{"id":146152,"date":"2009-03-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-chirag-vs-ms-eureka-builders-on-12-march-2009"},"modified":"2014-02-06T03:30:59","modified_gmt":"2014-02-05T22:00:59","slug":"sri-chirag-vs-ms-eureka-builders-on-12-march-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-chirag-vs-ms-eureka-builders-on-12-march-2009","title":{"rendered":"Sri Chirag vs M\/S Eureka Builders on 12 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Sri Chirag vs M\/S Eureka Builders on 12 March, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: A.S.Bopanna<\/div>\n
 \n\nSM'? SUNITA\n\nWXO GULABCHAND DANE}\n\nAGE 53 YEARS, OCCi;HOUSEW1F'IEi\n\nR\/O SHANTINACEAR, KESHWAPUR\nHUBLE\n\nSHRI MAHE$I~1 KEEMAR\n\nS\/O VELJE KANJE\n\nAGE 64 YEARS, OCCEEJSINESS ,_ _\nR;\"O 54,112, SANS VILLA, RO.P\u00a7D._II NEAR \"\nMEDLERE HOSFITAL, KESHW.A\u00a7'\"i~J,_i? .\nHUBU  \u00e9'\n\nSM'? 1'-IIALABAI\nW\/C3 PRAFUL S\ufb01\ufb01\ufb02 , .L  j\nAGE 51 YEARS, OCC:H{)E3SEWE'FE\n\nmo NARAYAN?URA  \nAHMEi33AB1'_a,D--.\u00a2\u00ab_  I\n\nsHR\u00a3..m:.:_,:P~V;;U3;L\u00a7a\u00a7z,\nS\/cv>vEL;iV!\u20acANJ::V' _ . .\nA30 gPPEL\u00a7..AN'\u00a3\"S\n\n {'g3;s;7:ii:'iz*\u00a3i1'RC;2\\:, Sax c\"\u00e9i:NsEL, Sn: (3 M PO{3N\u00a7.GH\u00a3% AEJD\n\n\u00bb _'s..r~;;:;:I{e;xss: 1&5' mm, mvs FGQ LEXPLEXUS, AW. 3;\n\nAM\n\n_>:--.\u00ab\n\nz~5;'.s\"\u00a7:s_\",:\u00a7E\u00a7<;a. BLEELSERS\n\nT {3F'F'\u00a3';Zi E AT MOPEQK '$E~\u00a715sFvfBERS\n\n~ AA  S--'?ATI\u00a5L3N ROAD, HUBLI DUE.-Y EEPRESENTED\n " ._B'i ETS PARTNER\n SHE} SHVAM RAEVIASA JARTARGHAR\n\n351% SHYAM RAMASA J.%RT\u00a7\u00a7\u00a7GHAR\n&GE 54 YEARS; OC5C:PAR'I'NER\n\nEMS EUREKQA \u00a7L?\u00a5L{)E\u00a7S\n\nS1\/C} EVEGHAK CZHAMBEFES\n\nJ\n\n'a\n\n\n\nU.)\n\n\n\nSTATEGN RGAD, HUBL1\n\nKASHIEEUATH RAMACHANDRASA NERANJAN\nAGE ABOUT 55 YEARS\n\nOCCFARTNER\n\nMXS EUREKHA BUILDERS\n\nR,\/O MOHAK CHAMBERS\n\nSTATION ROAD, HUBL1\n\nSHRI If R' E3'I33A1~\u00a5L.AD\nAGE ABOUT :36 YEARS\n\nOCC;PAR'E'NER ws EUREKE-IA BUILDERS   \n\n\u00a5?;'0 MOHAK CHAMBERS   \nSTATEON ROAII}, HUBLI 1\n\nsm' KAMALAVVA _\n\nwxo KYATANAGOUDA F'A'I'iE,,'~.._ \nAGE 75 YEARS, OCC;AGR1CLiL'I"'LIRE\nR,fO KESHWAPUR  .\nHUBM\n\nF'A1--;;:1Qz~,A\u00e9: <}:":p.g"V% "  _ - .\nS\/O KYATANAGOE3 DA 3~m';_L\nAGE 3.5 Y3?$AF<"S, 0CC_;AQR'iCULT{}RE\n\nR\/0 KES_HWAPUR  '\n\n}:7I'E...:FII3;:I.IE  A ' V\n\n-.?._\u00a7 BAsA;--NAGOUDA PATEL\n~ T 'M332. f_?'1..Y\"E'.'_A3?.S, O\u20ac1C;AGRICUL'E'U\u00a7%E\n._ \/C\u00bb Kasyzwgwg\nA '2~41iJBLI~j; \n\nuE3H\u00a7,Nff.i\u00a74ASHEKAR MARIGGUD& Pt3s\"i'iL\n\nAGE371 YEARS\n\nAA '  ;C3CC;AGR\u00a3CUL'\u00a3'UR\u00a73\n\n?\nMAREGOUDA DYAMAMAGOQ 13;, .?M:'L _\nAGE 56 YEARS ' _  5 _   , \nOCC;AGRICUL'\u00a5'URE;\n\nmo KESHWAPU V .\n\nHUBL1  V  \n\nAGE 51 ::YEA_:?s'*~  _ \nOCC;AGR1CUI;TURE'  \nR\/G'*Ki3SH%VAP\"G;R. *\nHUSH '~* 2\n\nESE-{WA RA.\u00e9:;::L5:\u00a73~._.L>Y\u00a7a1\u00bb1}*a1\u00a7}n;G<\u00a7\u00a33 lib; 'P.ea::'*:L\n\nc1\u00bb~uV\u00e9;1s:D'{2*A:ar:i;\u00e9:~es:\u00a7{;\u00ab:.\u00a7i;:{}:3AsANAGou SA PATEL\nAGE'; 6':';\"~ YaTL'-ABS  \nL.;<EsHv.?gP*L3R\n\u00a2. \u00a3\ufb01iUF;\u00a7L{  ~ A ..... .. \u00bb\n\n" ~ .YA\u00a3,LFaP\u00a3?\u00a3{T;QUDA ggamaeaum PATEL\n AGE'53"YE}A\u00a7\u00a7.S\n-.QCC;A(3_R\u00a3(;ULTURE\n\n'A  22;0_;:E;Ls;&wAP1_:R,HUm,1\n\nRAL\u00a7\u00a31SHEKARG{3U DA BASANAGOUSA FATEE.\nACTrE---- 48 YEARS\n\nA' ' L '- f.3C:C;AGRiCU 1:11; RE\n\n*  Ti\/<3 ycaaawapu\ufb01\n\nHUBLI\n\nPRAKASHAGOUDA BASANAGGUM PATEL\nAGE: 43 YEARS\n\n\u00e9i)CC;AGRICUL'I'URE\n\nE2fO KESHWAHER\n\nHUBLI  RESPGNSBNTS\n\n\n\n{By Sri: MAHESH WODEYAR, ADV. F012 C\/Rm A'\nan': S S KHATEEB, ADV, FOR \u00a32? T0 15    4 \nSri: R B HALE AND Sri: 3 K ANAND, \u00a3&,D_Vs 9:312 f%4=f5;\u00a7',.5}V"   \n\nTHIS APPEAL IS 91153 LI\/S. 3?{_13".QF  AA\u00a7:::;1*P;AT:PL1C'A*1\u00a7i@N No.\"'3_12*c~:3'-r 0;; THE) FILE\nOF' THE PRL, msw. JUQGE, DHAREVAD.1 DIRE~CTEN,ff3 ALL THE\nPARTIES TO MAIP\u00a5I'A1Nv'__S'PATL_i:AS _Qr;:~Q :'N_ RELATIGN TO THE',\nOWNERSHIP AND P'OSSE'S;S1ON~L__{iF v ':*r%1Ef_ n;%\u00a7;*.r.'mo:~: Sci-VEEBULE\nPROPERTEES AS ON THA*:i_QAv_ 'F\u00a7__L1,_ THE} 'a:;;=g.:r\u00a2--<:LusroN 09' THE\nARBITRATION PR<3\u00a7:\u00a7;..gDIr\u00a7 -  '\n\n\u00a7\\iI.\u00a5\".A. N0.  '_  '_  '\nBETWEEN T T\n\n3. 31%: Y':iLLA9?AC%Q%<,jm"  " " \n3,152 BA::.ANmo.Um w\u00a7:..:*1;:,\n\n5{Z\u00a7.E:'E:53 YEZARS, OCC\ufb01:AGR}CUL'\u00a7'URE ag SERVICE,\n\ufb01g\/A1*~KEsHw;s.9;;R,4HUBL:\n\nA . 3 \u20ac;H\u00a3\u00a7E\u00a3E}R\ufb01;SHEKH&R\n\n S,\/_{}v-vPgffA\u00a72'E{3\u20acJ'II{j)A PATH.\n\n~ . =I'_.;'a{34E~:7"i_Y1"::\u00a7xi13'S,OCC:?xC\u00a7R\u00a3<':UL"I'UF2E\n1 EVA'? 2<:E;'_3I~.i'waPUR, HUBL1\n\n--V 3 \u00a7i:;AN ;.m"A R\n\n s\/::~.;:'-mMANAGo:;aA PAHL\n~ : AGE:\u20ac\u00a74 YEAES, \u20aci)CC:AGE13ICUL'F{\u00a7F2IS'F,\n\n  \u00a7*gA'r KESHWAPUR, Htjmx\n\n   MAHESH\n\nS] O LATE SAIEASHEVJKGOUDA PA'\u00a7'IL\nAGESZE YEARS, GCCIAGRZCULTURE\nR\/AT' KLEt':'sHWA.PUR, HUBLE\n\nJ\n\n\n\n)0\n\n(Bar M\n\nMARECEOUBA 6\n\nS\/O DYAMANAGSUDA PATH,\n\nAG-E:?S6 YEIWS, OCC:AGRECUL'i'URE: 85 smvzcg,\nR,\/RE' KESHWIKPUR, HUBL1\n\nISHWARAGOUDA\nS\/{:2 DYARIEANAGOUDA 9am,    _ \nA<'}"E:51 YEARS, OCC:AGRiC'iUL'TURE 8:; SERVICE,  '\nR\/AT KESHWAPUR, HUBLI ;  -- --.   -\nCHANE}RA\u00a3V10}\u00a7ANGOUDA\n\nS,\/0 BASA{\\\u00a7A(3\u00abOUDA PATEL ' ..\nAGE:65 YEARS, OCC:AGRICUjLTURE1, '\nR\/AT KESHWAPUR, HLJBLI' .  'V\n\nRAJASHEKHARGOUDA   --\nS30 BAsANAGoU2;~A;"?g3TiL.VA" * \nAGE:48 YEARS, 0cc::,9;;;R1c:i;:\u00a7*:.;E::?._;\u00bbv.% _\nR\/AT' KESHWALPUR, 1403;:    \n\n?\u00a3A Pssiz'-1:.' -\nA(3E--:43 as EARs:;V:;ERs\n. \" -AREL~f\u00a7_1\"f3TEVRE\ufb01 PARTNERSHEP E'\u00ab*'iR\u00a7~\u00a3i HAVENG\nA , rm R_g::;%:i:e:s**rERE\u00a7 apnea AT MO\u00a7~\u00a3\u00e9';\u00a7{ cagmgma\n'*s?Ai;*\u00a3;_R--QN, Sri: N FOR LEXPLEXUS, ADVS FOR 12:2 T0 14;\n\n'---._':*H::;.~;~ APPEAL ES FELED Ufs. am; OF' THE A\u00a7BE'I'RA'I'Ei1>N\n 4  AND CQRCELEATEGN ACT AGMNSI' THE': GREEK? DATED: 3.9.2007\n1  Pasysgn an ARBETREEIQN APPLESATIQN NE}.\n '~{%:3? ma PRL, ms'? JUDGE, DHARWAI),\n .1?za\u00a7':\"';~Es T0 Ms=.;NTA:N STATUS QUO ifs!'\n ow*NERs:~;:P AND mssgsszm 5.\u20ac ;:\u00bb:3A:>\"'- '  f~ \nHUBLI, DULY REP BY ITS MANA\u00bb.M::>HA;< ci:m M$E3a\u00a5ss\u00a7\n\n$'I'ATION ROAD, HUBLI\n\nSRI SHYAM RAMASA '\u00a2FA'RTARG:{_HA\u00a72"'-. Lj AA ~ \nman ABOUT 50 YEARS;  " _ \nOCC:PAP;"1'NER     \nM\/S EUREKzajBu:L13:ERs, i\u00bb\u20acOHA~K'~E3U1LDE3RS\nSTATION Roaxja,'   g  \nmax;   \n\nSR1 MOHANV\u00bb-RAMAs.A ;;,\u00a5A}?'I'\u00a7.R\u00a3}HAR\nAGED"AE30'i\u00a7T 4'::.;?F;A:2S1--  '\nOG.C:PAR;T}\\?EvR_&V    . _'\n\nM\/.2; Et;REKA'BL*:mERJ.s, 'M:::\u00ab1~iA\u00a7< CHAMBERS\nS'E'A'I'I<3N-- ROAD "  .   \n\nHUSH' " ' A =\n\ns;:2:";\u00bb;AsH1N2;fr:\u00a7' \u00a7Azv:AcHANDRAsA NIRANJAN\n\n A\u00a73C'sU'}' 5Gv\u00a5-EARS\n\nCJCC: \u00a75"AR'?NER\n\n\u00bb  M;s_VELr1:;~\u00a7::{;a_BU\u00a3L3g:es, MOHz%K CHAMBERS\n. .S'1"3ZTf{I\u00a7N R\u00a7AHma\nAAR'rN3R\n' ms EUREK,& BUELQEZRS, MOHAK or-mmgms\n = STATION was\n-Vauam\n\nT 9.2: MORAN RUEEMPPA WAL:\n\nAGED ABGUT 56} YEARS\nOCQ: PARTNER\nMXS EUREKA BIJELEEERS, MO\u00a7%:%\u00a7{ CHAMBERS\n\nJ\n\n7%\n\n\n\n \n\n1E\n\n\"ms PETITEQN FILES ms 115 CFC AG\u00a3iNS'i' '\",!f'A.{4..VE\"f51\"'_,*'3E\u00a7\"' \nmmrz; 2a.':=.2<3o7 PASSED ON I,A,N<:;x2 m o.s.--:~1.oj;'~..si2;zV2<3o'r __or\u00a2 \nTHE FILE OF' THE E ADDL.CIVEL;"'JL}{}GE.t\u00a7r:t'n;;n m'\u00a7j*x\u00a5 * \n\nf3Qt\ufb01\u00bb \"2.m vagaj11st the order dated\n(;3.09.2\u00a5:ro7'-- 'pa$$t:ii&'-~  Appiication No. 3\/ 200'?\n\n[k1\u20ac:\u20acinaftef\"r\u00a2f%:rrc\u00a7t\u00a7_  No.3jiZQO'7 for short). In MFA\n\n Ne. ,1:\u00a7S99j:2oa'?'Av.:\u00a7\u00a2____;\u00bbgspo::;denzs Ne. 13 to 19 (hereizlafisr\n\n ref:::rr&\u20ac\u00a3 'Va-,~3 'assignees' for conV5::1ie11ce) have qucstioned the\n\nSaid\" {:\u00a7\u00a7,'t\u00e9I\u00e9;i';' '_\"_f\ufb02.  No.14061\/2037, the mspondents No. 4 1:0\n\n _ 1.2, \ufb01le  reyresentafives {ref extzcutants of disputed\n\n gigrmmszif (hezrzainafi\u00e9tr referred to as the 'owners' far\n\n T.;:\u00a7.3\/2907 am: 0.s.No.52\/2:307 mxat\u00e9fm the\n\nsame subject; mattizr tlmugh under different pr<;:av.isi_m:.\u00a7s-  ;}1\u00e9'\u00a32T\u00a7":\n\nbeen clubbrzti and heard together anci as    V' \n\nwell as the revision patition are dif\u00e9\u00e9pos\u00e9ti ._ofT_b\u00a7;' \n\nosder.\n\nFACTS<\/pre>\n
 IN COMMON<\/p>\n
2. The bI”i\u20acf_f\u00a7\u20aclCtS   an: that the
\nbu\ufb02dexs   \ufb01\u00a7\ufb01iid&’ai31e property bearing
\n(ITS No.36i   gixntas and the property
\n 24 guntas situate at
\nWard 1_ A:–j\u00a7’fi;\u00bb\u00a7.*%i\u00a3’:\u00abV, :K\u00e9shavapur, Hubli, ciaim to haw:<\/p>\n
aniertzai\u00bb \u00a7.;{:l{(}”;’V:1iviv”~E\u00a7lVgf\ufb01\u20ac}:\u00a3}Lf\u00a7I%IE{. of sale dated 23.83.2081 with the<\/p>\n
.  ‘<)v.f\ufb01t:I:S V\ufb01a\ufb01\u00e9ily. "\ufb01;i\u00e9"v\u00a5C\u00a51Iiil\u00e9.t':I'S also claim that a sum of<\/p>\n
  been pa\ufb01a\u00e9 by them by paying ii 3:0 the<\/p>\n
mrs;?;::z.$rs' .~ .  'E3h%: aszsignees are said. ta be in possession of 1:133<\/p>\n
V'-\u00bb.\u00a7I*’f’<\/p>\n
Pending Arbitraiiong sincs the Zbii\ufb01degrs   L36 ‘ j ‘<\/p>\n
assignees am seaking Change in   <\/p>\n
I’\u20ac(:0I\ufb02S and arc making a.f:te1:t1V1;sts ‘i{3su1:\u00a7L\u00e9.iv:Ed.\u00a7Van6;. ti*a::zSf\u00a2r the V<\/p>\n
propertiag have approachgd thg\u00e9—j1tiis.dic:ti0naf ‘\ufb01\u00e9nsiizfiitt Court in
\na petitien flied under””‘Sec\u00a7o1_.}i*.V&\u20ac}   Arbitraiian and
\nCanciliatjon A<:t,_ ;i9g96 zif\u00e9f'  \u00a3,\u20ac\u00a3V\u00a7Cwi;%'}VV'V"'5\u00a7"\u00a7'}iCh came ta be
\nI1umbere\u00a77;"'as I.?&BP\u00ab\u00a7:*;.;i'-3n.'i3[2\u00a3\u00a7{)?.""'~*Ff1e ewners as 19961} as tht:
\nassigne\u00e9s z\u00a7*\u00a2r\u00e9 'ii\u00e9spaxzdants, R is relavarrt to new<\/p>\n
.h\u20ac':I'\u20aciiS\u20acif \u00e9ixa\ufb01 ffh% -_z*\u20ac:2._v{\u00a7;s::1}u{}e1}%is eitoxisisting the group of the<\/p>\n
 \u00ab_ 0E7\u00a7}*\u20ac'E5I:$ ii\ufb01cip\u00e9e A\ufb013;:.V__}_\u00e9;*j:g:3} repms\ufb01ntativss sf {ha executants cf<\/p>\n
 agi'ci?,1n\u00ab\u00a7:;3;i$':%}Ss:1,,_ 11: the said petition, \u20ac116: gerzuinenesa of tbs<\/p>\n
  is disputed by contendi\ufb02g that {ha signed<\/p>\n
'V  have \ufb01mn usad ta create the agrmtment as well as<\/p>\n
x V' .a\u20ac;kn\u00a7::wI\u00e9\ufb01gment of that eaasidcra\ufb01siah Simufianemlsky, G113 cf<\/p>\n
  itspondents 1:9 the Sai\u00e9 pctitien, W119 5,3 the son of<\/p>\n
~ Easanagguda 9&3': fxle\ufb01 ma suit in 0\u00a7s,:~\u00a7e.5–2\/ ma? seeking far<\/p>\n
a judgment and decrea ta {itzclam 1:113 agpeemeni 0f S318 dated<\/p>\n
J<\/p>\n
'1<\/p>\n
13%<\/p>\n
23.63.2001 alleged to have bean executeti by <\/p>\n
as mncacted, sham, begus, unanfezmeabla in 1ai$e*,:: i}3.{\u00a2;Tg\u00a3V: 1,  <\/p>\n
and void and not hintiring on the     <\/p>\n
consequential releifs of injuxlmiesn a;a-__ \ufb01imii as  _~;\u00a7.eCLarat};o'1; Vfe_V<\/p>\n
declare the Izatice datsd :5. :1;2.\u00a7\u00a7a is\u00e9ueg' 'a3.\u00a7I:"'_t1\u00a5\u20ac:\\Vv jt\u00a7 eVi'e'\u00a7\u00a7}da:1f'<\/p>\n
N<;2'9 {Arbitrator} on tft1e.if.\u00e9:-agis Q33 "i}:1  _$a\u00a3t:\u00a75e’3;:.  th\ufb01\u00e9iismisvgai 01″ the appiicaiion mekimg I’\u20acf\u20ac1’\u20ac\ufb02C\u20ac<\/p>\n
 ‘t\u00a72V’ar}:gi”;::j3;\u00a3ic\u00a7za\u00ab””i3_ bging qusstiouad by the builder whs is ‘\u00a3116<\/p>\n
d\ufb01f\u00e9iidar\u00e9t -iii}.  suit.\n<\/p>\n
x  3;” Heard Sri meg. R011 and Sri Kiran V Ron, bsarrie\u00e9<\/p>\n
  far th\ufb01 assigne\ufb01s, Sri Prakash K Jawaikar, learn\u00e9ri<\/p>\n
 T\ufb01auzzsei far tha buiiders, S;-:2 RB, Kaifz and 3111 3,3, gzghatem<\/p>\n
laarned Counsel fer \ufb01zz? I’t:’fS\u00a7\u20acC\u00a5IJ:V\u20ac awners.<\/p>\n
I<\/p>\n
f:\n<\/p>\n
COIITEHTIGHS IH COMMQN 3<\/p>\n
4. Theugh the I’\u20acS}3\u20acCi;iV\u20aci learned Counsel  <\/p>\n
hem\ufb02 at iength, the cendensed f<;m:n..\u00a73f 3%.?  :1:\u00a7fi,\u00bb3Zc%':'f3.,   ~ 1 <\/p>\n
summaty of thc commtztions urgcii 211253;?  '?ie:a'r::1\u00e9dV_ {ZZ0Vi;f1–$\u00e93?.1br<\/p>\n
the assignees is fustly Wi\ufb02i._.i\\i3.g81'd '-'E0 \ufb011e' _ IA18;,j{L1I'.f;V {sf iii:-.::: <\/p>\n
prcmerties beirxg zmxtan proper'ti\u00a7:s;VVVig,f:ii{:ei%s :\u00a7g(:%..,” (heremafter referred<\/p>\n
to as ‘Act of 1874’) and  3;\u00a3r:;\u00b0t:I:1e ieasa granted<\/p>\n
for  19:5. The iegai effect (}f the lease
\ngrantttd  ‘Vi.0Ia’ti,0\u00abi”1 :3f  S of the Act of 18?4 has btszzzn<\/p>\n
fefeitfaicd to     is cantende\ufb01 that the Ectase W0111\u20ac3.<\/p>\n
\u00ab “b\u20ac<\u00a7\u00a7;\u00a7\u00e9" '$*0iiiA.pn tlx\u00e9fdw\u00e9atlx cf the original iessozs and as such<\/p>\n
  2  waiarzdars wauld have right ta recaver<\/p>\n
;3:\u00ab”*\u00bbgs3:c:’-:s$;’V~:>.Tr.\u00a7L’_ ‘jltha lands within 12 years as per A\ufb01icle 3344 of<\/p>\n
 {ha Lizgiiation Act 1938 (hersinaft\ufb01r mferred ‘\u00a320 as ‘Aci 03”<\/p>\n
 Hence, it is aantcnded that the succeeding Watandars<\/p>\n
V.  \u00a7\u00a7’0111d 1003:: al}. rights if the suit is not \ufb01led within the period 5f<\/p>\n
{imitation and the right $3136 and i\ufb01terest would vest with the<\/p>\n
parser; in wrcngful possesaian of that suit garoperty by virtue {sf<\/p>\n
1<\/span><\/p>\n
\ufb02u<\/p>\n
E6
\nSectien 28 of the Act of 1908. The date f death of the iessors<\/p>\n
laie Adveppa Gouda and late Marigouda is also 1’e:fr\u00bb:t_’_1″\u20acd to<\/p>\n
indicate this aspect. The dacisions in the case of :EL:}’*{:f}vl’RA<\/p>\n
BAX AND ANOTHER’ —vs\u00bb THE TAHISILQR, Hamji Tmu 3$;;f.:\u00a7:
\nOTHERS, 1996 (6) ;<.L,,L 339 aname.4\u00a2as;\u00a7V$:f"':*2a:{t3' .W<:<\u00a3U"j. <\/p>\n
KADAM Arm omgag -~vs– GANU \u00a7z1*rPi:I\u00a7~'KA'B\u00a73;AA\u00a7?1 ~_2~,:"?E}:\u00a7i3;3 _1<\/p>\n
BOMBAY 24 am relied on in  _ _V V_ 1\n<\/p>\n
5. Aitematively, it is also L>c\u00bb:3;t;Le:1dsc\u00a5’  in  vi\u20acW of \u00a3116:<\/p>\n
c0ming’VViii{\u00a3}’Tf\u00a7\u00a7;’;;\u20ac  O\ufb01ices Abolition Aci,
\n19631 (\ufb01\ufb01xffiaaiieg;  as ‘KVOA Act’), the \u00a7I’Gj\u00a7}\u20acl”,’t\u00a7F<\/p>\n
governed \u00a3:f:;:ie:- .A\u00a7;t ‘–.{:b3f”bLV3.874 stood vcgted in the State<\/p>\n
 ‘~  as }\u00a7\u20acr’S$c\ufb010n 4 of KVGA Act. The relevant data<\/p>\n
   any person in occupat\u00e9an in the lands as<\/p>\n
03.1. hth\u00e9 \ufb02sting, other than Watcmdars air: dszfmcd as<\/p>\n
 12I3a1i’tZ”;1::)f\u00a7r:;$\u20acL-if holders. I1: is contended that the I\ufb01grant as per
\n “..f\u00a7}i’9’if;i$\u00ab3’.<31:1VL'$ sf Section 5 of KVOA Act was an 4.9,19'?S anti
\n%  27z:;,Q27.19s2 in favour of {he legal ham af the e\ufb01ginal zssgms<\/p>\n
"  tbs grant\ufb01as not being 113 possessian, the rmgmntees were<\/p>\n
required to file \ufb02it? suit for rtzcmrery sf passessiozi as<\/p>\n
J<\/p>\n
:3?\n<\/p>\n
cemiemplated under Artickt 65 of Act, 1963. in this regard,<\/p>\n
relianctz is piacad. on the judgment in the CRSE 8ABU”‘MALLU<\/p>\n
\u00a7<m)'1* mvs\u00bb DEPUTY COMMISSEONER 3\u00a7:Lgg5*;{:V:vi"}j"%T.A':\u00e9VD<\/p>\n
GTHERS\u00bb 19% (2) KLJ 315; V <:HANNANARAs'i_\u00a7a;V;A:;%\u00a7i' ~\u00bbv\u00a7\u00a7's\u00a5 '<\/p>\n
ABDKTEONAL TAHSIIJBAR BA:xzGrAL;<3'"RE,~.:\\;, 1953..{3}.,;\u00a7:m”;br\u00a7vi3j3;”\n<\/p>\n
5. Tha abave aspgjcfs ha$_r\u00a2 E”;::\u00a211._\u00bbp0nti\u00a211d\u00a3:(i tggii claim that<\/p>\n
the assigisazzesi.  the property’ ha\ufb01 perfect\ufb01d
\ntheir til:  xf\ufb01iinquishment ciecd executed by<\/p>\n
the ;\u00a7,*’–\u00bb?,ht:.VVai;lcg\u00a7\u20acE. agmament of $3112 1191′ am ih\u00e9jy’ reguir\ufb01\u00e9 to<\/p>\n
‘\u00e9zg\ufb01jcctvvi\ufb01\u00e9msgii\u00e9s to arbitxafion. ii is alse caxzt\ufb01nd\ufb01d that {E16<\/p>\n
.V owzi\u00e9m  \ufb01geci suits in 0.s.r~:os.354;2Q<}4 an\u00e9 365\/2964 0:1<\/p>\n
u1'_1.2Vi304 seeking posgessi\ufb01n a\ufb01ci the said suits Wars<\/p>\n
.'  \ufb01.\u00a7$*m':issed on 29.C!1.;2'{}0? as bazrred by Law an\u00e9 as such, iha<\/p>\n
 "'s:'am\u20ac having aittainad fma\ufb01ty against 11 piaj\ufb01\ufb01\ufb01s {hermit}, :10<\/p>\n
right can be claimed aga\u00e9nst; \u20ac238 agsigne\u00e9sg E': is themf\u00e9rz:-:<\/p>\n
J<\/p>\n
4<\/span><\/p>\n
\u00a39<\/p>\n
bringing about the agmement. Rafarence is I11a{i f3-_’:.!tiQ’ the<\/p>\n
S11S\u00a7)iCi{)1lS cixcumstaaces of the agreement bein;\u00a7”b1*\u00e9i1g1_1’i:.j;itg<\/p>\n
force. Above all, strong reliance is placed  cf\u00bb <\/p>\n
the I-I011’hle Sugsmme Court in the %:,fa.sti:.,c\u00a7f j:’SB_i? ‘<\/p>\n
-vs– PATEL ENGINEERING LT,9_ANDAAN’GTHEl2 –1~ ($3) <\/p>\n
618 to contend that the  .\u00a2b11\u00e9id \u00e9; all these
\naspects of the matter }:u%:i’c21~e   to procwd
\nand as such in the instant  would mat have<\/p>\n
jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
 rI_’}’.1\u20ac”.VvV\u00a3-ii’;Vt”Vgh*;Ij(:V1’t’51’\u00a7”IL’E\u00a7~_\u00e9C1C1I’\u00a3’?\u00a7;S!;’3(Ii by the learned Counsei for
\n11113 aSSi\u00a711E\u00a2S~ is  in a veiled maxmer by the<\/p>\n
1ea1j:p$tI’ Cou\ufb013\u00e91..  for the owners. The awners not<\/p>\n
    over the property is conceded and it is further<\/p>\n
1  builders have obtained signatures on blank<\/p>\n
paptzrs  assurance of helping the Qwners for recavczy of<\/p>\n
“ppsses;sia’3\ufb01 of the occuiaants of the lands in qnestion, but<\/p>\n
A   3136 of the same have got Hy {he agmctmzmt of saie<\/p>\n
   _\u00a7_;\u00a7tad 23.83.2001 azz\u00e9 the same came t9 the kncawletige of the<\/p>\n
V owxicrs easily when there was a public: notice in the newspaper<\/p>\n
on 30.8.2005 by the lcgal mivisers of the buiidam indicating<\/p>\n
4L<\/p>\n
V’:\n<\/p>\n
28<\/span><\/p>\n
that the Qwners haw: given all right in respect of the property
\nand the suit in O.S.Nos.364\/ 2004 and 36:3’\/2004 haci been<\/p>\n
\ufb01led. A mply notice is contended to have been pub\ufb01slgedv on<\/p>\n
10.16.2085 and subsequentiy, ma suits were <\/p>\n
and as such the: interim order in the natur\u00e9\ufb01 gimitgd  <\/p>\n
ABN M31200? is not sustainable} “c\u00a2\ufb01t\u00a2\ufb01i\u00a7ap~\u00ab;.\u00e9as %<\/p>\n
aiso urged by the learned C.0u.1is-t:_l wIi\u00e9A.a:\u00a7d;1ea:*:Ci’A’ f\u00a7>:fi_V<\u00e9meT\u00a7 of  F<\/p>\n
Iegai repzttscmza\ufb01vesf owner   '  pla ;im:2\ufb02' in
\nO.S.No.52\/2007 and '<:;($\u00e9E1*:tn:fied\u00a7V. . ix;a_:_ :3;.;\u00a2 trial Court was<\/p>\n
justi\ufb01edvi\u00a3iVT:*ej:\u00a7\u00a7&.tj.n\u00a7:;'fLh&: :'\u00e9::;:1f:li(:3.2;.1;'<V\u00a7hV\ufb02\ufb01.Icd under Section 8 of the
\nAct, mo\ufb01 \ufb02it': original or 3. certi\ufb01etd copy of<\/p>\n
the agreem\u00e9nt. was  along with the applicaiien. The<\/p>\n
 ._V$us;\u00a7_i\u00a7:i0,;:s naturo\u00e9 '<jf——\u00ab{11e agrtemem: was also sought :0 be<\/p>\n
  ~–.t.h\u20ac iearrzed Counsel :0 inciicatc that these<\/p>\n
aSpE:\u00a3:is {if  was I\u00e9gh\ufb02y notzice\ufb01 by the Big} Court.<\/p>\n
 'I'ht:  4Ce1ms:;~:} placed r\ufb01liance an the judgment of the<\/p>\n
 f\u00a7~Eiozi*b.}\u00a2 \u00e9upmme court in LUDHIANA IMPROVEMENT mus'?<\/p>\n
 –\u00a5.\u00e9’g\u00a7’2\\.i\u00ab;\/8 “mm? HGMES AND INi1’RAS\u00a7’RUCfI”URE \u00abmos SA}?<\/p>\n
” ‘(C\u00a7ivi1} 103?.\n<\/p>\n
J<\/p>\n
-“a<\/p>\n
21<\/span><\/p>\n
8. CI}. ht:-half 0f the builders, it was contcnde\u00e9 by the
\nlearned Counsel that insofar as th\ufb01 grant of the ixlterim ()I'(it’:I”
\nin ABN N0.3\/2007, the Eistrict Judge was justi\ufb01eti the<\/p>\n
\u00e9ntire issue is now before the Arbitrator and <)1_1_-;\u00b0i\u00e9Ei"t3\u00a3:1\u00a7;:–..\u00a7;x%*s;V1c=:3.*s<\/p>\n
as Wei} as assignees have subjccte\u00e9 thcznsfslvesi' 10 fuss: <\/p>\n
arbitxation proceedings, they canned;   arid.  '<\/p>\n
the same. It is ooutcizdeii t]:1\u00e9'1t_  si:r3.<3e \u00e9rbi\u00a5t1;\u00e9;i;i0.'L: <\/p>\n
proccedrings has aktzady co1nmc'\u00e9'i1r%\u00e9d._a11 fzo\ufb01ie\ufb01\ufb01o\u00e9is including
\nthe validity of the L'ques\ufb01c;\u00a3;1\u00e9\u00e9VV before the<\/p>\n
Axbinat6i'"V[as   Scc'a'on .16 of the Act and
\nexplaia\u00e9d    case which has been relied 011<\/p>\n
by tht-_: ow\ufb01\u00e9zs V\u00a7Z}1QV}".iE.SA\u00e9i=7\u00a7;ti'5S"."bhV The learned Counsel 3330 referrc\ufb01<\/p>\n
 .._t<:.:  \u20aci\u00a3':C}:\u00a7iG\u00a3}\u00ab-~-Kild contsnded that whexz that was the<\/p>\n
  Fa-'}1en the axbitra\ufb01cn is pezilding, all that the<\/p>\n
l\u00e9mizii\u00e9d  Judge 133$ cicmef: is :0 protect the interest Gf<\/p>\n
 the  the }3(?5I1C1\u20ac\ufb01(i:y of the arbitrat:ion since the:<\/p>\n
V' \u00bbp::r\u00e9vis'i01V:': contemplates SC). The enly nemsdy open for thc:<\/p>\n
'  efiyn\u00e9rs and assignees is as contemplated under S\ufb01ction 34 or<\/p>\n
"  of the: Act after completion of the arbitrati-91:: proceedings<\/p>\n
and \ufb01e": at this stage; Insefar as the rejec\ufb01on cf the appiication<\/p>\n
fled under Section 8 of the Act in G111? suit, the 1fiEi'\u00a7T'.'.}tj;.L2'5:VV':C4E.:"3"lTf\u00a7T:i'\u00bbi"-$1<\/p>\n
<:o:1i:ent:lad that the: tria} Court wag not justi:\u00a7\u00a7\u00a7:\u00e9i~._;i11~  <\/p>\n
such a conclusion ans} in this regar\ufb01i, th(:"1caiI'I1\u20ac:d.Ceu11St': }' aim)<\/p>\n
pointad out. that one of \ufb021eT.assigAm:\u00e9S.V_ had  i3;=.\u00a2'c1- :3. nSi;2'i'$. ':L=r:;V<\/p>\n
O.S.N0.3S9\/"2096, wherein  gar" mgcij _ \u00a7:)fVV;V":Vv \u00a7V'\u00e9t\u00a5iV:1\u00e9\u00a7;ra1:i(}';i51<\/p>\n
relating $0 the agrf:eme1f1i.V_}Va$."  inc:  suit an
\nappiication \ufb02ied by the  8 of the A01; had
\nbeen allowed. \u00a7..A\u00a7:\u00a7\ufb01xst     thcreign was
\nbefore the   W.P.No.18-42\/2067
\n(GFv'\u00a7\u00bbC:F*{;%}'"'    Gftifil' (iated 2936.200?' has
\n\u20ac1\u00e9s:mis;%e;i"\u00a5,%he'  hupheid the order yasssd by the<\/p>\n
trial   thg"1;:1}_itt::1" ta ar\u00a53it;I*a'\u00a3ion and as such, the<\/p>\n
  g\u00e9ssgd '%$\u00a7:'\u00abf11{:\u00ab.vt1*ia1 Caurt. in the presant suit in all<\/p>\n
' ;:\u00a2%spg\u00a2:g%*u\u00a2L\u00a7"g%s_im31a:is net sustainable and is hams ta) be sci<\/p>\n
z\u00e9i\ufb01iitlti.\n<\/p>\n
x ‘ .. mgn\u00e9szs 1?! mm Nos.13599I2007 AND 14061L2j)’G’? :<\/p>\n
9. in the light ef th\ufb01 rivai -mntentions urged, i ham:
\nconsiderad the c-9B.ie11?:io1::s.3 keitping in vim: $15: ambit and<\/p>\n
si\u00e9epe cf the pmsent iitigation before this Caurt 331 the namrs of<\/p>\n
J:\n<\/p>\n
23<\/span><\/p>\n
proceedings arising at gmszscni. As already   f}’;6<\/p>\n
Miscellaneous \ufb01irst Appeals relate tn) the o\u00a7;_1_\u00e9’i*..V:paL$3\u00e9:d’A \u00a71; ;a V’ <\/p>\n
petition under Section 9 of the Act”    ‘<\/p>\n
No.135SQ\/200? is by the _..a_ssigf\u00a7it:e:S,_.az1d ;;aS* <\/p>\n
contentions urged are \u20ac;,xami3;m\u00a2&a’.i:V’\ufb01*thatV.
\narises against the crdV’a,\u00a7’.V’-“.4:-3?af\u00e9  \u00e9say other pmceedings “but they<\/p>\n
have mer\u00a3:1f;.4_V6ieVfeVf1:i_z\u00a7ud’._tlzgappiicatiozx \ufb01led uncier Section 9 of<\/p>\n
 thttg  in  the perusal of the contentiens<\/p>\n
  ‘AtG~,:t’.i:c_ propttrties being watan properties and the<\/p>\n
“‘ .c:]aimed snbsequent therttto to conte\ufb01\u00e9 that<\/p>\n
 haif\u00e9 ‘h \u00e9<::)me the awaers of the pmpcrty independent of<\/p>\n
3   i*}1E:_.c1aimcd by tbs owners to these pzoceedi\ufb01gs, in my<\/p>\n
 woul\u00e9 not arise for considrzration in the prescnt appeal<\/p>\n
"  "'–'s$-'hiCh is limitritd to the examina\ufb01on of the C{)I'I'{i(:t;If1\u20acSS or<\/p>\n
Qthenxzise of the interlcscutory order passed. It "Ls; needless to<\/p>\n
i<\/p>\n
Vi<\/p>\n
mention that the assignees also are made p\u00e9ii"\u00a3ies_'–. <\/p>\n
preeeedings before the Arbitrator and    <\/p>\n
View of the relinquishzzaent decal:  jj.ti":ejy? 4._hzee;re.  '<\/p>\n
apmared before the Arbi13f'at03f,_ Henee,  <\/p>\n
ethenvise of the manner in  the Iiiiildexhvsi ltt\u00e9ve entered
\ninto an agreement  .r\u00a7e'spite  Hewners not
\nhaving any right over   ques\ufb01onec} in
\nthe primary  whefe  is sought to be
\nenforced  of this nature. En the
\n"it  ei\u00e9feii'  case Where the assignees
\nwere in. 1&2'   such right and it is<\/p>\n
not a ci1r:u111stam:e'._wh.ere each preeeeciings, the buiiders<\/p>\n
 2 _haci_': __for  to arbitration i\ufb01 View of the clause<\/p>\n
w\u00a71ei'e, ::r;\u00e91y:i2e',"'so;;ne examination was required to come tea a<\/p>\n
e<iI1ci*sx'siozi–.V–"vzhetJ3er such $z1;it would be maintaizlable or<\/p>\n
f whettier  h\u00e9lxssigees shcsuld be xeferzeti to arbitration. But as<\/p>\n
 :'~a1fe'a{iy netieed in the instant case, the assigees as Wei} as the<\/p>\n
 are "before the Arbitrator and in Vi\u20acW cf the pending<\/p>\n
" \u00e9rbitiatien, such 3 interim relief by way of interim measure as<\/p>\n
V contemgslated under Section 9 01" the fact is sought and as such,<\/p>\n
1<\/span><\/p>\n
‘I<\/p>\n
25<\/span><\/p>\n
the scope of the present appeal cannot be expanded fleeyond<\/p>\n
examinatien of that aspect and as such, the eonten\ufb01ioeis-\u00e9\ufb01xzith<\/p>\n
regax\ufb01 to the mazmer of right acquired by the    <\/p>\n
the zelinquishment eiee\u00e9, the  \u00e9zsgeeft  <\/p>\n
suit for recovery of \u00a7}<)ssessionja11d the Vtiecisio\ufb01s: Areiied *\u00a7;,V<\/p>\n
the learned Counsel on these $.”;\u00e9.;\u00a7’e-trts of ‘i:1;e’ c>I11y <\/p>\n
noticed to i\ufb02dicate that \u00e9i~?q_s2*ou1gi”i1G\u00a3:”afiSe. for e\u00e9nsideration in
\nthe present proceedings. ‘ V  t1j16ufg$\u00a5:.1″‘3_uch contentions<\/p>\n
are urged, the,    a:;is\u00a3%g:2_ees parties to the<\/p>\n
re}inqui\u00a7;ii~iiie’i1t :;:\u00a7ee\u00e9f\u00e9; and 12.4.2006 CEiX]3i]0’\u00a7 be<\/p>\n
disputed: _ ” ._<\/p>\n
V. ‘i’E;,eref<3fe,…\u00a7f\u00a71s;: question for censideratjon insefar as<\/p>\n
i.i:Le   '_i:.-fa  regard to the nature of the interlocutory<\/p>\n
or{\u00a7.ei**\u00a7a$$ee?,j as to Whether the same is sustainai\ufb01e in the<\/p>\n
fVfac:'i:s  Aeifeumstanees ef the ease and also as to Whether the<\/p>\n
   District Judge ought to have eeszclsi\u00e9ered the<\/p>\n
'  cezgieiztiens Ieiating t0 the vaiidity 9f the agreemetzt itself whzlie<\/p>\n
" eieeiding the petition under Section 9 of the fact keeping in View<\/p>\n
A the ciecisicm of the Horfbie Supreme Cam": in the ease of SB?<\/p>\n
J\u00bb<\/p>\n
'9<\/p>\n
AND COMPANY which has been extensively renegyoxg.' <\/p>\n
the sides. In this regard, it is appmpria{\ufb01.,v'Ato.VVr;o}i\u00a7cc u <\/p>\n
judgment in the case of SBP .\n<\/p>\n
learned Counsol appearing for_Vt11e  <\/p>\n
out certain portions of the jtz\u00e9g\ufb01io\ufb01ts to iiidioatti  ultimate<\/p>\n
View and also noticing ..}vas ;*aVvl’$0″xa minority
\nviaw in the said judgment  to  vtigtitxlatoly noticed is
\nthe pxincipic   _ majority View. in
\nthis regard,  the nature of the antler
\npassed by’ E113  under Section 11(6) of
\nthe Act  s\u00e9ziti’  as to Whether the same is<\/p>\n
in the i1\u00a7itI1}:B’~..\u00a7)f”adIl};\u00a7I1iSfTLI33,!:iV\u20ac power or a judicia} (>I’\u20ac}.\u20acI’, the;<\/p>\n
 d;_\u00a3-:’ci\u00a7iort,”i13V.(1o:1bt, is that even though Section 16 of<\/p>\n
V”._t}:;\u00a2;”Aot p;t3vid,\u00a2$ ___tI1e power to the Arbitrator to docide with<\/p>\n
 of the a:rbitra’\u00a2:io;:1 agreement or clause,<\/p>\n
 is  the Hozfbie Chief Justice Wouid have right to<\/p>\n
‘A u ‘ th\u00e9it question before refirxutting the parties to arbi\ufb01ation.<\/p>\n
 tfpttxjrpoxt of tho said decision woui\ufb01 roveal that under<\/p>\n
T :, 7S*:3;C:tion 8 of the Act aiso the ju\u00e9icial authority wouid have the<\/p>\n
n a Eight of noticing tho 3211:} oontmgtions before accepting or<\/p>\n
J<\/p>\n
O<\/p>\n
rejecting an appiication \ufb01led seeking }1″\u20actfEiI’\u20ac:i1C6 <\/p>\n
Though this is my understanding of the  355;.  <\/p>\n
the }\u00a7on’b1c Supmme Court, whethtk\u00e9” \ufb01\ufb01f
\nthe instant case, the said decisiqg siic\ufb01ld be * “<\/p>\n
would be mfexrcd by me while:  to V
\nthe revision petition    ‘vlviisigfar as the
\nappeals are concerned,  :\u00a71b–o\u00a7f\u00e9;A~’.::?v;\u00a7fx%*ithstandi11g the
\nsaid decision SESQTAN  the situation before
\nthe leasmcd    ‘Giza 0f the parties tr: the
\n   1:t) \ufb01le an agnplicatian for
\ninterim  under Section 9 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
Such  he Sought by such party either<\/p>\n
  ;;;_::_: zh_::.z’i::1gV ar%3+\u00a3t1*a1 proceedings or at any time after<\/p>\n
    awaxtl but before it is enfcrced , in the<\/p>\n
i\ufb01smni: ca3\u00a7\u00a7’;’j_  pagrtgr beforc: the learned Pr}. District Judge<\/p>\n
 i.::., 1\ufb01hr:i’b_ui}d&r is sacking for interim measure at 3 stage<\/p>\n
A {“x:\u00a51:rTi:i;–g pandency of arbitral proceedings, since net 0111}? the<\/p>\n
  had issue\u00e9 a netice dateai (.}S.04,2%6 :0 the 0WI1\u20acI’$<\/p>\n
”  well as Em: assignees ca\ufb02jng upon them to axecut\u00e9 tha sale<\/p>\n
deed failing which they W\ufb01lllii enforce the agreement but<\/p>\n
L<\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n
further by \ufb02zeir lczzttar dated 10.11.2006 to the <\/p>\n
as the assigness have indicated the reference of-._thr: ‘riis;pi1\u00a5:::::fS V’ <\/p>\n
and the di\ufb01crences per\u00a3,a1’x1iz1g in th\u00e9<\/p>\n
23.03.2001 to the Arbitral Tzibunal c;3n\u00e91:s_t\u00a7ng  u<\/p>\n
named in tha: said agreement’ Piuj\u00e9uant t\u00a51er\u00a3at9,:’V_\u00a3h3::V<\u00a7\u00a7\u00a7s?n\u00e9rs as'<\/p>\n
we}: as the assign<::es  }?}_\u00a3:\u00a7,Vt \ufb02 tlx\u00e9msalvt\u00e9s to the
\naI'3Zli"\u20acI'a3ii{)I} proceedings   .\u00a7\u00a7;jcarance thrcugh
\ntheir Adv{:ac:at,e. . \u00ab I: 1j:'*_-$3 "of tbs: a;rbitrat:io11
\nproceedings manner, simte the
\nA1'bitm1'"\u00a3:r'ix*3.usV : in the matte): in View
\nof the \u00a7:~'33f'1(i\u00a3',"11(ij;'V:'V\u20ac\u00a7.{'{V:'\u00a7LiT\u00e9.:t?  f\ufb01und of C0111': pi'OCf\u00a7\u20acdiI1gS, \ufb01rm<\/p>\n
necessity {($23-..see.kii1g \u00a7l3._\u00e9'E1\u00a7faz"im m6:as'u1'e amse as the hllild\ufb01fs<\/p>\n
 _a'13}r::_:t:\u00a7'.}1ct;r3_\u00e9\ufb01::\u00a71  .t1_";;f:;\u00ab'.p:10\u00a7erties wouid be s;u\u00a53–divides:i and<\/p>\n
 '?:ra5'z1:;fe;?1jc\u00e9;3_ '\u00a73}5"\u00bb:_h\u20ac assignaizzss Siil\u00e9i\ufb01 they were makrigmg h\ufb01it\ufb01ii<\/p>\n
aiicemlpts t\u00ab~:x\u00a7',"::11i;: :' their names in tbs City Survey and Municipal<\/p>\n
j Racd\u00a7w\u00a7s'\u00a7'  \ufb01iersfoit, in the instani case, it was not appr0pri.ate<\/p>\n
x V' ,f{5\u00a3* figs Earned Pr}. Dismict Judge to g0 into the said asgccts<\/p>\n
—   to that: vaiidity er Qthenxgise sf the agrcement since the<\/p>\n
  is in ths reaim cf the Aybitratnr. in this ragard? the<\/p>\n
lsarne\ufb01 Pr}. Disirictt Judgs has notics\ufb01 Ciauses 9 of $113 said<\/p>\n
I
\n4:\n<\/p>\n
29<\/span><\/p>\n
agreement of sale which provided for arbitration<\/p>\n
naticing that the piar\ufb01cs have already s11}3je{:tcd””‘t}::1em\u00a7T:’\u00a7c\u00a71x?E:a Vf\u00a5:3 <\/p>\n
arbitration and the procetzdings :h.\u00e9iiI\u20ac'< .cg)1nme1i dtid  "zis<\/p>\n
pending before the Sole Arbiuator   !3.t\u00e9  u<\/p>\n
decision in the case: of SB?’  C{\u00a7\u00a7aIPA\u00a7\u00a5\u00a7f<\/p>\n
perspective am} has procsttfzde\u00e9  {hex \u00e9a\ufb01\ufb01\ufb01ll’ 31317113 Of
\ninterim measure. That    Judge \ufb01as also
\ntaken nets of  ear?\u00a7\u00e9fV’   ‘Q.S,N0.3:3′:7)\/ 2006<\/p>\n
xvhich had r\u00a7:$’aii*;f;*c”i:\u00a7?i. w’vj\u00a7\u00a7\u00a7.1’\u00a7:a,’2a.4;;\u00a7;’;290%’ ({}M~C3PC} , wher\u00a3:i3:1<\/p>\n
this CoL?;i*i\u00a7V’1’i a{\u00a3..;}3,$0  \u00e9\u00e9ifi\u00e9iusien that the arbitxa\ufb01on
\npmcaediiigs’ have : 2:;{\u00a7e;i{“}y_:aktg\ufb01znmenced and would have to
\nproceezzi furtliar. ‘<\/p>\n
V   *} _1;v..\ufb01I’\u00a7\ufb01\u00e9r”v4’%\u00a7:EC:*e, when the Court had tightly’ came to such<\/p>\n
a <\u00a7{:1::z <:;V\u00a7usi<\u00ab3n;",f further question is as to whether the Court<\/p>\n
 ' 'was j\ufb01sljfi\ufb01d Via granting the interim measure of statuswque in<\/p>\n
  'man\ufb01\u00e9rr dame. The contention of the learned Counsel<\/p>\n
 abave with rafemnce 3:9 tlzc judgments which have also<\/p>\n
" cited supra is that even While consi\ufb01ering {ha grant sf<\/p>\n
interim meastare under the Act, thrs: same pzinciplas raiating to<\/p>\n
I<\/p>\n
\\'u-\n<\/p>\n
38<\/span><\/p>\n
gram: of intsrlacutory or\u00e9ers. viz, the trigzod ‘test would ‘?5_1\u00a7\u00a7ive to<\/p>\n
be fallowcd to \u00a7ust:if\u00a7; the grant of interim measure <\/p>\n
mere prima facie case or 90-ssibie success. is _;1Qt sa.1\u00a7i{Eicnt4 b’ut_ <\/p>\n
that ba}a11c:e: of convenience and iiregarabl\u00e9 i;1\u00a7\u00abur}-* a1,:so.V;~eg’:.i:ix’t:’\u00e9;<\/p>\n
ta ba COI}.$id\u20aci’\u20acd.\n<\/p>\n
12. Though, am ;:3ointed _Q’ii3;V\u00a73y \ufb02izei  fo1* <\/p>\n
the assignees, the iznyuggzed {>rd\u00a2_rx:dQe’s_._vno\u00a3hixidigatcviia detailed
\nciiscussion 021 $1131′ aspe\u20ac:’:., 3esz}ia\u20ac  be considered is<\/p>\n
whsthmj ‘1’:a;.:a.\u00a7s.z::”e :\u00a7i;;f”  gI’\u00a3{1i:i\u00e9ti’Vis justi\ufb01ed and the m>r1~
\ngram: 0:” Vihe’ *i3I”?3\u20ac1’V{)\u00a3’:E’;’:\u00a3:’>\u00a7i'{1}._\u00a7~\u00a7.\u00a7:’\u00a5.;.Q woulzzi have resulted in iI1j1\u00a7iI”j_y’<\/p>\n
tr) the pe:i1a5::\u00a2r’v:uV:he’~.\u00a7ee::i9n 9 petition 1.232., the buildmr. In<\/p>\n
 * ._t_hi$ w11\u20ac1:Iir3r–..tI::<: assigxxees can succtted because of \u00a3115:<\/p>\n
 sought to be made cut. by them in View cf<\/p>\n
t\u00a7:r:y %;s\u00e9:i13 g5  \ufb01ov\u00e9session ef the watan iands or as ten whether<\/p>\n
[their  .V is il\ufb02d\ufb01l" the rcliaquishment d,{i':(i:C1S dated<\/p>\n
V' "  ', a8.\u20ac*:3_.a2\u00aea and 12.04.2006 and in that light as to whether the<\/p>\n
— a’5g:?:\u00e9\u00bb$ii\u00a73nt sf gait: can or ca\ufb01net be fiI}f(}I’C\u20acd by the buiidsrs is<\/p>\n
” \u00e9. iss:.t1c: to be \u00e9ccrided by the Arbitrater in the pending<\/p>\n
: arbina\ufb01a\ufb01 and judicial review {hereafter in a(:<:-zrrrdailce with<\/p>\n
J<\/p>\n
31<\/span><\/p>\n
the provisions of the Act. That apart, the bu\ufb02derffs have<\/p>\n
producteci prima. facie documents to izzciieate that _.t1*~:e:\u00a7=..’Thave<\/p>\n
parted with huge amounts which is no doubt  <\/p>\n
but at this stage, it is being dispyzte\u00e9 ably” <\/p>\n
xepresenfatives and not the executz\u00a7nts;”et1\u00a3e1;’1$(%ives.  :H.e\ufb01{:e,<\/p>\n
during the pendency of the $5-‘I:’bZ3._f.I’:’;i1’i{3;i{‘i,. if :he’v:”a$$igH3:;eeS <\/p>\n
permitted to e\ufb01ect the change of efxt\ufb01t:$_i\ufb01  I-\u00a7;111’ve”y’ and
\nMunicipai Records or if  aft:  to subdivide and
\ntransfer the properties  :IL:)y “‘t1’71e’:..m\ufb01ilders, it would<\/p>\n
cie\ufb01nitelj\u00e9”eeLise:{}i;ref%:\u00a7i’a\u00a71e:injuzf\ufb01fWiizasmuch as it is likely to
\ncreate   ~\u00bb.’s$:i1e\ufb01 at present itself there is<\/p>\n
cen\ufb01xsiegn gai1’c_r*e”1xIitIrf1  to the different nature of rights<\/p>\n
 being \u00a5a3?”Vt}1e”*pa:”ties to the property which is the<\/p>\n
V’~.3i1E?je<;\u20ac._ "m\u00e91tt<'*:r_V of the agreement, Hence, balance 0f<\/p>\n
coxiveiiience' is  in favour of the builders. Further, the<\/p>\n
'~m.aIIl\ufb02(i1'~.  which the re\ufb01nquishment deeds have come into<\/p>\n
  as recent as in the year 2006 would indicate that the<\/p>\n
"'\u00ab"ap\u00a7rehen3i0:u is net Wi\ufb01leut any hasis. '\u00a3'11e:'efore, in such a<\/p>\n
"*.VVevie::11msta11ce\u00a7 3}} that the trial Cami has directed the yaz\ufb01es is<\/p>\n
1:0 maintain st;at,21s–qu0 in xelatien to ownerehjp and possession<\/p>\n
L<\/p>\n
*4':\n<\/p>\n
32<\/span>
\n0f the \ufb01suit $c:hcdu1e property till the conciusion of the<\/p>\n
arbitration pmcc\u00e9dings anti as such, the ordar ziees not suffer
\nfrom any crmr cf Zaw, since the pa\ufb01ies Wouid be able 1:9 enjoy<\/p>\n
the pmpcrtics in the same maxmar as they were cioiIj7g. 1:3i.1;’1:~.*:rt:)<\/p>\n
and if they c0–opt:rat,r:t and have the -E\u00a7i1’bitI’at;i0I}  <\/p>\n
the further judicial review procee\u20aciVi;;;Vgs   at \u20ac\u00a7ie’~ b <\/p>\n
earliest, the position wouid be ciear.  Irz\u00a73@f;;i9r as t}y1’Cv”0;”?’3;IEIS”3\u00ab5;f1:3<\/p>\n
concerned, in any event, tlxrsy’-.__have  Agither  with \u00a5:i1r:_ ‘ L.<\/p>\n
property either under the re\ufb01nq\ufb01isl\ufb01mc\ufb01t  To}  event<\/p>\n
the assigii\u00e9\u00e9s  also the uitimate orcler
\ngranted  {<3  .."?:'-..1;_:\u00e9iiE.1iS—qlli) in View of the imgending<\/p>\n
dangesrpf ti1\u00e9" ~a$sig;1\u00a2eS–._ch2ii1gi11g the revenue records to their<\/p>\n
  was ..po\u00a7z1i\u00e9ci"——3–ut. As such, the same is also an<\/p>\n
V":\u20ac\u00a7\u00a7~i1\ufb01{\u00a7:b}.\u20ac'~.{\u00a7f(3\u00a7f5TA%:il.\u20ac113 fact$ of tbs: present case, which does not<\/p>\n
cal': fcir inierfz\u00e9tr\ufb01tixct.\n<\/p>\n
V4 jm\u00e9gnssz\u00e9 Hi cap 1\\ia.494l2007:\n<\/p>\n
 ‘A13. insofar as the revision pe\ufb01tion, the same arises<\/p>\n
 fr\u00e9m the suit which has bean filed by 911:5: of the kegs}<\/p>\n
1%<\/p>\n
an<\/p>\n
reprttsenta\ufb01vas via, Sri Yallappagouda, who is the son of
\nBasanagoucla Patil. The said Basanaguuda Patjl was a
\nsignatory to the aiiegcxi agraement of sale. As noiiceci tf\u00e9g:*\u00bbjsaic1<\/p>\n
suit is \ufb01led \ufb01ecking for declaration that the sairi <\/p>\n
sale dated 23.03.2001 is null and void. No dozilw__l\ufb01, as..:\ufb01\u00a2\u00a3:c\u00a7a  <\/p>\n
above, in View of the: principles 1ai{imVdc::m_:1″..i11.;<\/p>\n
COMPANY’s case , it would {ye o\u00a7:a\u00e9;1__  l thcll’  <\/p>\n
consi\u00e9er with regard the existenc\ufb01f the<\/p>\n
itself befere referring  the  “-to afbiira\ufb01bxl While<\/p>\n
considzzajii\u00e9sgllv    appiication \ufb01led under
\nSection  th\u00e9   manner as permissible in the<\/p>\n
case efa petifiazv\ufb01 i313.\u00a73–.:21; }’ 1(6) of the Act. Similar View is<\/p>\n
  LU’)5H’:;:-Essa IMPRQVEMENT ‘I’RUS’I”s case in a<\/p>\n
.V’–V;$it1;\u00e9a{tin;1″‘:’\u00a7Li”e;IT’\u20ac:1ce under Section 1 1(6) of the Act by naticing<\/p>\n
SB?’ ENS  case. But such gxzswsr available is in<\/p>\n
 _ ladditi\ufb01u. tlgtlie power available under Section 16 of the Act and<\/p>\n
V’ \u00abbe: \u00e9szercised in apympriate cases. Though that is the<\/p>\n
‘~\u00abl\u00ab.–po’::;\u00a3ticn of law, the qtzestic-:1 is as to whether tbs instant case<\/p>\n
” {pf Similar facts and wheiiher the trial Ceurt, Was. justi\ufb01rsxl<\/p>\n
in rejecting the apylicaticzn. The trial C0113′: has noticed the<\/p>\n
l<\/p>\n
f’:\n<\/p>\n
3%<\/p>\n
earlier proceedings zelaiing to the litigatioe betu?eei:\u00e9”fiie_’ _<\/p>\n
which have been indicated abeve, therefore, I_\u20ac3<:;;\u00bb  p":~'<:::\u00bb;:.s:*;se;i0' V. b <\/p>\n
refer to the details xegazdiag the saig\ufb01ze. 'v2fe\u00e9ceoi;<\/p>\n
which has prompted the triaig\ufb01'-.{}111"i Vtiirsv reject  <\/p>\n
under Section 8 of the Act as   }i}mvisi011s
\ncontained in Section 8'  is to be
\naccompanied by the    or a duly
\ncex\ufb01\ufb01ed c:0\u00a7y  = has noticed that
\nI.A.N(:as. 6   Vdefendants to produce
\nthe 1ette*:9'eVf  letter of acceptance by
\ndefen\u00e9az\ufb01.   .to the said applications, the<\/p>\n
trial Court has mereiy Sfate\u00e9i that there is 120 reasozz put fszrth<\/p>\n
 A35   pen\u00e9eney of the earlier suits in<\/p>\n
 and 365\/ 20945 the said agreement has not<\/p>\n
Been  A reference is also made to the suit in<\/p>\n
 whieb was ftieci by the present plaintiff and<\/p>\n
A ..iS2as'Twi\u00a3hdzaw*n. The mere reference to the said matters and<\/p>\n
 uiiimate decision indicates that the trial C0311"? has<\/p>\n
" "VVV}\u00a7feCeec1e<:i at a tangent: '1' he saj\ufb01 suits were irxstituteci in me<\/p>\n
name of the owners and as such the :10n~me:1f3loz1ing of the<\/p>\n
i<\/p>\n
35<\/span><\/p>\n
agreemeni a\u00a7one cannet lead to adverse i:1f’erence.’…VVT\u00bb-Ijf1..Vthe<\/p>\n
instant case, the fact that a copy of the _<\/p>\n
which was ebtained as a cexti\ufb01e\u00e9 copy  ..\n<\/p>\n
proceedings between the parties  tlrm  <\/p>\n
cannot be in dispute inasmuch’ 3,3 t]:1eV”l\u00a2_3a111ed Tfiiixmsei \ufb01iyr ti11t_t  L.<\/p>\n
glainti\ufb02” himself has attenaptct\u00e9f’ att\u00e9bk–  a\u00e9ignduci of
\nproducing a certi\ufb01ed “‘0bta\u00a7i1g(\u00a7  Iifoceedings.
\nThat apart, the conVtentic>nH_Q;vtT”  not about \ufb01le<\/p>\n
I1on~cxi$\u00a3;encc: (sf  {}’I’_f?,:.23gI’\u20ac3\u20ac1]1{‘\u00a711’1E a’t’\u00a3l.1l~.ii\u00a3OI7.J:$ it their contention<\/p>\n
that it is\u00e9gii\u00e9\ufb01i ‘tiz\u00e9\ufb01r   aiiegation is 01″ concoctirzg
\ntint .. t31eir signatures an\u00e9 as such<\/p>\n
considerixig Ltiaat  several litigatizms batween the<\/p>\n
 ”  371:: agr\u00e9\u00e9meixi pro\u00e9tficsd before the Court was<\/p>\n
 in the facts and circumstance of<\/p>\n
thfa giii\u00e9scxit’ where repeated suits on tbs: same subject<\/p>\n
‘vgnaticf f\u00a2c;1’\u00ab:_aV simiiagr T\ufb01li\ufb01f is \ufb01led by di\ufb01emnt pemo11$. The<\/p>\n
  “..gf;}\u00a2\u00a7i}sian in the case: of ATUL sxmn AND OTHERS -vs~ surm<\/p>\n
-?’–‘KL;;;~v:AR swan ANS OTHERS (20939) See 502) wm1\u00a7d not be<\/p>\n
“”V V{dVf”assistance to the msgyndents herein on both the aspects<\/p>\n
dmid\ufb01d mcmm since: the same is Ieirz\u00e9ered in a circumstance<\/p>\n
J<\/p>\n
.1:\n<\/p>\n
Wh\ufb01f\ufb01 the partner to the earlisr parmexship was sxciud\u00e9erj’ <\/p>\n
the sub$t:que;1t parinexshiga deed and in tilat\ufb01ituaficri’,  _\u00ab V’ <\/p>\n
gnamproduction. of dead ccntainmg a\u00a7%;’1:3itI*.’faf\u00a3i;}V3i”\u00ab;:}z3j11$\u00a7\u00a7, <\/p>\n
relying on the same, when he was ::;.<::t a  Wa'.;3 }:1e1d ix3{11is'\u00ab..<\/p>\n
favour. In the instant C\u00a7:.-‘LS6,    the V’<\/p>\n
sigxmtoxy is the: disp\u00e9tcrl \u00aba\ufb02d \/Vffl\ufb01’ glisgmted
\nagreement which contains   is aiready 3.\n<\/p>\n
gaart: of the judiciai’::)\u00a7%x:e\u00e9{1iI1\u00a7gi\u00a7…’bet\u00a7\u00e9\u00e9?\u00e9::ut}:u\u00a7j’s’\u00e91me yarties. “\u00a5’hc:<\/p>\n
decisien in %1\u00a7e::.k:;;\u00a7\u00a7\u00e9:’*–%\u00ab;f 4Sft}KANiTA”v–:\u00bbHQ’LDiNGS (P) mm \u00abvs-
\nJAYESH”‘H%”\u00a5>AT:si’;>YA:’;%js.m”}’-zgrx:’rt\u00a7’F;*R”(2003(5} sec: 53 3) is 3180<\/p>\n
not of as\u00e9\u00e9stanc\ufb01e .fc)x~. \u00a7a\u00ab .si1n_i1’2::;j “mason.<\/p>\n
‘i:i;4;’.’ The AAiiec.\u00a3….t%i9n relied on in tin: case: of INDIA<\/p>\n
“\u00bb.H@VQ:%;E,r:\u00a7m:<V%.s\u00a7:e–.\u00a7 HEALTHCEARE LTD wvs-\ufb02 LG. HOESEHOLD<\/p>\n
Ai\u00a7D"E{EAL'\u00a7'3ii_f\ufb01?sVi2E (20076) soc :'51G)by the lztarned Qounsez<\/p>\n
'for  J\u00e9egshigness to <:\u00a7ositi::>n sf iaw enunciata\ufb01<\/p>\n
u Hiiierein, but. in the .i1;:st*ani case, as alrsaiiy noticed, the persons<\/p>\n
whose srignatums \u20ac:II”\u20ac contaizled in the agrtzcment have net<\/p>\n
i<\/p>\n
‘5<\/p>\n
38<\/span>
\nthe present suit was sought in the said suit as well. Per that<\/p>\n
matter, even the plainti\ufb01” in the instant case is not a sigxftatoxy<\/p>\n
to the agreement, but is one of the legal represent\u00a7\u00a7\u00a5i{feS:4\u00a7>f.Vt}1e<\/p>\n
signatory to the agreement. The sigatories haveA.’:tio\u00a7.’eei1f:e  <\/p>\n
in the’ open to disgzute the same but-the1″eAapj;)ea.v1″et  etc:  V ‘<\/p>\n
War. By the relinquishmeni: deed’bA:’exe-e\u00e9ited the.’ <\/p>\n
wherein the rights have been CQf1″eJ_\u00a2’E2y\u20acd” tag the ‘-aesivgheee, the”<\/p>\n
present plainti\ufb01” cannot be  \ufb01\u00e9\ufb01emtxt *3n”..ght’\u00a7than that<\/p>\n
of the assigees and   each other is<\/p>\n
complenientarytv ‘A ‘ wtfz}  eziuther,  View taken 13 the earlier
\npetition felaiing ‘tot’ t:11e”‘aeSig1’1ee would be relevant for the<\/p>\n
present. _proee’e:i\u00a7i1gs”.asA”~\u00a7veI1.; It is true that as contended; by<\/p>\n
‘ V’ ‘the iefm\ufb02ed \u20acL1{)21:z1Se1″f\u00a3\u00a7r’ the assigaee, a judgment of a learned<\/p>\n
 court need not bind another Singie Judge<\/p>\n
of   any View taken therein is eentmxy to the<\/p>\n
 ‘decision  the Ha\ufb01bie Supreme Court. Such contention was<\/p>\n
 ._ ‘~:\u00a7.i_ya:ieed since according to the learned Counsel, the decision<\/p>\n
 .___””.”0fV’ihe iearned Single Judge is not as per the gsrineipie laid<\/p>\n
“*.a;:>wn in 88? AND Cf3MPANY’s case. On that aspect of the<\/p>\n
matter, I have already Concluded that even after<\/p>\n
J;\n<\/p>\n
‘I<\/p>\n
39<\/span><\/p>\n
understanding the principle as enunciated by the ‘ti-.i'[‘t’21\u00a71’\u00a5a}e<\/p>\n
Supreme Court in the said ease, the same Wouid to<\/p>\n
the aid of the plainti\ufb01’. Therefore, the 0It1e:_t’)f.: <\/p>\n
Single Judge being no di\ufb01erent  to ‘be”‘no’\ufb01Ce_eji.– <\/p>\n
aspect wlnjch aiso need. ta be noticed  the  <\/p>\n
17′ of the plaint has also taken”a:1\u00a7’ “a1te1’t1a?ti\u00a7fe’VAe(;z1tet1MQ;en that<\/p>\n
he is net the owner of -.\u00a5f1’as ‘1f1e”se\u00a7blance of
\nright. If that be the   to be taut forth
\nbefore the ATbi$’Eaf;\u00a3t\u00e9T:-  tteeisien, whereas in
\nthe earlier   __  claimed right over the
\n tttt   of a sitailar relief sought
\nrelating   by a person putting ferth 2:\n<\/p>\n
better _r2.g::1t, ttiis_:V(J03;Li”tAhae.’t1;3}1e1d the order dated 22.12.2006<\/p>\n
 i\ufb01asse\u00e9cta in. G,.S.Nt:’>tV”‘3’S}C}\/ 2006 whexeia the applicatien in<\/p>\n
  Section 8 of the Act was allowed and the<\/p>\n
matteufwas. tethered to arbitration which was already gaending,<\/p>\n
 ‘$3.16 flf\ufb01\ufb01ie\ufb01t order dismissing a sitniiar applicatirzm cannot be<\/p>\n
  \u00e9\u00e9ustatinied and the same calls for interference.<\/p>\n
I<\/p>\n
1;3\u00a2 {Ens ether contcmtien urged by the 1e.%s\u00a7;:91..1Lt=i\u00a2:f\u00bb;VV.i;T’;–0i:i3:;~'{i2\u00a73A_V<\/p>\n
for the owners as well as the assignees is f.’f1E?ii;”‘\u00a7.;’;’?_\u00a2?;::;’$1″\u00a7\ufb01’}:1:Z;f;’\u00a7I,\u00a71<;33_f is , <\/p>\n
11021:: other 11131: the bm\ufb02zer of 5:36 of the'.\u00bbp9:*tr1ei*:\u00a7"wQf'1eV\u00a7:ve11\u00a7 at31_1 L.<\/p>\n
earlier paint of ii\ufb02ifi and   ‘V’:ap’1:i;roved the
\na:.’bii:ratic.:n grocecdings  “p6;{iti<;v#. V;I"hat apart,
\nif is alga to be noticed th;;:_ :::\u00a7_\u00a2   is an Arbiuatar
\nagrrsed to betw\u00a7;ci.(   agreement of sale
\nis bemg   of tha ownera and
\ntbs as:\u00abjiVg$1:i'\u00e9c\u00e9:3.,.::;'fVf.\u00a7'u\ufb01i:\u00a3s\u00e911g  who are the alleged
\nsignatoz\ufb01i-:3  31%  not qumtioned that same in<\/p>\n
any in\u00e9epen\u00e9irznt \u00a7\ufb01m\u00e9e_di$;"gs that Woulci have bean. open to<\/p>\n
  I\u00a7$;\u00a7av,,VA_nor  \u00a7)m<:::edi.11gss under $en 11(6) of the<\/p>\n
 “\u00a7~I(f:I;:,\u00a2;f\u00e9; at \ufb01fxis stage, a1} that ceuld be obscrveci is that the<\/p>\n
said’. C{\u00a7n\u00a3\u00e9:QV\u00a3i@1\u00a7’T1={$zouId be open to be urged if the u\u00a3\u00a3in1ate<\/p>\n
jawar\u00e9; go\u00e9is; against the awncrs and assigness, T\ufb01is epimbzx is<\/p>\n
‘A   the decisign (pf ‘(ha Hawbie Suprema Court in tbs<\/p>\n
&mm%0; A63 Pzpizmsa CONTRACFS (P) um. ~vs\u00ab BHARATH<\/p>\n
-\u00ab’.. 1T*’\u00a3::’\u00a7”RGLEUM {3ORP\u20ac)RA’I’IQ\u00a7\\}’ LTD. (200? (5) 803 394; mum<\/p>\n
V upon by the isarned Caunsei for {ha bujl\u00e9ers’<\/p>\n
1<\/span><\/p>\n
*9-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Sri Chirag vs M\/S Eureka Builders on 12 March, 2009 Author: A.S.Bopanna SM’? SUNITA WXO GULABCHAND DANE} AGE 53 YEARS, OCCi;HOUSEW1F’IEi R\/O SHANTINACEAR, KESHWAPUR HUBLE SHRI MAHE$I~1 KEEMAR S\/O VELJE KANJE AGE 64 YEARS, OCCEEJSINESS ,_ _ R;”O 54,112, SANS VILLA, RO.P\u00a7D._II NEAR ” MEDLERE HOSFITAL, KESHW.A\u00a7'”i~J,_i? . HUBU \u00e9’ SM’? 1′-IIALABAI […]<\/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-146152","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSri Chirag vs M\/S Eureka Builders on 12 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-chirag-vs-ms-eureka-builders-on-12-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sri Chirag vs M\/S Eureka Builders on 12 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-chirag-vs-ms-eureka-builders-on-12-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-03-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-02-05T22:00:59+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=\"34 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-chirag-vs-ms-eureka-builders-on-12-march-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-chirag-vs-ms-eureka-builders-on-12-march-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sri Chirag vs M\\\/S Eureka Builders on 12 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-02-05T22:00:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-chirag-vs-ms-eureka-builders-on-12-march-2009\"},\"wordCount\":5591,\"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\\\/sri-chirag-vs-ms-eureka-builders-on-12-march-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-chirag-vs-ms-eureka-builders-on-12-march-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-chirag-vs-ms-eureka-builders-on-12-march-2009\",\"name\":\"Sri Chirag vs M\\\/S Eureka Builders on 12 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-02-05T22:00:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-chirag-vs-ms-eureka-builders-on-12-march-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-chirag-vs-ms-eureka-builders-on-12-march-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-chirag-vs-ms-eureka-builders-on-12-march-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sri Chirag vs M\\\/S Eureka Builders on 12 March, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sri Chirag vs M\/S Eureka Builders on 12 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-chirag-vs-ms-eureka-builders-on-12-march-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sri Chirag vs M\/S Eureka Builders on 12 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-chirag-vs-ms-eureka-builders-on-12-march-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-02-05T22:00:59+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":"34 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-chirag-vs-ms-eureka-builders-on-12-march-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-chirag-vs-ms-eureka-builders-on-12-march-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sri Chirag vs M\/S Eureka Builders on 12 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-02-05T22:00:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-chirag-vs-ms-eureka-builders-on-12-march-2009"},"wordCount":5591,"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\/sri-chirag-vs-ms-eureka-builders-on-12-march-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-chirag-vs-ms-eureka-builders-on-12-march-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-chirag-vs-ms-eureka-builders-on-12-march-2009","name":"Sri Chirag vs M\/S Eureka Builders on 12 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-02-05T22:00:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-chirag-vs-ms-eureka-builders-on-12-march-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-chirag-vs-ms-eureka-builders-on-12-march-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-chirag-vs-ms-eureka-builders-on-12-march-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sri Chirag vs M\/S Eureka Builders on 12 March, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/146152","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=146152"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/146152\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=146152"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=146152"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=146152"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}