{"id":143801,"date":"2008-03-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-03-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-s-srinivasa-murthy-and-sons-vs-ashok-sinha-on-11-march-2008"},"modified":"2015-11-14T03:52:29","modified_gmt":"2015-11-13T22:22:29","slug":"ms-m-s-srinivasa-murthy-and-sons-vs-ashok-sinha-on-11-march-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-s-srinivasa-murthy-and-sons-vs-ashok-sinha-on-11-march-2008","title":{"rendered":"M\/S M S Srinivasa Murthy And Sons vs Ashok Sinha on 11 March, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S M S Srinivasa Murthy And Sons vs Ashok Sinha on 11 March, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: A.S.Bopanna<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH ooum' op KARNATAKA A1'   \n\nDATED mus T!-IE nth DAY    \nBEFORE  D %  D \nTHE HON'BLE MR. 'JDsaj1cEA s   \n\n - .... ITION D141,p9,I2aD5DA. \nD \nBANGALORE-1\n\n{Bgh \"5 : K. SIJMAE. .A...VJ\n\nvu-no\n\n     \n\nTHIS WRIT PE'l'l'I'ION FILEQVEUNDEIEEE ER'ricLEE 226 AND\n227 09' THE CON%I'E\"J'!',.!O.'*.' oE.1.uE:.A. EEAVIMG  Ea:-2Ecr THE\n\n-. I56)!-\n\nRESPONDENTS T0 PRQVIDE _Ti'-'.'E _\"C.0PY OE ALL THE\nDOCU}.'!EP!I'S A149 UMEE -.  !!!.4.TER!A!.-S AS-\n\nI ? ll}-E,'\n\nREQUESTED IN THE ANX- E 85 s=3~Bv\"ruE -E'E*.rmoNEE & ETC.\n\nI' uni aoI'rIoNAI. SECRETARY\nIIvII\ufb01isr'rRIr' oF'i.PEiTR0I.'I\":UIII'I_AIIIIwcII, UNION OF' INDIA TC) FEFER\nTHE _S.A.ME71'0  ~._VEGlLANCEv\" CELL, REGARDING THE\nALLE(f\u00a7A'TTON'I'EZj_AGiIiN5fT'WIy?i  R3; DIRECT THE CB1 TO\nINVES'l'IGA'PE IITI-I-3 * MATTER. I REGARDING THE SERIOUS\nAI.I.EeA'.I*Io.I~Is AcAII~Isfr~'r__IIm I22 AND R3 onur.\n\n_ Theda-. Writ'  having been renewed \ufb01or orders,\ncon\ufb02. on \"far pmnouncemcnt this day, t_h_\u00a2:: CA:-I_1_r';\n\n '~  _ pztyizogncacd t]1e}bP.:'~.-.---.\u00ab'.I'1'ng :\n\nl'tI'\\'I'\\1'1_'r\\\n\n\n\nin-person is said to have operated the dealeritliip   \n\nsame was terminated. The    the\n\ntermination of dealership.\n\n2. .3-. +h- \ufb01xer  +----\n\n..... .;..g.;...,=.. \ng\ufb01evafree air: by  A. regard to the\ntermination of \ufb023.e .w 7.10.1993.\nThe dealermiiip,   was terminated by\n _ \"   by order dated\n3 Jwaa betbre thia Court in\nw.P.No.'2.1:91Q}o.ii  \u00abthe main grievance' was with\n to  (if principles of natural justice. This\n\nI In-nII.lvvI.n..: 1.51 via-I I \\4I4II-III-I-I\n\n: ; '_ qggg (1 t  nllnuuu-I the uh-it Ilniiliamn\n\n\ufb01irecting General Manager (South).  to\n\n  the objections of the petitioner and peas\n\n apaiopriate orders in accordance with law. This Court had\n\n  _  the General Manager (South) to consider the matter\n\nsince at that point of time, the petitioner had alleged bias\n\n2\nJ2.\n\n_._.I_.J AI... '\n\n\n\nagainst the Territory Manager, who had    \n\norder. Alter such remand, the petitioner hos   2\n\nobjections and on meoonsidemtion.   \n\n(South) by his order  \n\n\ufb01ndinxrs  has t;::1n.i.n.at_n_i.   .-tat...\n\n'l'._.._.'_.___ 4.1_.-._  ..\n\n7.10.1993. The \ufb01t..\"*'uo*nr.~r:';s  ml pour: once\n\nugam' \"\"' qiie\"tioning the   \n\n  petitioner is now making\na]1egat_ion\u00a73.  Manager (South) and is\nacclcinglgspi a pzuyer 135\".-eq\ufb01\u00e9h the order dated 21.7.2004\n\n(Annexu_1e--(l)   man}: a writ of mandamus directing the\n\nl  - Addl\ufb01d\u00a7la1jlS:emtai?\u00a7m(AMarke\ufb011a:g) in the Minitstry _\u00a3 Pet!'r.>.lI_-.t.m\n\n t  mi \"\ufb01re  I.-zlzol.-3 case a...,sl: and grant dealer*hi-\n\n \"- the ji\ufb01\ufb01iioncl'. The petitione:-party--in-\n\n persoin\ufb01apaxt from making allegations against the General\n\n  (south) that he has only covered up the matter to\n\nV.  protect the Tenitoly Manager, would also contend that none\n\nof the masons assiwed in the impugned order me based on\n\nI\n12\n\n\n\n  =..In\n'..?e.J.ElI-[;.I.:l.IE--\u00a7v--I LI .5\n\nrecords. It is also contended that since  \n\nthe General Manager (south) do-I     2\n\nreasons for termination of the \n\n in the    V it\n\n2:  \nii\n\nbe in a pa-.;.i*i..t.-r-. te 12% ti-.a,.--r3o'r2e 'of the  .... ,,.-\n\n he   .-ea.-rt=..-..\nfurther OOI1t\u00a3l1ti'I'VJi\ufb02 .t.hB$\u00a7  issue reiating\nto    sold and the\nanegea   civil suite have been\ninetittgtect  The petitioner therefore refers to\n already been made before the\n to'  that the respondent cannot, at this\n\nt.nn .. ltieintnatoontext\n\nto\n\"int \" the masons as-e-.i-'aw by the Qt-.r'.%\n\n\ufb01anager  contrary to the  \ufb01iuoipiirre ('rtiit're'rine-8.\n\n _ the same cannot constitute misconduct. for the\n\n  of terminating the dealership agreement Even if\n\nit _?the said reasons are established. the marketing guidelines\n\nprovide that opportunity is to be granted to rectify the some\n\nI\n\n\n\nit\n\nand only thereafter the termination is possible not  M *\n\ufb01rst instance as done by the  \" it   it\npetitioner further contends that  V \n\nremanded by this Court of then'\n\n' net to the how ml datee\ufb01g-v9A.5e.,';1.'.!.'l, the\na.-::.=.=+=..om obja':t.h-ins   has not been\nconsidered by the-:__  that since\noorngend'     subsequently.\nthe  show muse notice. If\nthe sii_1ne._ of the allegations, which are\nnow  osx  by the respondent in the\n\nnnpngned cider'  oontained in that notice. rm-mar, this\n\n  the matter, had  t._-nt the\n\n'1: _.  with in being in\ufb02uenced by any of the\n\n Aalieg\u00e9\ufb01ons and counter allegations and therefore. the\n  of the impugned order would indicate that theme is\n\nK  no such independent examination. The petitioner has also\n\nreferred to the Annexunee produced in 'L' series, in an\n\nI\nJ5\n\n4\nan\n--\n<\/pre>\n
   was before t__._hi-I f.’.’oI.21r-t in La e.-;..r.he.-‘ I-\ufb01t<\/p>\n
l.Pl..IIL.lI.l’.i’.I’ ” .’<\/p>\n
attempt in point out that he would be in   <\/p>\n
establish by the said documents    the it i<\/p>\n
General Manager could he -displwe\ufb02liii V.  ‘ it<\/p>\n
4_._  KL. Ilfllllfl’   Ii-um th-<\/p>\n
.5… ..,.,.m.,..t…, …. …..
\nfepo\ufb01\ufb01e\ufb01t “””iif’:, at  titiiat the dealership
\nagreement  is  \ufb01npugnod
\nis a     same would lie in
\n’11’?  such the writ petition
\nii?  of India woukl not be
\nmaintainahie  right is violated. On this
\n oouiiael would contend that even while<\/p>\n
run…\u00bb<\/p>\n
In; ~ Qua” ‘I…-…’I …..\u00a2-L:-‘..x.1l..l 41……’ …….._….II..- \u00a2.I…’_<\/p>\n
would the writ jurisdiction in a matter of this<\/p>\n
  :However, only on noticing that the petitioner had<\/p>\n
  allegations against the Territoiy Manager and since the<\/p>\n
  ___*l’erritmy Manager himself has decided the case. this Court<\/p>\n
felt that there would be an element of bias and therefore,<\/p>\n
I
\nJ:\n<\/p>\n
0;\n<\/p>\n
f’–.—-.4-\n<\/p>\n
I..l.I.H.l.. lllllllllllly ll!-IE \\..JJi.:I.II.’<\/p>\n
since there was violation of principles of   ‘ 1<\/p>\n
to that extent, this Court had interfered’  oft  <\/p>\n
bias was removed by directing   <\/p>\n
to redo the matter afresh  \u00bb it<\/p>\n
obj-wee to M f!_..|-ed by the _. The C’-eLe_,Ji _h.Q3._,l;Q.gl.!!’<\/p>\n
(nth; has \ufb01’1IT.i’I’:iif”uT:1″‘ “nag-its  in “a,i;mu.pum uu $ as<\/p>\n
H’<\/p>\n
avermed in thejzeti\ufb01nm”   other
\navailable      independently
\nand   g\u00e9ritougn the petitioner did
\nnot  the General Manager (south)<\/p>\n
   has without basis made allegations<\/p>\n
in “even making the General Manager<\/p>\n
   to the petition. Therefore, when<\/p>\n
   of-.\ufb01e:”.rar.a%r. is –…….-“e aft.-..~r<\/p>\n
the<\/p>\n
m$.-xi-..g<\/p>\n
__-_1I_’I_ A_I.._<\/p>\n
objections f~*and assessment of the  avauaoie, me<\/p>\n
 xsameg it miinnot be examined in a writ junad’ action’ ‘ . The only”<\/p>\n
  would be to tile a suit if the evidence is to be<\/p>\n
it ___\u00a711eaaaeased and a \ufb01nding of fact is to be rendered. Without<\/p>\n
prejudice to the said contention, the learned counsel with<\/p>\n
I
\n1:\n<\/p>\n
1(<\/p>\n
reference to the mcoids produced befote this
\nto the termination of dealership  outii V’
\nsu\ufb02ic1en’ t documents available    <\/p>\n
decision is based on  also   V L’<\/p>\n
otjiezwige, Lheie awe gen diuputecp  <\/p>\n
‘pardes and me -pa.-3-me;     .1:-.=’g.-.:.-‘…=..-=-. and
\naccording to   as  admitizediy
\nthere are fit   the panics in
\ncivil an    though according to
\nthe  -i.t_Fia  __1:aoire. The learned counsel would
\nalso   in detail In point out that all<\/p>\n
oontentionow   petitioner including the additional<\/p>\n
  Thus  by the General Manager<\/p>\n
”  ‘..i.=I..|*..e:’ p-groper m-……..nl_I,rei.s. has mine in his<\/p>\n
;…__1–_:__L’~. ‘V m-|.___r___ LI..- .._…… .:|……… ..
\n Illclcl. 1’3. I-I-It “Inc ‘I H II<\/p>\n
4<\/span><\/p>\n
A\u00bb …..II &-nu
\nI U311 IUJ<\/p>\n
5. In neply to the contention regarding the<\/p>\n
maintainability of the writ petition. the petitioner would<\/p>\n
I
\n12<\/span><\/p>\n
.4?\n<\/p>\n
contend that this Court, at the earlier
\nentertained the writ petition, pqua\u00bb-.-moo  V
\nremanded the matter for fresh   es <\/p>\n
same would indicate that it is A<\/p>\n
…. – .. ……. of
\niiiirier nruc–‘–1e 226 of   sj\ufb01intiia as held by the
\nHoniae Supreme  tiig: caafe_or HARBANSLAL smmm<\/p>\n
AND ANoT;\u00a7e.gR’\u00a7j:;tp:vs; ‘j.:1n:mjA;s:–V ifAOtLV:'”C;ORPORATlON urn<\/p>\n
6., “i_”noi1\u00a7;5ii\u00ab.”io\u00ab  the petitioner and the<\/p>\n
learned   ieepondent extensively on the merits
\n v  of   Ieganling the inatanoes which led to
\n ‘   of the dealership agreement, the question at<\/p>\n
 be whether these disputed aspects of the<\/p>\n
 be considered in a writ petit1on’ under Arne’ le<\/p>\n
 t. n’225_\\ofvthe Constitution of India?<\/p>\n
:4
\nE?’
\nE
\nC
\nE
\n5<\/span>
\nE
\n9<\/span>
\nE
\nE
\nE
\nas
\n.:I
\nE
\n‘4’\u00bb
\nE’:\n<\/p>\n
if<\/p>\n
this Court in W.P.No.2 19 10\/01 at the earlier  <\/p>\n
the petitioner was before this Court   l V’<\/p>\n
dated 28.5.2001 passed by the  <\/p>\n
of the same would indicate    <\/p>\n
 befan; this   mg  of bias\n<\/p>\n
-.’=.f.\ufb01’.at the .eI=’imI}r     –.,”‘”‘md * at the
\nTenitcry rdanagarfoy  23.94.;-.~x*.1
\nand   ‘dn\u00e9gadona against the
\nrm’-oner    also we mm
\nallega;tio11_aa.A  Manager and thexefom the
\nsame   decided the dispute with an<\/p>\n
open’   the said petition, the Territory<\/p>\n
.  .,  \ufb02ee  in person as the second respondent<\/p>\n
. E5 <\/p>\n
    I_n9.d._e= It was t_.he1e\ufb01_r:e ctmtencled<\/p>\n
.L …\n<\/p>\n
u–4I.\n<\/p>\n
‘ Aaibgdddns, if the ‘”I”errito1y Manager himself decides the case<\/p>\n
  ‘ts the t1ernu’:nan’cn of dealership agreement, the<\/p>\n
l  jaetzitzioner cannot expect justice from a person against whom<\/p>\n
allegations were made since he is likely to look at the case<\/p>\n
I
\nI7\u00bb<\/p>\n
!
\nII<\/p>\n
with bias. It is in that regard. it was found   <\/p>\n
violation of principles of natural j1r9%-  ina\ufb02\ufb01   2<\/p>\n
shall be a judge in his own   .\n<\/p>\n
mama’, thi Court had com\u00e9l  “it  ‘ ll<\/p>\n
be prep! for the  !|.v|.gA1..ti.ag2″\u00ab_{?.’-39.-gatla} 9:.—  the<\/p>\n
.__\u00a24.._, .\u00b0.. __.1_.., L. .. – L ‘ V “.3
\nnu’.lI.u:l Ill UIUDI In 11:11: -:5 in 3  9:01.11.<\/p>\n
:10,  Court   normally this
\nCourt in   not entertain a
\npetitiorr  Vmadc in cancelling the
\ndealcixghipi  was entered inm between the
\n   rmormallyr relegate the parties to
\nappgrbach   for appropriate reliefs. But, the<\/p>\n
     as  of   \u00abmacs<\/p>\n
  (lI\u00a5\u00a7’.rIn-I’ I-if flan 1-Inuvusu-urlnnul-_(“‘.nu-nu-nun:-xi-L-u-n I-nasal Isa-\\I–a-I<\/p>\n
IIJ II: J. t.l\\.Il~l.\u00a5l\\Al.I I.” K.-Ill I-l’|J.I Gil-IIJvl~l<\/p>\n
oorriIar*y*ir\u00a7}ti1c rules of natural justice and had given verdict<\/p>\n
   xagniriaet.  other person by accepting his personal bias.<\/p>\n
8. Therefore, the said decision itself would indicate<\/p>\n
that but for the said fact, this Court would not have<\/p>\n
I
\n‘.i<\/p>\n
entertained the writ petition when the   <\/p>\n
was terminated at the earlielf-“inotanchthe. ‘ ”<\/p>\n
reconsideration, no doubt, the  hot:  <\/p>\n
tjegotiono  the   <\/p>\n
\ufb01*.:’t-Lon to cont.-end t.ha_t. he 91.2.-oh\u00e9a 2; .t  T1.-5.-uagh<\/p>\n
the said aiiegationo     that the
\nGeneral Managei’ _(_aoutli)'”ho’\u00a7:   in person
\nas a  \u00a7”.*’.4’t1l!\u20ac.:h.tt:i_a    representing the
\n  the pemonal allegations
\n be  (-‘tourt. since that is the settled
\n   ‘in when this Court remanded the
\n ‘V   ctnznsitlera\ufb01on by the General Manager<\/p>\n
-_..I 3′<\/p>\n
 \u00ab{.’…;v-t   did n_t. __k:e out any  or<\/p>\n
“+*”*i’p%t. aha-Terist the %.era’. hiaa\ufb01f {ea-.:t.’:} e\u00e9mer \ufb01r<\/p>\n
 or prior to the dispooai of the ear\ufb01er writ<\/p>\n
 AA There was no interaction between the General<\/p>\n
  (south) and the petitioner by way of any complaint<\/p>\n
U for allegations as had oocuned in the case of the “l’enilnry<\/p>\n
Manager. The petitioner, for the that time, has made certain<\/p>\n
I
\nla<\/p>\n
4|:\n<\/p>\n
allegations again’ at the General Manager  a\ufb01ltfi
\ndecision’ has been rendemd again”   it
\nallegations appear to be more of tit’. _<\/p>\n
enbe@ee eenidering  tit’ <\/p>\n
Then\ufb01m 9… the 9- * 1!,’ the   wh_ir.=!1<\/p>\n
was avaiiabie W’t”1e1″1 th\u00e9fvvaa etepe\ufb01 at’
\nis not available_:&t__  order
\nin this   the point of View of
\n   Therefore, the main
\niiigze\u00e9lient the writ petition under Article 226
\nof the  in not available to the petitioner<\/p>\n
at’.t;.};ti’aVi.\u00a7t1nctI1’1’e,V_VV’ ” V”<\/p>\n
’43
\nE?\n<\/p>\n
I
\nI
\nE
\n:4
\ni
\na<\/p>\n
i’
\n3<\/span>
\nI
\n3<\/span>
\nE:\n<\/p>\n
53′
\nE?\n<\/p>\n
I
\n\u00a7<\/p>\n
3.
\n3<\/span>
\nu<\/p>\n
;___A_. :___1 ‘I.\n<\/p>\n
as, to _*wh.e\u00e9ther the writ petition oouiti be  uy<\/p>\n
 eonaittei-ing that the order impugned as one hem’ g arbitrary
\n   as to whether the dealership agmemecnt has been<\/p>\n
6  on irrelevant and non-existent grounds so as to<\/p>\n
call for inter\ufb01nenoe as contended by the petitioner by relying<\/p>\n
I
\nJ<\/p>\n
ll 15.:\n<\/p>\n
on the decision in the case of HARBANSLAL    – 4<\/p>\n
this aspect, Sri. K Slllnan,  ciiiiiia\u00a2i;’g’.\u00a7p.gau” ~ ‘T;-iii’g ft\ufb02’ iii.,’ A <\/p>\n
mpondent would place  :V’c>ff’\u20ac’\u00a71:e<\/p>\n
Hon’blc supmme Court in Ii4l_\/.*\u00a33.,..RAIflili’\\iK!2ls!Fll\u00a7iA2’vA\u00a3}A.lWlALi *<\/p>\n
65 ores Vs. STATE or BIHAR__\ufb01ND ions l[uofr*\/)3 457],
\nwhcroin it has been “as; lienguodors  _
\nBui4_Vir’::o   of Waist’ be<\/p>\n
   oi! tho Sims of<\/p>\n
1<\/span><\/p>\n
 V 3:,  \ufb01elezl ”  of  mrrtrnct regarding<\/p>\n
 _  with whom. the
\n” At this stage, no<\/p>\n
_ _  “tho  purely in its oaaeoutive<\/p>\n
    is  by  oiiligcifioris which
\n  or ii-iii St.-1-.33 ~.-.i.\u00bbi:.Ii gr-.9
\n or  into every trtmsaclion entered mo in
\n ofits ooris\ufb01m\ufb01onal powers. But, after
\n Slate or its agents have entered into the \ufb01eld<\/p>\n
”  ordinary conlmot, the relations are no longer
\ngoverned by the oonstifutloruai pmrriaioras but’ by
\nthe la.-g,-..llg; 3.-a.’.’d mnsrwwot 1.-:2.’-.=.-‘.-‘A  <\/p>\n
and obligations of the _par1r’es inter are. No
\nquestion arises of violation of Article 14 or ofany<\/p>\n
J2<\/p>\n
‘I’l<\/p>\n
other oonstim\ufb01mml provision when    H <\/p>\n
perform any act. in mi:    f<\/p>\n
Ah-urn Hid: nrwufa-rnnll ‘lllll\ufb01\ufb02  hon  ‘<\/p>\n
Ii’-QIIIE ‘I:”I|j \\.\ufb02”5’l”l”7i  “‘\u00ab?'”   GLJIIJ-”<\/p>\n
are bound by the
\nunless some statute ste_\u00a7\u00e9:-  <\/p>\n
\nspatial   an \nin the mmua    from\n\n<\/pre>\n
10.2′  i\\iii\u00a7.1?\u00a7;g\\\ufb01HAi<r'<i"HiiA AGARWAL
\n(ample)   Supreme Court has
\nstama\ufb02gat the   eommee " ' tion under Article 226 is at<\/p>\n
a sAta9,eA 'tlie  into the contract. But, after the<\/p>\n
 V'  –  is  the relations are no longer governed<\/p>\n
   the provision' 3, but by the legally_ e valid'<\/p>\n
    \u00a2_i_etem_1i_I;ee ri.g!;I_2e   9!' mg<\/p>\n
 an Initial: Ilrni\ufb02tl  Hun nul\ufb01hul' (in nn\ufb02vinn<\/p>\n
W. 3|! VI'-IIuII-fl' 'WC' III III'! IJCIIIZ-(WI V-'l8 SUI' I-I-IE6<\/p>\n
.__a_ __\u00a3II ._I__ ____ .L_ A.__'l__.<\/p>\n
    iit'Jii'l'3f, \ufb01ii  wul also have I!) num-<\/p>\n
 ;note ofthe fact that if certain statutory oontmetn are entered<\/p>\n
  into, still this Court would have jurisdiction. But. in the<\/p>\n
1<\/span>
\nii<\/p>\n
instant case. the contract between the   <\/p>\n
Iepondenbcorpomtion is not a stgtutoty  K ”<\/p>\n
decision of the Hon’ble SuP”””\u00b0   ~\u00a7voinlti”th””:’. <\/p>\n
applicable to the facts of   <\/p>\n
counsel has placed reliance  Court in<\/p>\n
l\\.-!;’S..!..lN!’!’Y  ‘os?:AT\u00a7oiEj\u00bbo:,Ho:;A\u00a7u’oion. DEALERS vs.<\/p>\n
ITS GENERAL    R4’2ef*%’  1) w’nemm’ this<\/p>\n
Court.”    a smaller’ ‘ dealership
\n   tioncluaion that in View of the
\ncadstnntxfor mg  clause for resolution of the<\/p>\n
dispute,    under Art1c’le 226 of the<\/p>\n
  wotlltlwnot be mam’ mun’ ble in view’ of the.<\/p>\n
  ‘V.tlt_V.m.V_:s%i–.g,-.2  In  this Court while coming to the<\/p>\n
 Supictrie Court in  case wh”h is iiliou –a-. u –<\/p>\n
 csmelaas\ufb01a has notic-r’.;.. the d\ufb02lum. of me Hon’tI.le<\/p>\n
  er. In any event, on the sand’  decision’ ‘ relied on by<\/p>\n
 the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent would<\/p>\n
seek to distinguish that the Hoirble Supreme Court haa<\/p>\n
1<\/span>
\n1.2<\/p>\n
come to the said conclusion after clearly    <\/p>\n
jurist!’ neon’ ‘ to interfere despite  ‘lI.!Al!i1i’1$r”‘VV.4t”‘)i;.\/I,&l’t.Ver.’41_’_r:ati’*\u00a3’.’_e” <\/p>\n
remedy is only in the three  <\/p>\n
none of the contingencies  the  . L’<\/p>\n
the !~!on’h1e Snprerne   ho” instance<\/p>\n
Therefore,       decision
\ncannot   <\/p>\n
 1,   has placed strong reliance on
\nthe ”  proper to exa1nrn’ e this aspect
\n even streaming. Court in the case of M\/S unm<\/p>\n
 g;r\u00a7::\u00e9vri;:n” segment, cited supra had not1ced’ and<\/p>\n
 in the case of n5RBr’s?’s’S’un’ L. ‘um”‘<\/p>\n
 AA  Supreme Court was  g a  of<\/p>\n
  of the arbitration clause as an alternative remedy<\/p>\n
fond \ufb01uther the speci\ufb01c instance of the sample taken was the<\/p>\n
only instance due to which the termination of the agreement<\/p>\n
I<\/p>\n
)2<\/p>\n
‘av<\/p>\n
was made and that instance was analysed asjetn  <\/p>\n
and non-existent ground on that     ”<\/p>\n
reading rem rded and the 1uanner:”:i\u00ab11’;’=jv”rs.te}t’ttt1\u00bb1e su <\/p>\n
was done. It. is in that  I-ion’b.le   ‘<\/p>\n
came to the conclusion thut”.’he=._\u00bb ~   the<\/p>\n
exmptzons s*n………\n<\/p>\n
‘~<
\nE?\n<\/p>\n
4:’
\n‘FF’
\n3<\/span><\/p>\n
.  , g D A.\n<\/p>\n
E<\/p>\n
12. %  Lit; ti.ie:’itIstant case, \ufb01tst anti
\ntbremqst,   with the question of
\nexistenee_  way of arbitmtion. But
\nwhat is  be is” that the terminated dealemhip<\/p>\n
agreement ‘Vise-.s’c=.~6nt1h”act’ between the parties and therefore,<\/p>\n
 .theV.eiiati:-xiienlent  of the terms would be within the<\/p>\n
   V  Ciourt. Secondly, if there are disputed<\/p>\n
‘nes\ufb01tfirzs sat’ fact. wifch r.-55-sire,  to M  and
\n._ _ . . a 1<\/p>\n
 assesstnent of such \ufb02euoe, the  fo\ufb01iin iTr’1’i’i’lI’.’1 1″ th-<\/p>\n
V’  Oourt. Further in the instant case, even though the<\/p>\n
question of samples not conforming to the stmndmds,<\/p>\n
inasmuch as them is an allegation that spurious lubricants<\/p>\n
I\n<\/p>\n
5.<\/p>\n
 A  (‘+n\ufb01e\ufb01n..en and ti’…-<\/p>\n
waa sold, that is not the only reason on which   h’ <<\/p>\n
agreement has been terminated.   it<\/p>\n
aspects in mind. if the order  <\/p>\n
Linpugned in this petition is  the it, me?'<\/p>\n
anon: nmnnlrl '
\nmil.'-I ""|u"'$-I<\/p>\n
eazr\ufb01er Writ peti\ufb01on,  "\ufb02[liLZ:V[J ' '
\nobjection statement mjlmb 'ehowe.-muse'. nt\ufb01mc\ufb01" dated 9.3.200" 1<\/p>\n
and each of putmb, the petitioner and
\nthe  end commissions by the
\npetitioner   by the Geneml Manager
\n(south);   has thereafter been adverted tn
\n    clause contained in the Marketing<\/p>\n
a of the Petroleum<\/p>\n
iovi_.Z<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
an :IIw\\. rg ..\n<\/p>\n
‘1<\/p>\n
_y 1 1 Inc Ivan uuuuuuuuu\ufb01, uuuu<\/p>\n
 X r (south) has come to his cone iusion. <\/p>\n
 _ men tti._.’ii) breaches committed by the petitioner” , in respect of<\/p>\n
  dealership agreement, even though the petitioner<\/p>\n
it _,%contends that in the corrigendum these aspects were not<\/p>\n
indicated, it is di\ufb02icult to accept that the show cause notice<\/p>\n
1<\/span><\/p>\n
la<\/p>\n
a
\nI<\/p>\n
dated 9.5.2001 was given a go–bye and only  <\/p>\n
would arise \ufb01n’ consideration\u00bb ‘sii.-we  <\/p>\n
paragraph of the order impugned   <\/p>\n
berth the show cause noticed   I’ V it<\/p>\n
petition has directed  ‘:’I–:.v:T.?-ll’ ah
\ndated 9.5.2m1_:ana  be  In the
\nsame. the    22.5.2001 cannot
\nbe   of the  dated<\/p>\n
9.5. 1.,    opportunity granted.<\/p>\n
5 “13. ?r2:oi:gh  a normal circumstance, the above<\/p>\n
‘  Id 11 ve been ait\ufb02it\ufb01ent   my<\/p>\n
1 punk’ :1 . at:-pea.-ed pa-I’t_5.’=m=-13..-:~.-;.-en 533:’.<\/p>\n
made  pleas that the reasons assigned by the<\/p>\n
 _  Manager (south) is not based on records, but has<\/p>\n
 made only to cover up the allegations made by the<\/p>\n
it ___\u00a7’l’erritmy Manager, I have proceeded to examine as to<\/p>\n
whether it was an empty formality as contended by the<\/p>\n
I .\n<\/p>\n
‘I<\/p>\n
petitioner. In that regard apart from the fact   <\/p>\n
ccrtam correspondences addressedeebgrp  ” fr’   it it<\/p>\n
Manager durm’ g the year 2000 vvihicli\ufb01has   it  in<\/p>\n
the impugned order itself, has   me\u00bb  L’<\/p>\n
to eJami_ne this aspect of thepprnatter   into the
\n$1133 trrai.-:tai.*sm  pt}??? “zV”\u00e9’:’.”‘;”.”‘;l'”I’.t*.,.1.lI!’1′)(.’…-:_’.J.a
\n“i”herefore, in      wr mm the
\nmasons   are ineievant or
\nnon-vesgisteritpp  call for interference, I
\nhavetthVeV_ undertaking this exercise, it
\nis notioedp that  disputes between the panics’<\/p>\n
 the  ‘hasiiheen brewing for quite some time and<\/p>\n
 ”    cum’ mal’ proeeed_ ings are pending<\/p>\n
.. .tl*se’  The-.1!-h<\/p>\n
the documents which are avai}ab ” 0″<\/p>\n
 AA  ii’ picture of the matter and made an attempt to<\/p>\n
 ‘Veoi\ufb02end that the documents produced by the petitioner at ‘L’<\/p>\n
series would disprove the contention of the respondents, I<\/p>\n
have deliberately refrained myself from speci\ufb01cally referring<\/p>\n
I
\nla<\/p>\n
25<\/span><\/p>\n
to each document and discussing the   <\/p>\n
same, since I do not wish to   it<\/p>\n
are all disputed questions of  <\/p>\n
and appieciatjon of the same    a writ’ V it<\/p>\n
Article 2:26 of the C:onstiti\ufb01ion__ [in  tl-n’: ‘”*1’itents
\nof the \ufb01le wotild’  have placed
\nreliance on   their conclusion
\nwhileltlie  of the same and
\nas such,._a -nature cannot be decided on oath
\nagainst’ oath,    would have to tender evidence<\/p>\n
 establish’  Ieapective cases. But all that can he said<\/p>\n
is *.i:’.’=s-..”t.Ai~.’. isagiot an empty-,r fcrr.r.n..n…Lhr but !.Ias,ed_ on <\/p>\n
 . w_l1ici’1~i:”* to  by the app-mpr-Lane %:’:.:-.1-..<\/p>\n
it  One other aspect of the matter is. admittedly even<\/p>\n
  to the petitioner, with regard to the allegation<\/p>\n
 regarding selling spurious lubricants and also with regard to<\/p>\n
the allegation of short delivery alleged by the respondents.<\/p>\n
I<\/p>\n
A<\/p>\n
‘I<\/p>\n
the petitioner has already inaiinxtedf  Sllllf\ufb01llll   ”<\/p>\n
O.S.N0a.l91 \/2000 (now   &’ieegu1mu”<\/p>\n
Appeal) and 291\/04 which would   <\/p>\n
petitioner ha taken    of the” V L’<\/p>\n
t.-zrme cf the wry   !.l_Ld ” ‘ the rgilidelinea<\/p>\n
Iegliinting the as-la:-.;Li=;-Q?m*–g;%+ge\u00e9>s\u00e9\u00e9;% .. tue
\nirresistible ooneiuveitrni-that  at is than sinfae
\nthe order  dv(‘)_c:’li!:i’1l}lt  iiiolation of principle
\nof   but, if for any reason,
\nthe   -contrary In the terms of the
\nagieeinent\u00e9   be decided by a competent<\/p>\n
 ”  ‘nol’ bit this Court. while exercising writ<\/p>\n
_iEi, jl=At this juncture, it ‘s *”we:”r\u00a7r t’ e uv that<\/p>\n
 _ even.’ tliough the petitioner has argued regarding the non-<\/p>\n
  of part loads despite there being no prohibition<\/p>\n
in the agreement and guidelines; that demand dm\ufb01n were<\/p>\n
delivered for supply on 7.4.2001 seeking for supply of<\/p>\n
1<\/span>
\nJ2<\/p>\n
4KL ofMS and a subsequent demand dra\ufb02: dated  <\/p>\n
was made over’ for supply of Marie;  melt’<\/p>\n
Depot Manager not only did not  ”   it A.<\/p>\n
to make the supply and    dry; V it<\/p>\n
petitioner \ufb01at short euppiy fer  in the
\ninvoice; tlie.    were due to the
\nstopgied   it fit not to enter into this
\n come to the conclusion that<\/p>\n
thegw-rit  net the remedy and the petitioner has to<\/p>\n
 ‘1I1,._…tt.I_-.r’ i_ th_-   Any observation<\/p>\n
_… -4 _ 1 1.1′ 41..- _…..4.lA.l_.__
\nII<\/p>\n
 irsef\ufb01ire the appropriate foruirr not orujr<\/p>\n
 n to tile a suit but in the suits which are alreacl’ ‘y<\/p>\n
  relating to certain of those issues.<\/p>\n
)2<\/p>\n
1’;\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
16. The other aspect which requires to    ”  ”<\/p>\n
the petitioner has played that  K x<\/p>\n
(Marketing) in the Ministry of Pgutiteum    11\u00a2’<\/p>\n
reconsider the case No ddojuir.-.t_   L’<\/p>\n
S.~..:n-.t.9..v\u00a7,r (Marke\ufb01nal, __!|g!i_ni._tt:gt.:of.Pettolett\ufb011′  have an
\nove”” \ufb01ii””\ufb01r’iS6i’y’     Mmg an
\nauthority underfoe  ‘s “‘ii”1i’\ufb01t’} oat
\nto    could act as an
\n  in the matter of
\n the [agreement As such without
\nthere being;  normally would not direct<\/p>\n
s11(.;h’a1;thoiity_  However, it is made clear that if<\/p>\n
 ., sis   (Marketing) Ministry of Petroleum<\/p>\n
 .14..-.3  pon.=.rer to examine _he issue, though not<\/p>\n
 the H tiianner of the present enquiry. Therefore,<\/p>\n
 ‘v1;otiaivithsta11di11g the present issue to be decided by a Court.<\/p>\n
__5of Civil jurisdiction, it would always be open to the petitioner<\/p>\n
to make an appropriate representation to the Additional<\/p>\n
I
\nJ2<\/p>\n
.\n<\/p>\n
0.<\/p>\n
29<\/span><\/p>\n
Secretary (Marketing) who may choose In  77:51′  <\/p>\n
same in accordance with law or meat the ‘on,  it it<\/p>\n
ifit. is permissible to do no in law. “tr ,g.\u00a2:.eo.;g1,t,e..;;,. <\/p>\n
the ieepondents would  of  say” V L’<\/p>\n
%$m the A:’.di*..ie-nal    <\/p>\n
17. In wen yo.2185oj’o5_;  has sought ibr
\nwrit of  the  to provide the
\ncopy of   oonnected matelials as
\nmqtueapted I B to the petition. The second
\nprayer  Petition is to direct the third<\/p>\n
Ievejpondentx to  entire details of the breaches as well<\/p>\n
it    -. 1rI…;5n;”‘ll:i.&-..-.’t=;I.i\u00abiz_I’;\u00a2.1,’i13t_.’i1r’t\ufb01l1e and violation’ of Marketing oiacm; line<\/p>\n
c-s’Ol-4-I ‘veer  }II’I.!’;l’\\D ‘I11!!! tlag <\/p>\n
i|.u.;u I..I-J J.l.I.l1I.l I..I-1.1: V-Imaw 1.11.4-<\/p>\n
oi’\u00abap11_oi11’unent on dealer,  the present date so “6<\/p>\n
 x the  to appraise the Ministry of Petroleum and<\/p>\n
   cell to expose the second Ieapondenfa unlawful<\/p>\n
__  acts. I<\/p>\n
I)<\/p>\n
C
\n‘I<\/p>\n
18. Firstly what is to be noticed is thatf\ufb02iie  <\/p>\n
has imp]:-Jaded three respondents:-‘rig? name: iiesttsaaing\ufb01t<\/p>\n
this Court to issue writ. against   ioit\ufb02<\/p>\n
i_.p…=si!i–g ..he Corllymation “stating .t_.hotu the V<\/p>\n
E1<\/p>\n
i: rpre\ufb01ta\ufb02 ‘”‘ -“-‘,* “-‘”  “””h-V-9*” 9.- J:<\/p>\n
‘I lIL’!!\\t!\\;nIJ’<\/p>\n
NF<\/p>\n
outset, the issue or”   World o<\/p>\n
and -tl1e\u00ab.1wesp\u00a23tx\u00a7\u00bbi_t:ut:sa.. their objoc\ufb01ons to the sum” <\/p>\n
 stud ‘ hays  the details mganding their<\/p>\n
” ”  u\ufb01o\ufb02ity to  “the same since the petitioner is in<\/p>\n
V —some of the documents. In so liar as other<\/p>\n
.’dooi1men.tsj,  is stated that it is in the nature of<\/p>\n
intentigatoty. The manner in which the direction is sought<\/p>\n
x for of said documents, I am of the view that the same is<\/p>\n
[Pa-.is.conmi-.red \ufb01or t..e . 1.2- I1 hat ‘.1; a writ  thi<\/p>\n
.\n<\/p>\n
A… ‘an…\n<\/p>\n
C'”T’i Jt:I’:’:l’i ii\ufb01t iiutaii?<\/p>\n
FF\n<\/p>\n
—\n<\/p>\n
an
\nin
\nH
\nH!
\nI-\n<\/p>\n
H
\n1-:\n<\/p>\n
“I<\/p>\n
I-\n<\/p>\n
C
\nII
\nF<\/p>\n
because the  .er desires to ave such documents in<\/p>\n
ll’<\/p>\n
build up uecotds to make a complaint    ”<\/p>\n
No doubt, in so far as the docuiuenta  the it<\/p>\n
case of the petitioner and which     <\/p>\n
te.rrn1’n_at_iorn of dealership agieeiitent,  be” V it<\/p>\n
in a \ufb01iticn ta —“-*-on the vi.!;”a4-nnwr\ufb02h-org:
\nper the pmceduie    rluuuu 1 uuue
\nwhile initiating_:th_e  in such
\ncizcumataiios-\u00a7\u00a3aa,_’  are not produced
\nby  the provisions of the
\nEvidezice,  __ into play and the Court. would
\nhave  conaitier   in that light and as such the<\/p>\n
petitioner  “not”  prejudiced if the prayer is not<\/p>\n
1 u.n.._:. In t-V-:u–.._.—<\/p>\n
.,  in ihj 1v-.1-it-inn.\n<\/p>\n
 _ petition,’ it is more in the nature of public inteiest and aa
\n  “anion the same does not need consideration. Even otherwise,<\/p>\n
fit’ the petitioner alleges certain inegularitiea in respect of<\/p>\n
another dealer, it is always open to the petitioner to make<\/p>\n
such complaint. to the Miniatxy with prima  V’<\/p>\n
the Ministry itself would seek for’-Mich  the <\/p>\n
Corporation. As such the present   of<\/p>\n
21. In \\.I.r.P.:~.Ia.2;;3m.ig+_i’.:.;e~-ear if
\nfor issue of writ of  .te”‘xn11de”t no.4 i.e.,
\nAdditional Secretary   L\ufb01eiroieum is we,
\nUnion of   iefeif:  lii\u00e9ilnnce cell and CB!<\/p>\n
regaitlingv the%’\ufb01\ufb02egotio_ip”ea   respondent. Noa.l to 3.<\/p>\n
 ‘The;  of the petitioner is that the<\/p>\n
1eoj3ponqlent.VNogi_}l Vito  ate the servants of Bharat Petroleum<\/p>\n
   ‘aliotiki act fairly during the course of their<\/p>\n
 _,e 5  ” :2 A – – \u00ab –\n<\/p>\n
“.”””‘f11’3%v”””\u00a7fiv:,”‘I,”au unethical p:’act.:-c-,.. such as cormp. …-…_-.:_-tv,<\/p>\n
de1eiic9:icn.Tot’duty, failure in follow the ijiiidecines iaauuu u<\/p>\n
 _   and the Ministry.\n<\/p>\n
23. It is contended by the petitioner that the<\/p>\n
respondents had failed to act fairly and had developed illegal<\/p>\n
: ‘*3-Q-_–I<\/p>\n
33<\/span><\/p>\n
acts which are against the norms of the  ‘<\/p>\n
other serious allegations an: ma\u00a2_’!e~ in til’-oh  v’_”_A.’V]’}u_V: K V’<\/p>\n
petitioner has produced copies of  it <\/p>\n
have been made on  antiii <\/p>\n
By the said reptesentatitms, tho:V”p::ti:ionet.haa:vteqt\ufb01eatod the<\/p>\n
$11-  m \ufb01n.-ndent. h_,min.i;and–_nl:@:;3 ‘ “tut  Ministry of<\/p>\n
.-1″” ‘._’ Z<\/p>\n
In-if I1!!-\n<\/p>\n
llg VV ll..I.I I.l In.-\n<\/p>\n
I.\n<\/p>\n
petition, no  isl plt3t_i’.1e\u20ac:ti  that n<\/p>\n
P
\n.1!
\n.13<\/p>\n
5?!’<\/p>\n
teptescntnt3’on:sVhavE’  the fourth respondent.<\/p>\n
24}   $109.1 to 3 have \ufb01led Objec\ufb01\ufb01ll\ufb01 to<\/p>\n
uu avrnln.  $1.1′ .. . gzat-ions  .-a-.g.-_nst ._.:’:1n and
\naiso ‘t1a”.\u00a3e.i\ufb01fii\ufb01:it”i ‘nth r-g”i’ri to the “evil than-iites -*3 wet}<\/p>\n
 ._a’-.\u00e9.__c1ii1iittal oi\u00e9xzi\u00e9s ainrady pending between the parties. it is<\/p>\n
tliot~efot1\u00e9~.oontcndori that the prayer sought for by the<\/p>\n
 .. is not hona\ufb01de and is made only with the View to<\/p>\n
i  vengeance.\n<\/p>\n
‘.\n<\/p>\n
WM<\/p>\n
5|
\n4<\/span><\/p>\n
25. On heating the party-in-person and  ‘<\/p>\n
counsel for the respondent, I a.m~ of ‘   the u u<\/p>\n
allegations made in the petition :”wo1\u00e9_iIi’~ ‘tval\u00e9u i\ufb02htet <\/p>\n
dispute between the  the   L’<\/p>\n
 with mgatti to the___tei=ming\ufb01oti of. tlte Vtlealemhip<\/p>\n
iitigating. in   z:’\ufb01’*”‘t”:”-, th’. (\ufb01t;-.=rt.<\/p>\n
\ncannot ise'ueiaa    independent\nof the     for the Additional\n<\/pre>\n
 uinstittnte such enquiry, if the<\/p>\n
petitiotier inakea OU.t’a:_ \ufb01nd establishes his bona\ufb01des.<\/p>\n
125. “Renee; 511′ that can be ondemd. in this petition in to<\/p>\n
   the petitioner to bring to the lmmvledge of<\/p>\n
fourth respondent. Such meptesentation,  made, shaii be<\/p>\n
   _.1_.1_t, once over with ward In the<\/p>\n
.\n<\/p>\n
1<\/span>
\n1%.\n<\/p>\n
oonsidemd by the fourth usspondcnt. one way  V’<\/p>\n
accordance with law.   –\n<\/p>\n
27. In the result the tzmgwmgs— _ <\/p>\n
:5
\nE
\n‘U
\n“2’\n<\/p>\n
3..\n<\/p>\n
-F.\n<\/p>\n
yd
\n. \u00e9 !’..’>~’
\n‘ *0
\n“-5..\n<\/p>\n
I0
\nmu
\n“:2
\n3%
\nJ1
\nIE<\/p>\n
ll)  “‘\ufb01rJ””t_:}1eV.1*rctitioncr tn initiatr.
\n 1111  . >pm%.e\u00a2~.–.a_mgs in the manner stamd<\/p>\n
” ‘ Wnmnecsd’ ” inga am initintcd, all<\/p>\n
‘- ‘ ‘ 4 .- ‘ ._ 4
\n cant.-znu 3&3. cf tue H-=’*-es. 9…. hft “-<\/p>\n
I. trtarv-(uni<\/p>\n
i-HI]   their own costs.\n<\/p>\n
Sdf-;\u00a7__<\/p>\n
K \u00ab ‘   kc] bms ‘J-ucige<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court M\/S M S Srinivasa Murthy And Sons vs Ashok Sinha on 11 March, 2008 Author: A.S.Bopanna IN THE HIGH ooum’ op KARNATAKA A1′ DATED mus T!-IE nth DAY BEFORE D % D THE HON’BLE MR. ‘JDsaj1cEA s – …. ITION D141,p9,I2aD5DA. D BANGALORE-1 {Bgh “5 : K. SIJMAE. .A…VJ vu-no THIS WRIT […]<\/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-143801","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S M S Srinivasa Murthy And Sons vs Ashok Sinha on 11 March, 2008 - 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-m-s-srinivasa-murthy-and-sons-vs-ashok-sinha-on-11-march-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S M S Srinivasa Murthy And Sons vs Ashok Sinha on 11 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-s-srinivasa-murthy-and-sons-vs-ashok-sinha-on-11-march-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-03-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-13T22:22:29+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=\"24 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-m-s-srinivasa-murthy-and-sons-vs-ashok-sinha-on-11-march-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-m-s-srinivasa-murthy-and-sons-vs-ashok-sinha-on-11-march-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S M S Srinivasa Murthy And Sons vs Ashok Sinha on 11 March, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-03-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-13T22:22:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-m-s-srinivasa-murthy-and-sons-vs-ashok-sinha-on-11-march-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3967,\"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-m-s-srinivasa-murthy-and-sons-vs-ashok-sinha-on-11-march-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-m-s-srinivasa-murthy-and-sons-vs-ashok-sinha-on-11-march-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-m-s-srinivasa-murthy-and-sons-vs-ashok-sinha-on-11-march-2008\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S M S Srinivasa Murthy And Sons vs Ashok Sinha on 11 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-03-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-13T22:22:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-m-s-srinivasa-murthy-and-sons-vs-ashok-sinha-on-11-march-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-m-s-srinivasa-murthy-and-sons-vs-ashok-sinha-on-11-march-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-m-s-srinivasa-murthy-and-sons-vs-ashok-sinha-on-11-march-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S M S Srinivasa Murthy And Sons vs Ashok Sinha on 11 March, 2008\"}]},{\"@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 M S Srinivasa Murthy And Sons vs Ashok Sinha on 11 March, 2008 - 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-m-s-srinivasa-murthy-and-sons-vs-ashok-sinha-on-11-march-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S M S Srinivasa Murthy And Sons vs Ashok Sinha on 11 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-s-srinivasa-murthy-and-sons-vs-ashok-sinha-on-11-march-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-03-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-13T22:22:29+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":"24 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-s-srinivasa-murthy-and-sons-vs-ashok-sinha-on-11-march-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-s-srinivasa-murthy-and-sons-vs-ashok-sinha-on-11-march-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S M S Srinivasa Murthy And Sons vs Ashok Sinha on 11 March, 2008","datePublished":"2008-03-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-13T22:22:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-s-srinivasa-murthy-and-sons-vs-ashok-sinha-on-11-march-2008"},"wordCount":3967,"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-m-s-srinivasa-murthy-and-sons-vs-ashok-sinha-on-11-march-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-s-srinivasa-murthy-and-sons-vs-ashok-sinha-on-11-march-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-s-srinivasa-murthy-and-sons-vs-ashok-sinha-on-11-march-2008","name":"M\/S M S Srinivasa Murthy And Sons vs Ashok Sinha on 11 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-03-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-13T22:22:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-s-srinivasa-murthy-and-sons-vs-ashok-sinha-on-11-march-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-s-srinivasa-murthy-and-sons-vs-ashok-sinha-on-11-march-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-s-srinivasa-murthy-and-sons-vs-ashok-sinha-on-11-march-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S M S Srinivasa Murthy And Sons vs Ashok Sinha on 11 March, 2008"}]},{"@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\/143801","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=143801"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/143801\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=143801"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=143801"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=143801"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}