
\nsays that I.D.A. would decide the matter by all
\nconsiderations.  This order is passed after
\nhearing the L\/C for the parties for about an
\nhour.”\n<\/p>\n
Jagriti’s counsel  was recorded as being present.  The
\nfact that the Appellate Court was wrong in affirming the decision
\nof the learned Single Judge would not make the decision less
\nbinding. [See: State of West Bengal vs. Hemant Kumar
\nBhattacharjee AIR<\/a> 1966 SC 1061; Gorie Gouri Naidu vs.
\nThandrothu Bodemma AIR<\/a> 1997 SC 808, 809]
\nThe counsel for Jagriti has referred us to several
\ndecisions viz. Gopal Upadhyaya and Ors. vs. Union of India
\nand Ors.<\/a> 1986 (Supp) SCC 501, Ambica Quarry Works vs.
\nState of Gujarat & Ors.<\/a> (1987) 1 SCC 213, Deena Alias Deen
\nDayal & Ors. vs. Union of India &  Ors.<\/a> etc.etc. (1983) 4 SCC
\n645 and Krishena Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors. (1990) 4
\nSCC 207.  None of  the decisions are apposite.  They refer to
\nthe principle of precedent which is distinct from the principle of
\nres judicata. A precedent operates to bind in similar situations
\nin a distinct case.  Res judicata operates to bind parties to
\nproceedings for no other reason, but that there should be an
\nend to litigation.\n<\/p>\n
In the circumstances, the appeals are allowed without any
\norder as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India M\/S Makhija Construction & Enggr. … vs Indore Development Authority And … on 19 April, 2005 Author: R Pal Bench: Ruma Pal, C.K. Thakker CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2694-2695 of 2005 PETITIONER: M\/s Makhija Construction & Enggr. P. Ltd RESPONDENT: Indore Development Authority and Ors DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19\/04\/2005 BENCH: Ruma […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-142009","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S Makhija Construction & Enggr. ... vs Indore Development Authority And ... on 19 April, 2005 - 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-makhija-construction-enggr-vs-indore-development-authority-and-on-19-april-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S Makhija Construction & Enggr. ... vs Indore Development Authority And ... on 19 April, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-makhija-construction-enggr-vs-indore-development-authority-and-on-19-april-2005\" \/>\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=\"2005-04-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-24T10:58:11+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=\"10 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-makhija-construction-enggr-vs-indore-development-authority-and-on-19-april-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-makhija-construction-enggr-vs-indore-development-authority-and-on-19-april-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S Makhija Construction & Enggr. … vs Indore Development Authority And … on 19 April, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-04-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-24T10:58:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-makhija-construction-enggr-vs-indore-development-authority-and-on-19-april-2005\"},\"wordCount\":2080,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-makhija-construction-enggr-vs-indore-development-authority-and-on-19-april-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-makhija-construction-enggr-vs-indore-development-authority-and-on-19-april-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-makhija-construction-enggr-vs-indore-development-authority-and-on-19-april-2005\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S Makhija Construction & Enggr. ... vs Indore Development Authority And ... on 19 April, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-04-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-24T10:58:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-makhija-construction-enggr-vs-indore-development-authority-and-on-19-april-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-makhija-construction-enggr-vs-indore-development-authority-and-on-19-april-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-makhija-construction-enggr-vs-indore-development-authority-and-on-19-april-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S Makhija Construction & Enggr. … vs Indore Development Authority And … on 19 April, 2005\"}]},{\"@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 Makhija Construction & Enggr. ... vs Indore Development Authority And ... on 19 April, 2005 - 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-makhija-construction-enggr-vs-indore-development-authority-and-on-19-april-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S Makhija Construction & Enggr. ... vs Indore Development Authority And ... on 19 April, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-makhija-construction-enggr-vs-indore-development-authority-and-on-19-april-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-04-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-24T10:58:11+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-makhija-construction-enggr-vs-indore-development-authority-and-on-19-april-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-makhija-construction-enggr-vs-indore-development-authority-and-on-19-april-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S Makhija Construction & Enggr. … vs Indore Development Authority And … on 19 April, 2005","datePublished":"2005-04-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-24T10:58:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-makhija-construction-enggr-vs-indore-development-authority-and-on-19-april-2005"},"wordCount":2080,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-makhija-construction-enggr-vs-indore-development-authority-and-on-19-april-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-makhija-construction-enggr-vs-indore-development-authority-and-on-19-april-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-makhija-construction-enggr-vs-indore-development-authority-and-on-19-april-2005","name":"M\/S Makhija Construction & Enggr. ... vs Indore Development Authority And ... on 19 April, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-04-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-24T10:58:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-makhija-construction-enggr-vs-indore-development-authority-and-on-19-april-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-makhija-construction-enggr-vs-indore-development-authority-and-on-19-april-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-makhija-construction-enggr-vs-indore-development-authority-and-on-19-april-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S Makhija Construction & Enggr. … vs Indore Development Authority And … on 19 April, 2005"}]},{"@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\/142009","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=142009"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/142009\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=142009"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=142009"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=142009"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}