{"id":147473,"date":"2003-01-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-01-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sanghvi-movers-limited-vs-ms-oil-and-natural-gas-on-31-january-2003"},"modified":"2015-08-26T11:28:53","modified_gmt":"2015-08-26T05:58:53","slug":"ms-sanghvi-movers-limited-vs-ms-oil-and-natural-gas-on-31-january-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sanghvi-movers-limited-vs-ms-oil-and-natural-gas-on-31-january-2003","title":{"rendered":"M\/S. Sanghvi Movers Limited vs M\/S. Oil And Natural Gas on 31 January, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S. Sanghvi Movers Limited vs M\/S. Oil And Natural Gas on 31 January, 2003<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDated: 31\/01\/2003\n\nCoram\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM\n\nWrit Petition No. 41170 of 2002\nand\nWPMP No. 60937 of 2002 and WVMP No. 1771 of 2002\n\nM\/s. Sanghvi Movers Limited,\nhaving its Regional Office at\nNo.121, Chennai-Bangalore Road,\nChembarambakkam-602 103,\nrepresented by its AGM (Operations)\nMr. R.K. Ozarkar.                    .. Petitioner.\n\n-Vs-\n\nM\/s. Oil and Natural Gas\nCorporation Limited,\nRegional Office: Southern Region,\nCMDA Building, 8th floor (East Wing),\n8, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore,\nChennai-8.                          .. Respondent.\n\nPetition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,  for  issuance  of  a\nWrit of Mandamus, as stated therein.\n\nFor petitioner:- Mr.  T.K.  Bhaskar.\n\nFor respondent:- Mr.  G.  Masilamani, Senior\n                  Counsel for M\/s.  Sarvabhauman Associates.\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
Messers.   Sanghvi Movers Limited, Chembarambakkam, have approached this Court
\nto issue a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to  renew  the  contracts
\nentered into with the petitioner in respect of one Crane with Registration No.
\nof  the Cranes NL-02\/D 0691 for the full extension period of one year pursuant
\nto the tender No.  MAS\/TPT\/HYD.  CRANES\/TYPE III\/KG-CAU\/2000-2002<\/p>\n
2.  The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:
\nAccording to the petitioner, they engaged in the business of hiring Cranes for
\nthe last 14 years.  The petitioner company has been performing  satisfactorily
\nin  respect  of  their  contracts  right  from the time of supplying cranes to
\nrespondent company.    The  cranes  supplied  by  the  petitioner  have   been
\nfunctioning  in  respect  of  KrishnaGodavari and Cauvery Projects since 1990.
\nThe petitioner company has  bid  in  various  tenders  and  has  been  awarded
\ncontracts  for  the said cranes on hire from time to time and on each occasion
\nthe contract period in the tender has been stipulated as  2  +1  years.    The
\ncontract  period  is  granted  for  a  period  of  at  least 3 years to enable
\nsuccessful tenders to offer their services  efficiently  and  to  realize  the
\nvalue of   their  investments  which  is  substantial.    Pursuant  to  tender
\nnotification No.  MAS\/TPT\/HYD.CRANES\/TYPE III\/HG CAU\/2000-2002, the respondent
\ncompany has invited tenders for  hiring  of  diesel  hydraulic  truck  mounted
\ncranes  with  capacity  of lifting a minimum load of 20 MTS at 3 metres and 12
\nMTS at 6 Metres operating radius with 11 Metres left from  the  ground  level.
\nThe tender specifications mentioned in the document and the tender was invited
\nfor a total quantity of 14 Nos.  cranes for a period of 2 years with extension
\nof further  period  of one year at the sole discretion of the respondent.  The
\nperiod of contract mentioned in Clause 2 of the  agreements  executed  between
\nthe petitioner and the respondent for an initial period of two years which may
\nbe  extended  by one year in 2 instalments of 6 months each at sole discretion
\nof ONGC on the same rates,  terms  and  conditions,  subject  to  satisfactory
\nperformance, of Cranes and execution of the contract.  The petitioner has been
\nsatisfactorily performing  in  respect of each of the contracts.  The contract
\nperiod for the NL 02 D 0691 expired on 2-11-200 2.   The  respondent  extended
\nthe  contract for a temporary period of 3 months which period is terminable at
\nthe discretion of the respondent at a lower rate.  The respondent has  floated
\na  fresh  tender  for 17 numbers cranes in respect of the Krishna Godavary and
\nCauvery projects even before the contracts with the petitioner  have  expired.
\nThe  respondent  has not considered the fact that the petitioner has performed
\nsatisfactorily under the contract and extended the contract for  the  extended
\nperiod of  one  year.    No  opportunity  has  been given to the petitioner to
\nestablish a case for extension of the contract and the  respondent  has  acted
\nunilaterally and  in  violation  of  the  principles  of natural justice.  The
\nexercise of discretion by the respondent is arbitrary, unfair and unjust.  The
\npetitioner by their letter dated 7-11-2 002 arbitrarily extended the time  for
\n3 months instead of 6 months.  The petitioner has invested substantial sums in
\nrespect of the cranes put on hire with the respondent and was quite legitimate
\nexpectation  that  the  contracts  could  be  renewed for the extension period
\nmentioned in clause 2 of the agreements  entered  into  with  the  respondent.
\nHowever, the  respondent  has  failed  to  extend  the  same.  Having no other
\neffective remedy, filed the present writ petition  challenging  the  arbitrary
\nand mala fide action of the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
3.   On  15-11-2002  while  admitting  the above writ petition, in W.P.M.P.No.
\n60937\/2002, this Court granted interim order to the  limited  extent,  namely,
\nthe  respondent  shall  not finalise the awarding of the contract to any third
\nparty until further orders.  Now the respondent has filed W.V.M.P.No.  1771 of
\n2002 to vacate the said interim order.  In the counter affidavit, it is stated
\nthat since the petitioner does not have a legal  right  of  extension  of  the
\ncontract period,  he  cannot seek for the issue of Writ of a Mandamus.  As per
\nclause 2 of the contract between the parties, the duration of  contract  is  2
\nyears initially, the extension for a period of one year in 2 instalments is at
\nthe sole  discretion  of  the ONGC.  It is the exercise of this administrative
\ndecisions that is subject matter of challenge in this writ petition  and  this
\nCourt  may  not  sit  in  appeal  over an administrative decision taken by the
\nrespondent Corporation.  The crane bearing  No.    NL-02D-0691  which  is  the
\nsubject  matter  of  the  present  writ  petition  was taken on lease from the
\npetitioner’s associate company M\/ s.  Sanghvi Projects Limited on 7-9-2000 for
\na period of 3 years starting from  11-9-2000.    The  petitioner’s  period  of
\ncontract  with the respondent with regard to the deployment of the above crane
\ndrew to an end on 1-11-2002.  Based on  the  request  and  the  rate  offered,
\ninitially the  same  was  extended  for a period of 3 months.  Thereafter, the
\nrespondent with a team of qualified officers decision not to extend  and  flow
\ntenders inviting  offers  from  qualified persons.  The injunction restraining
\nthe respondent from awarding the contract with respect to the new tenders  for
\nthe period  2002-2004 against the petitioner crane no.  NL-02D-0691 is clearly
\nbeyond the scope of the main writ petition.  Since the  tender  for  2002-2004
\nhas  been  finalised  with respect to 3 brand new cranes at Rs.6,989\/- and the
\nletter of intent has been issued in favour of one Sanjib Kakatia on  8-4-2002,
\nthe interim  injunction  prayed  for  has  become  infructuous.   Similar writ
\npetition in W.   P.No.    39763\/2002  filed  by  the  sister  concern  of  the
\npetitioner  M\/s  Sanghvi  Projects  Limited  was  dismissed  by  this court on
\n10-12-2002.\n<\/p>\n
4.  In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard  Mr.    T.K.    Bhaskar,
\nlearned counsel for  the  petitioner  and  Mr.  G.  Masilamani, learned senior
\ncounsel for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
5.  The only point for consideration  in  this  writ  petition  is  whether  a
\nMandamus can be issued, directing the respondent to renew the contract entered
\ninto with the petitioner in respect of one Crane for the full extension period
\nof one year, pursuant to the tender for 2000-2002?\n<\/p>\n
6.  Mr.   T.K.    Bhaskar, learned counsel for the petitioner, after taking me
\nthrough the terms and conditions of the tender and the agreement  between  the
\nparties,  would contend that the action of the respondent in not extending the
\ncontracts in  respect  of  Crane  No.    NL-02D-091  for  one  year  with  two
\ninstalments is  arbitrary,  unjust  and unfair.  He further contended that the
\naction of the respondent in not exercising its discretion against the contract
\namounts to abuse of discretion and bad  in  law.    The  respondent  has  also
\ndeviated  from  the  longstanding  policy  in  extending  the contract for the
\nextended period upon the satisfactory performance by the petitioner.  He  also
\ncontended  that  the  petitioner was under the legitimate expectation that the
\ncontract in respect of cranes hired by the respondent could be renewed for the
\nfull extension  period  upon  the  expiry  of  the  primary  contract  period.
\nAccording to him, in view of the satisfactory performance of the petitioner in
\nrespect  of  contract,  the  action  of the respondent ignoring their claim is
\ncontrary to public interest and violative of Articles  14,  19and  21  of  the
\nConstitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
On the other  hand,  Mr.    G.    Masilamani,  learned  senior counsel for the
\nrespondent, would contend that in the absence of any legal right of  extension
\nof contract,  a  Writ  of  Mandamus  cannot be issued.  He also contended that
\nsince the respondent Corporation received lower offers during the bid for  new
\ntender   floated   for   2002-2004,  the  tender  committee  after  series  of
\ndeliberations, decided to use imported cranes to tender which is  one  of  the
\nessential requirement of fresh tender 2002-2004 and to get the best out of the
\nmarket; hence  their action cannot be faulted with.  He further contended that
\nthis Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution,  may
\nnot  sit  in  appeal  over  an administrative decision taken by the Government
\nBody, more particularly the contract  in  question  is  non-statutory  falling
\npurely in the realm of private contract.\n<\/p>\n
7.  I have carefully considered the rival submissions.\n<\/p>\n
8.   In order to appreciate the contentions raised by both sides, it is useful
\nto refer Clause (2) of the Agreement dated 6-12-2 000 between the ONGC and the
\npetitioner which reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
“2.  DURATION OF CONTRACT (2 years +1 year)
\n2.1 The period of contract is from 02\/11\/2000 to  01\/11\/2002  for  an  initial
\nperiod of TWO years.\n<\/p>\n
2.2  The  period of contract may be extended by one year in 2 instalments of 6
\nmonths each  at  sole  discretion  of  ONGC  on  the  same  rates,  terms  and
\nconditions,  subject  to  satisfactory performance, of Cranes and execution of
\nthe contract.”\n<\/p>\n
It is clear that the period of contract is initially for 2 years and the  same
\nmay be extended for one year in two instalments of six months each at the sole
\ndiscretion of  the  ONGC.  It is also clear that the said extension is subject
\nto sole discretion of  the  ONGC  subject  to  various  other  factors  namely
\nsatisfactory performance,  of  Cranes  and  execution of the contract.  In the
\nlight of the terms of agreement, as rightly contended by  the  learned  senior
\ncounsel  for  the  respondent,  the  extension  of  one  year  period  in  two
\ninstalments of 6 months each rests on the sole discretion of  the  respondent.
\nNo  doubt,  the  discretion has to be exercised fairly, justly and reasonably.
\nIt is the admitted case of the petitioner that after the expiry of the  period
\nof two years, the contract was extended only for a period of 3 months which is
\npermissible at  the  discretion  of  the  respondent at a lower rate.  Learned
\ncounsel for the petitioner would contend that having spent huge investment, on
\nthe legitimate expectation that he would be allowed to continue for  the  full
\nextended  period  of one year, the respondent is not justified in limiting the
\nextended period only for 3 months.  In support of his contention that exercise
\nmust be governed by a rule of law, he relied on three decisions in  (i)  UNION
\nOF INDIA  v.    DINESH  ENGINEERING  CORPORATION<\/a> ((2001) 8 Supreme Court Cases\n<\/p>\n
491); ( ii) PUNJAB COMMUNICATIONS LTD.  v.  UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS<\/a>  ((1999)
\n4 Supreme  Court  Cases  727;  and  (iii)  MAHABIR  AUTO STORES v.  INDIAN OIL
\nCORPORATION (AIR<\/a> 1990  Supreme  Court  1031).    In  the  light  of  the  said
\ncontention,  I  have carefully perused the facts in those cases and the dictum
\nlaid down therein.  Absolutely there is no doubt about the proposition of  law
\nenunciated therein.    In  our  case, I have already extracted the duration of
\ncontract namely initial period of 2 years and  extended  period  of  one  year
\nsubject  to  sole  discretion of ONGC on the same rates, terms and conditions,
\nsatisfactory performance of Cranes and execution of contract, etc.  It is  the
\ndefinite  case  of  the  respondent  that  the discretion of not extending the
\ncontract period has been exercised by the ONGC  after  much  deliberation  and
\nafter  taking  into  consideration  the highly competitive and improved market
\ncondition where crane operators have  offered  new\/imported  cranes  at  lower
\nrates.    It   is   also  stated  that  after  series  of  deliberations,  the
\nqualifications of the participants was re-cast in order to broaden the  vendor
\nbase and to increase  the  competition.    Mr.  G.  Masilamani, learned senior
\ncounsel for the respondent, by relying on a decision of the Supreme  Court  in
\nSTATE OF WEST  BENGAL  v.    NIRANJAN SINGHA,<\/a> reported in (2 001) 2 M.L.J.  24
\n(S.C), would contend that the action of the  respondent  inviting  fresh  bids
\ncannot  be  said to be arbitrary and there is no question of applying doctrine
\nof legitimate expectation.  In  the  said  decision,  the  respondent  therein
\nrequested  the  Executive Engineer concerned for extension of the agency for a
\nperiod of another one year in terms  of  Clause  5  of  the  agreement  having
\ncomplied with the conditions stated therein.  The appellant therein instead of
\nextending  the  period  of  agency  in favour of the respondent, invited fresh
\nbids; hence a writ petition was filed by the  respondent  in  the  High  Court
\nseeking for  quashing  of  notification  calling  for fresh bids.  The learned
\nsingle  Judge  directed  for  consideration  of  the  representation  of   the
\nrespondent and ultimately the writ petition was allowed by upholding the claim
\nof the respondent for renewal of the agreement for another period of one year.
\nThe matter  was  carried  in  appeal  to the Division Bench.  On behalf of the
\nrespondent the contention put forth before the Court was that Clause 5 of  the
\nagreement  entered  into between the appellant and the respondent, involved an
\nelement of ‘legitimate expectation’ and non-consideration of  the  same  would
\namount  to  arbitrary  exercise of the power and, therefore, he learned single
\nJudge was justified in issuing the writ.  The Division Bench upheld the  order
\nmade  by  the  learned  Single  Judge,  hence  appeal  to  the  Supreme Court.
\nDisapproving the view expressed by the High Court, the Supreme Court has held,
\n(para 4)<\/p>\n
“4.  We may notice that the distinction sought to be made by  the  High  Court
\nthat this is not a case involving grant of a fresh agency but extension of the
\nexisting one  does  not  make  much  sense.    An extension of an agreement or
\nrenewal is granted on the expiry of the  period  of  the  existing  agreement.
\nEither  the  extension  or the renewal of the existing agreement may be on the
\nsame terms or on different terms.  If  it  is  a  case  of  extension  of  the
\nexisting  agreement  on  the  same terms and conditions and such consideration
\ngives rise to a question  of  legitimate  expectation  being  a  part  of  the
\nconcerned agreement, economic consideration of getting higher bid for the same
\nperiod would be a relevant consideration.  If the Governmental authorities had
\nfound that it would be feasible to have the agency, as in the present case, on
\nfresh  terms  by enhancing the amount payable to the Government, it would be a
\nrelevant factor and in such a case it  cannot  be  said  that  the  legitimate
\nexpectation  of  the  respondent had been affected because the public interest
\nwould out-weight the extension of the period of the agreement.   The  doctrine
\nof “Legitimate expectation” is only an aspect of Art.14 of the Constitution in
\ndealing  with the citizens in a non-arbitrary manner and thus, by itself, does
\nnot give rise to an enforceable right but in testing the action taken  by  the
\nGovernment  authority  whether  arbitrary  or otherwise, it would be relevant.
\nThe decision in FOOD CORPORAITODN OF INDIA v.   M\/S.    KAMDHENU  CATTLE  FEED
\nINDUSTRIES,<\/a> (1993) 1 S.C.C.  71 does not lay down any principle which detracts
\nfrom what  we  gave  stated  now.    In a case where the agency is granted for
\ncollection of toll or taxes, as in the present case, it can  easily  discerned
\nthat  the  claim  of  the respondent for extension of the period of the agency
\nwould not come in the way  of  the  Government  if  it  is  economically  more
\nbeneficial to have a fresh agreement by enhancing the consideration payable to
\nthe Government.    In  such an event, it cannot be said that the action of the
\nGovernment inviting fresh bids is arbitrary.   Moreover,  the  respondent  can
\nalso participate  in the tender process and get his bid considered.  Hence, we
\ndo not think that the view taken by the High Court can be justified.”\n<\/p>\n
Here, in our case in the counter affidavit the respondent has pointed out  new
\ndeveloped  Cranes  and  reduction  in  rate  by inviting competitive bid, etc.
\nApart from these details, I have already referred to the duration of  contract
\nwhich  clearly  shows  that  the  period  of contract is for two years and the
\nextension in a period of one year in 2 instalments of 6 months each is at  the
\nsole discretion  of  ONGC  subject  to  fulfilling  certain terms.  Though the
\npetitioner was granted extension for a period of 3  months,  in  view  of  the
\ncompetitive  offers,  availability of new model Cranes, the respondent decided
\nto go for a fresh tender.  In such a circumstance, as observed by the  Supreme
\nCourt in (2001) 2 M.L.J.  24 (S.C) (cites supra), the proposed fresh tender is
\neconomically more  beneficial.  In such a circumstance, it cannot be said that
\nthe action of the ONGC inviting fresh bids is arbitrary.  As  rightly  pointed
\nout, the petitioner can also participate in the tender process and get his bid
\nconsidered.   Hence,  I  do  not  find  any  valid ground to issue Mandamus as
\nclaimed by the petitioner.  It is also brought to my notice that in respect of
\nsimilar claim made by  the  sister  concern  namely  M\/s.    Sanghvi  Projects
\nLimited, R.    Balasubramanian,  J.,  after  considering  similar contentions,
\ndismissed W.P.No.  397 63\/2002 on 10-12-2002.\n<\/p>\n
9.  In the result, I do not find any merit in the  claim  of  the  petitioner;
\nconsequently the  Writ  Petition  fails  and the same is dismissed.  No costs.
\nConsequently, connected W.P.M.P., and W.  V.M.P., are closed.
\n31-01-2003<\/p>\n
Internet :  Yes
\nR.B.\n<\/p>\n
To:-\n<\/p>\n
M\/s.  Oil and Natural Gas
\nCorporation Limited,
\nRegional Office:  Southern Region,
\nCMDA Building, 8th floor (East Wing),
\n8, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore,
\nChennai-8.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court M\/S. Sanghvi Movers Limited vs M\/S. Oil And Natural Gas on 31 January, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 31\/01\/2003 Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM Writ Petition No. 41170 of 2002 and WPMP No. 60937 of 2002 and WVMP No. 1771 of 2002 M\/s. Sanghvi Movers […]<\/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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-147473","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S. Sanghvi Movers Limited vs M\/S. Oil And Natural Gas on 31 January, 2003 - 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-sanghvi-movers-limited-vs-ms-oil-and-natural-gas-on-31-january-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S. Sanghvi Movers Limited vs M\/S. Oil And Natural Gas on 31 January, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sanghvi-movers-limited-vs-ms-oil-and-natural-gas-on-31-january-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-01-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-26T05:58:53+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=\"15 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-sanghvi-movers-limited-vs-ms-oil-and-natural-gas-on-31-january-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sanghvi-movers-limited-vs-ms-oil-and-natural-gas-on-31-january-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S. Sanghvi Movers Limited vs M\\\/S. Oil And Natural Gas on 31 January, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-01-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-26T05:58:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sanghvi-movers-limited-vs-ms-oil-and-natural-gas-on-31-january-2003\"},\"wordCount\":2863,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sanghvi-movers-limited-vs-ms-oil-and-natural-gas-on-31-january-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sanghvi-movers-limited-vs-ms-oil-and-natural-gas-on-31-january-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sanghvi-movers-limited-vs-ms-oil-and-natural-gas-on-31-january-2003\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Sanghvi Movers Limited vs M\\\/S. Oil And Natural Gas on 31 January, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-01-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-26T05:58:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sanghvi-movers-limited-vs-ms-oil-and-natural-gas-on-31-january-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sanghvi-movers-limited-vs-ms-oil-and-natural-gas-on-31-january-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sanghvi-movers-limited-vs-ms-oil-and-natural-gas-on-31-january-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Sanghvi Movers Limited vs M\\\/S. Oil And Natural Gas on 31 January, 2003\"}]},{\"@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. Sanghvi Movers Limited vs M\/S. Oil And Natural Gas on 31 January, 2003 - 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-sanghvi-movers-limited-vs-ms-oil-and-natural-gas-on-31-january-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S. Sanghvi Movers Limited vs M\/S. Oil And Natural Gas on 31 January, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sanghvi-movers-limited-vs-ms-oil-and-natural-gas-on-31-january-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-01-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-26T05:58:53+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sanghvi-movers-limited-vs-ms-oil-and-natural-gas-on-31-january-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sanghvi-movers-limited-vs-ms-oil-and-natural-gas-on-31-january-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S. Sanghvi Movers Limited vs M\/S. Oil And Natural Gas on 31 January, 2003","datePublished":"2003-01-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-26T05:58:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sanghvi-movers-limited-vs-ms-oil-and-natural-gas-on-31-january-2003"},"wordCount":2863,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sanghvi-movers-limited-vs-ms-oil-and-natural-gas-on-31-january-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sanghvi-movers-limited-vs-ms-oil-and-natural-gas-on-31-january-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sanghvi-movers-limited-vs-ms-oil-and-natural-gas-on-31-january-2003","name":"M\/S. Sanghvi Movers Limited vs M\/S. Oil And Natural Gas on 31 January, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-01-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-26T05:58:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sanghvi-movers-limited-vs-ms-oil-and-natural-gas-on-31-january-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sanghvi-movers-limited-vs-ms-oil-and-natural-gas-on-31-january-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sanghvi-movers-limited-vs-ms-oil-and-natural-gas-on-31-january-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S. Sanghvi Movers Limited vs M\/S. Oil And Natural Gas on 31 January, 2003"}]},{"@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\/147473","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=147473"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/147473\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=147473"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=147473"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=147473"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}