{"id":157581,"date":"2006-04-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-04-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rodemadan-india-limited-vs-international-trade-expo-centre-on-17-april-2006"},"modified":"2016-10-10T19:18:16","modified_gmt":"2016-10-10T13:48:16","slug":"rodemadan-india-limited-vs-international-trade-expo-centre-on-17-april-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rodemadan-india-limited-vs-international-trade-expo-centre-on-17-april-2006","title":{"rendered":"Rodemadan India Limited vs International Trade Expo Centre … on 17 April, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Rodemadan India Limited vs International Trade Expo Centre … on 17 April, 2006<\/div>\n
Author: B Srikrishna<\/div>\n
Bench: B.N. Srikrishna<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nArbitration Petition  25 of 2005\n\nPETITIONER:\nRodemadan India Limited\n\nRESPONDENT:\nInternational Trade Expo Centre Limited\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 17\/04\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nB.N. Srikrishna\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
B.N Srikrishna, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tThis is an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and
\nConciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for appointment
\nof a Presiding Arbitrator\/ Chairperson of the Arbitral Tribunal under the
\narbitration agreement. It has been placed before me as the person designated
\nby the Chief Justice to act under Section 11(6) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Respondent-Company has a lease of the land situated at Plot No.
\nA-11, Sector-62, Noida from the New Okhla Industrial Development
\nAuthority for a period of ninety years. The Respondent wanted to construct
\nand develop an Exhibition Centre on the said land. There were negotiations
\nbetween the Petitioner-Company and the Respondent-Company, as a result
\nof which an exclusive Management Agreement was arrived at on
\n29.10.2003. Under the said agreement, the Petitioner was granted the
\nexclusive right to manage the said plot of land for a period of ten years from
\nthe date on which ‘Vacant Possession’ was handed over to it. Certain other
\nterms as to payments were agreed to between the parties. Two clauses, 8.0
\nand 8.1 of the said agreement, which are of relevance, are as under:
\n“8.0 In the event of breach of warranties by any of the parties
\nthe other party can seek relief by way of specific performance
\nof the contract.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.1\tArbitration: Any dispute, controversy or claim arising out
\nof or in relation to this exclusive Management Agreement shall
\nbe settled by a panel of three arbitrators (the “Arbitration
\nPanel”) in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and
\nConciliation Act, 1996. ITEC and Rodemadan shall appoint one
\narbitrator each and such arbitrators shall, within seven days of
\ntheir appointment, designate a third person to act as the
\nchairman and the presiding arbitrator. The arbitral proceedings
\nshall take place in Delhi and shall be conducted in the English
\nlanguage. Any such dispute, controversy or claim submitted for
\narbitration shall be considered a commercial dispute arising
\nunder the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The award of
\nthe Arbitration Panel shall be a reasoned one, and shall be final
\nand binding on the Parties.”\n<\/p>\n
\tCertain disputes had arisen between the parties, as a result of which,
\non 16.3.2005 the Petitioner filed an application under Section 9 of the Act
\nbefore the High Court of Delhi (OMP No. 98\/2005) and obtained an order
\ndirecting the Respondent to maintain status quo with regard to the
\npossession and title of the said plot of land.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn 8.4.2005, the Petitioner sent a legal notice to the Respondent
\ninvoking Clause 8.1 of the said agreement. By the said notice invoking
\narbitration, the Petitioner appointed Dr. L.M. Singhvi, Senior Advocate, as
\nits nominee arbitrator in terms of the Management Agreement and requested
\nthe Respondent to nominate its arbitrator in terms of the said clause within a
\nperiod of thirty days from the date of receipt of the notice. It was clarified in
\nthe said notice that since the agreement provided for Indian Law as the
\napplicable law, an Indian jurist had been appointed. It was stated that this
\nwould not be deemed or construed to be a waiver of the Petitioner’s right to
\nhave the third or Presiding Arbitrator from a neutral country (i.e. other than
\nIndia and Cyprus), the arbitration invoked being an “International
\nCommercial Arbitration” within the meaning of Section 2(1)(f) of the Act.
\nOn 4.5.2005, the Respondent replied to the said notice of the Petitioner,
\nraising several contentions, inter alia taking the stand that there was no
\narbitration agreement in existence. Nonetheless, it appointed Justice S.C.
\nJain, a retired Judge of the Allahabad High Court as its nominee arbitrator
\n“without prejudice” to their right to challenge the validity of the arbitration
\nproceedings. By a letter dated 20.5.2005, Justice Jain accepted his
\nappointment as an arbitrator. However, since the two arbitrators were not
\nable to arrive at a consensus with regard to the appointment of the Presiding
\nArbitrator\/ Chairperson of the Arbitral Tribunal, the Petitioner moved this
\napplication under Section 11(6) of the Act on 29.8.2005 for appointment of a
\nPresiding Arbitrator\/ Chairperson of the Arbitral Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent, has
\nraised a preliminary objection that the petition has been filed by the
\nPetitioner-Company through Mr. Roger Shashoua, authorized representative
\nof the Petitioner-Company, but verified and signed by Mr. Raj Manek
\nholding a Power of Attorney from Mr. Roger Shashoua. The contention is
\nthat the Power of Attorney only permits Mr. Raj Manek to represent Mr.
\nRoger Shashoua in his personal capacity but does not empower him to
\nrepresent the Petitioner-Company. Mr. R.F. Nariman, learned Senior
\nCounsel for the Petitioner, has drawn our attention to Exhibit P\/R-2 filed
\nalong with the rejoinder. The document Exhibit P\/R-2, which is a certificate
\nby Mr. Roger Shashoua, Director of the Petitioner-Company, clarifies that
\nMr. Raj Manek is duly authorized to represent him in his personal capacity
\nas well as the Petitioner-Company:\n<\/p>\n
“before any court or other judicial authority or any other
\nconcerned authority to file petitions, applications, documents
\netc. and to appoint any advocate in connection thereto and to do
\nall acts, deeds and things that the above Mr. Raj Manek may
\ndeem fit and proper in pursuance thereof.”\n<\/p>\n
 In view of this document, I find no substance in the contention.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent, raised
\na further preliminary contention that in view of the decision of the
\nConstitution Bench in SBP & Co.  v.  Patel Engineering Ltd. , it has now
\nbeen conclusively held that the power exercised by the Chief Justice or his
\ndesignate under Section 11(6) of the Act, is not an administrative but a
\njudicial power and that the designate of the Chief Justice has to judicially
\ndetermine the issues arising under Section 11(6) of the Act. He contends that
\nunder Article 145 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court is
\nempowered to frame “rules for regulating generally the practice and
\nprocedure of the Court”, and under Clause (2), the minimum number of
\nJudges, who were to sit for any purpose, is also to be fixed by the rules. The
\nSupreme Court has framed rules known as the Supreme Court Rules, 1966
\n(hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”). Under Order VII Rule 1 of the Rules,
\n“Every cause, appeal or matter shall be heard by a Bench consisting of not
\nless than two Judges nominated by the Chief Justice”. Exception is made for
\nthose matters specifically provided thereunder, which could be heard by a
\nJudge sitting singly nominated by the Chief Justice. The contention is that
\nsince a petition under Section 11(6) of the Act is not specifically enumerated
\nunder the proviso to Order VII Rule 1 of the Rules, such a petition would
\nhave to be heard by a Bench consisting of not less than two Judges.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn my view, this contention is entirely misconceived for two reasons.
\nIn the first place, Article 145 of the Constitution itself proceeds by declaring
\nthat the provisions of the Article were “subject to the provisions of any law
\nmade by Parliament”. The Act is definitely a “law made by Parliament” and
\nit does not prescribe that a petition under Section 11(6) has to be heard by a
\nBench consisting of at least two Judges. Second, the power under Article
\n145 of the Constitution and the Rules framed thereunder, are intended to
\ngovern the practice and procedure of the Supreme Court. I am unable to
\npersuade myself to believe that, the power exercisable by the Chief Justice
\nunder Section 11(6) of the Act is the power of the Supreme Court under the
\nConstitution. My first impression on this issue is also confirmed by the
\njudgment of this court in Patel Engineering (supra), where it was observed
\nthat:\n<\/p>\n
“It is common ground that the Act has adopted the UNCITRAL
\nModel Law on International Commercial Arbitration, but at the
\nsame time, it has made some departures from the Model Law.
\nSection 11 is in the place of Article 11 of the Model Law.  The
\nModel Law provides for the making of a request under Article
\n11 to “the court or other authority specified in Article 6 to take
\nthe necessary measure”. The words in Section 11 of the Act are
\n“the Chief Justice or the person or institution designated by
\nhim”. The fact that instead of the court, the powers are
\nconferred on the Chief Justice, has to be appreciated in the
\ncontext of the statute.  “Court” is defined in the Act to be the
\nPrincipal Civil Court of original jurisdiction of the district and
\nincludes the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil
\njurisdiction. The Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction is
\nnormally the District Court. The High Courts in India
\nexercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction are not too many.
\nSo in most of the States the court concerned would be the
\nDistrict Court.   Obviously, Parliament did not want to confer
\nthe power on the District Court, to entertain a request for
\nappointing an arbitrator or for constituting an Arbitral Tribunal
\nunder Section 11 of the Act. It has to be noted that under
\nSection 9 of the Act, the District Court or the High Court
\nexercising original jurisdiction, has the power to make interim
\norders prior to, during or even post-arbitration.  It has also the
\npower to entertain a challenge to the award that may ultimately
\nbe made.   The framers of the statute must certainly be taken to
\nhave been conscious of the definition of “court” in the Act.  It is
\neasily possible to contemplate that they did not want the power
\nunder Section 11 to be conferred on the District Court or the
\nHigh Court exercising original jurisdiction. The intention
\napparently was to confer the power on the highest judicial
\nauthority in the State and in the country, on the Chief Justices
\nof the High Courts and on the Chief Justice of India.”\n<\/p>\n
In short, the power under Section 11(6) is the power of a designate
\nreferred to under the Section and not that of the Supreme Court, albeit that it
\nhas now been held to have judicial characteristics by reason of the judgment
\nin Patel Engineering (supra). Since this is the power of the Chief Justice
\nand not the power of the Supreme Court, the specification in Order VII Rule
\n1 of the Rules as to the minimum number of Judges, would have no
\napplication thereto. If the argument of the learned counsel is right, then even
\nthe Chief Justice cannot pass such an order unless he is sitting in a Bench
\nwith one or more companion Judge. No such intention is evidenced by
\nParliament in enacting Section 11(6) of the Act. Since Parliament has
\nenacted a law under which the power is exercisable by the Chief Justice or
\nhis designate, who could be “any person or institution”, I do not think that
\nthe requirement of Order VII Rule 1 of the Rules would apply to such a
\nsituation at all. The contention is, therefore, rejected.\n<\/p>\n
The Respondent’s main opposition to this petition is on the ground
\nthat there is no arbitration agreement in existence since the Management
\nAgreement was merely a proposal, which was subject to approval of the
\nshareholders of the company; that a meeting was called for the shareholders
\nof the company at which the said proposal was put forward for approval and
\nwas specifically rejected by a resolution passed by the shareholders; that the
\nnomination of Justice Jain was without prejudice to the rights and
\ncontentions of the Respondent and that this petition was misconceived and
\nuntenable as the High Court of Delhi would have exclusive jurisdiction in
\nthe matter, as it had already been moved under Section 9 of the Act. For the
\nsaid reasons, the Respondent has sought dismissal of this petition.\n<\/p>\n
\tBefore examining the facts of the present petition, it is necessary to
\nencapsulate the conditions necessary for the exercise of the designate’s
\npower under Section 11(6) and the judicial determinations necessary by the
\ndesignate at the stage of Section 11(6). In addition to the conditions already
\nenumerated in the Section, the judgment in Patel Engineering (supra)
\nprovides that:\n<\/p>\n
“The Chief Justice or the designated judge will have the right to
\ndecide the preliminary aspects as indicated in the earlier part of
\nthis judgment.  These will be his own jurisdiction to entertain
\nthe request, the existence of a valid arbitration agreement, the
\nexistence or otherwise of a live claim, the existence of the
\ncondition for the exercise of his power and on the qualifications
\nof the arbitrator or arbitrators”\n<\/p>\n
Further, it has also been held that determination of certain preliminary
\njurisdictional issues is mandatory for the designate:
\n “It is necessary to define what exactly the Chief Justice,
\napproached with an application under Section 11 of the Act, is
\nto decide at that stage. Obviously, he has to decide his own
\njurisdiction in the sense whether the party making the motion
\nhas approached the right High Court.   He has to decide whether
\nthere is an arbitration agreement, as defined in the Act and
\nwhether the person who has made the request before him, is a
\nparty to such an agreement. It is necessary to indicate that he
\ncan also decide the question whether the claim was a dead one;
\nor a long barred claim that was sought to be resurrected and
\nwhether the parties have concluded the transaction by recording
\nsatisfaction of their mutual rights and obligations or by
\nreceiving the final payment without objection.  It may not be
\npossible at that stage, to decide whether a live claim made, is
\none which comes within the purview of the arbitration clause.
\nIt will be appropriate to leave that question to be decided by the
\nArbitral Tribunal on taking evidence, along with the merits of
\nthe claims involved in the arbitration. The Chief Justice has to
\ndecide whether the applicant has satisfied the conditions for
\nappointing an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act.”\n<\/p>\n
I am, therefore, required to decide whether the preliminary conditions
\nnecessary for the exercise of the designate’s power under Section 11(6) are
\nsatisfied, especially whether there exists a valid arbitral agreement.\n<\/p>\n
One more issue needs appraisal here: what kind of evidence is the
\ndesignate under Section 11(6) required to place reliance on to arrive at a
\nfinding on the preliminary jurisdictional issues? According to the judgment
\nin Patel Engineering (supra):\n<\/p>\n
“For the purpose of taking a decision on these aspects
\n(preliminary jurisdictional issues), the Chief Justice can either
\nproceed on the basis of affidavits and the documents produced
\nor take such evidence or get such evidence recorded, as may be
\nnecessary. We think that adoption of this procedure in the
\ncontext of the Act would best serve the purpose sought to be
\nachieved by the Act of expediting the process of arbitration,
\nwithout too many approaches to the court at various stages of
\nthe proceedings before the Arbitral tribunal.”\n<\/p>\n
Accordingly, I am given wide discretion to decide what evidence
\noral or documentaryis necessary for me to make an effective finding on
\nthe preliminary jurisdictional issues.\n<\/p>\n
That an agreement dated 29.10.2003 was signed by the Directors of
\nthe Respondent-Company for and on behalf of the Respondent as well as by
\nthe Directors of the Petitioner-Company for and on behalf of the Petitioner is
\nnot in dispute. What is in dispute is that, subsequent thereto, the said
\nagreement has been repudiated in an Extraordinary General Meeting alleged
\nto have been held on 14.9.2004. It is further alleged that the Management
\nAgreement dated 29.10.2003, which was signed by the Directors of the
\nPetitioner on the one hand and the Directors of the Respondent on the other
\nhand was merely a proposal subject to approval of the shareholders of the
\nRespondent-Company. Certain documents are placed on record and my
\nattention has been drawn thereto in support of this stand of the Respondent.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Petitioner, however, has emphatically denied that any resolution
\nwas passed in the Board Meeting of 14.9.2004, as alleged, by which the
\nManagement Agreement has been repudiated or rendered ineffective. One
\nRoger Shashoua, who is a major shareholder and Director of the Petitioner-
\nCompany, is also a major shareholder and Director of the Respondent-
\nCompany, had personal knowledge as to the affairs of the Respondent-
\nCompany and, therefore, the Petitioner is aware that no such Extraordinary
\nGeneral Meeting of the Respondent-Company was held on 14.9.2004 at all,
\nas alleged. However, in support of his stand, Mr. Ranjit Kumar drew my
\nattention to copies of certain resolutions purporting to the extract of the
\nresolution passed on 14.9.2004 at 11:00 A.M. in an Extraordinary General
\nMeeting held at Business Centre, Hotel Park Royal Intercontinental, Nehru
\nPlace, New Delhi. This resolution is vehemently disputed by Mr. Nariman,
\nappearing for the Petitioner-Company.\n<\/p>\n
It is not possible to accept the correctness of the disputed documents
\nor to proceed on the footing that there was such a resolution passed in an
\nExtraordinary General Meeting by which the Management Agreement of
\n29.10.2003 was not approved and, therefore, resolved to be treated as null
\nand void. Mr. Ranjit Kumar then suggested that he be given an opportunity
\nto lead evidence, including oral evidence to substantiate his stand.
\nExercising the discretion granted to me in Patel Engineering (supra), I
\ndecline Mr. Ranjit Kumar’s request as I do not believe that oral evidence is
\nnecessary to determine the present issue. I decline to do so for even if the
\npower under Section 11(6) be judicial in the sense of requiring a judicial
\ndetermination by the designate of the Chief Justice, it surely does not render
\nthe designate of the Chief Justice into a trial court.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr. Ranjit Kumar then placed reliance on Clause (6) of the Minutes of
\nthe Meeting of the Respondent-Company dated 29.10.2003 in which there
\nwas a Resolution passed with regard to ‘Management Agreement’, which
\ninter alia reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
“6. Management Agreement
\nMr. Roger Shashoua proposed to grant a (sic) exclusive
\nManagement Agreement to Rodemadan India Ltd. to manage
\nthe upcoming expocentre on a minimum guarantee basis. The
\nway the Expocentre will have confirmed income from the
\nbeginning and will enjoy the worldwide experience of
\nRodemadan India Ltd. The Board members agreed to the
\nproposals, subject to statutory approvals.\n<\/p>\n
Resolved that the management contract with Rodemadan India
\nLtd. for the management of the centre be approved by all board
\nmembers present subject to statutory approvals from the
\nrespective authorities, if any.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThere is no dispute on this resolution. Admittedly, the Director of the
\nPetitioner-Company had attended this meeting and, in fact, it is pursuant to
\nthis resolution that the Management Agreement dated 29.10.2003 was
\nentered into between the Petitioner and the Respondent. Mr. Ranjit Kumar
\ncontended that the said resolution proved that the Management Contract was
\n“subject to statutory approval from the respective authorities, if any”.
\nAccording to him, Mr. Roger Shashoua is a Director of Rodemadan India
\nLimited (the Petitioner-Company) and another company, known as,
\nRodemadan Holdings Ltd., and also a shareholder in the Respondent-
\nCompany. He contends that Section 299 of the Companies Act, 1956
\ncontemplates that:\n<\/p>\n
“Every director of a company who is in any way, whether
\ndirectly or indirectly, concerned or interested in a contract or
\narrangement, or proposed contract or arrangement, entered into
\nor to be entered into, by or on behalf of the company, shall
\ndisclose the nature of his concern or interest at a meeting of the
\nBoard of directors”.\n<\/p>\n
Under Section 300, such a Director is precluded from taking any part
\nin the discussion of the Board of Directors nor allowed to vote with regard to
\na resolution touching upon such a contract. Learned counsel contended that
\nMr. Roger Shashoua was interested in the contract, and therefore, the
\nManagement Contract was null and void because an interested director had
\nvoted thereupon.\n<\/p>\n
\tTo say the least, the argument appears to be one of sheer desperation,
\nin my view. It is nobody’s case that Mr. Roger Shashoua is a party to the
\nManagement Agreement. The Management Agreement is between the
\nPetitioner-Company and the Respondent-Company. Merely because Mr.
\nRoger Shashoua happens to be a Director of the Petitioner-Company as well
\nas, a shareholder in the Respondent-Company, I do not think that the
\nprovisions of Sections 299 or 300 of the Companies Act were attracted to the
\nsituation, which required approval of the Government.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe next contention raised by Mr. Ranjit Kumar is that the Petitioner
\nis attempting to obtain specific performance when specific performance of
\nthe contract cannot be granted in arbitral proceedings. In fact, this contention
\nhas been squarely rejected by the judgment of this Court in Olympus
\nSuperstructures Pvt. Ltd.  v.  Meena Vijay Khetan and ors.\n<\/p>\n
\tFurther, it was urged that Clauses 8.0 and 8.1 of the Management
\nAgreement are mutually exclusive and, therefore, the relief for specific
\nperformance cannot be asked for and since no consideration had been paid
\nthe contract was void and unenforceable. In my view, these are not issues to
\nbe considered in a petition under Section 11(6) of the Act, as they can all be
\nraised during the arbitral proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn short, I am not satisfied that the arbitral agreement was vitiated on
\nany of the grounds averred by Mr. Ranjit Kumar. I am satisfied that there
\nexists a valid arbitration agreement which contemplates that that all disputes
\nbetween the parties under that agreement be referred to arbitration.\n<\/p>\n
\tFinally, it is contended that as recourse had been taken by the
\nPetitioner under Section 9 of the Act to obtain interim relief by moving the
\nDelhi High Court by their Original Petition OMP No. 98\/2005 dated
\n24.3.2005, by reason of Section 42 of the Act that court alone could have
\njurisdiction upon the arbitral tribunal. In my view, this contention has no
\nmerit as I have held earlier, neither the Chief Justice nor his designate under
\nSection 11(6) is a “court” as contemplated under the Act. Section 2(1)(e) of
\nthe Act defines the expression “court”. The bar of jurisdiction under Section
\n42 is only intended to apply to a “court” as defined in Section 2(1)(e). The
\nobjection, therefore, has no merit and is rejected.
\nThe situation is one of a dispute between the Petitioner, which is a
\nforeign company and the Respondent and is therefore, an “International
\nCommercial Arbitration” within the meaning of Section 2(1)(f) of the Act.
\nThere is a dispute between the parties where both parties are subject to an
\narbitration agreement. Further, the appointed arbitrators have failed to reach
\nan agreement upon a Chairperson\/ Presiding Arbitrator of the Arbitral
\nTribunal. Hence, I am satisfied that all the preliminary conditions specified
\nin Section 11(6) and Patel Engineering (supra) have been met.
\n\tIn the result, I allow the petition and appoint Justice Arun Kumar, a
\nretired Judge of the Supreme Court of India, as the Chairman\/ Presiding
\nArbitrator of the Arbitral Tribunal, subject to his consent and on such terms
\nas he fixes.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe petition is accordingly allowed with no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Rodemadan India Limited vs International Trade Expo Centre … on 17 April, 2006 Author: B Srikrishna Bench: B.N. Srikrishna CASE NO.: Arbitration Petition 25 of 2005 PETITIONER: Rodemadan India Limited RESPONDENT: International Trade Expo Centre Limited DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17\/04\/2006 BENCH: B.N. Srikrishna JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-157581","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRodemadan India Limited vs International Trade Expo Centre ... on 17 April, 2006 - 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\/rodemadan-india-limited-vs-international-trade-expo-centre-on-17-april-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rodemadan India Limited vs International Trade Expo Centre ... on 17 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rodemadan-india-limited-vs-international-trade-expo-centre-on-17-april-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-04-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-10T13:48:16+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=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rodemadan-india-limited-vs-international-trade-expo-centre-on-17-april-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rodemadan-india-limited-vs-international-trade-expo-centre-on-17-april-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rodemadan India Limited vs International Trade Expo Centre … on 17 April, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-04-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-10T13:48:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rodemadan-india-limited-vs-international-trade-expo-centre-on-17-april-2006\"},\"wordCount\":3795,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rodemadan-india-limited-vs-international-trade-expo-centre-on-17-april-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rodemadan-india-limited-vs-international-trade-expo-centre-on-17-april-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rodemadan-india-limited-vs-international-trade-expo-centre-on-17-april-2006\",\"name\":\"Rodemadan India Limited vs International Trade Expo Centre ... on 17 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-04-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-10T13:48:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rodemadan-india-limited-vs-international-trade-expo-centre-on-17-april-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rodemadan-india-limited-vs-international-trade-expo-centre-on-17-april-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rodemadan-india-limited-vs-international-trade-expo-centre-on-17-april-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rodemadan India Limited vs International Trade Expo Centre … on 17 April, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Rodemadan India Limited vs International Trade Expo Centre ... on 17 April, 2006 - 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\/rodemadan-india-limited-vs-international-trade-expo-centre-on-17-april-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rodemadan India Limited vs International Trade Expo Centre ... on 17 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rodemadan-india-limited-vs-international-trade-expo-centre-on-17-april-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-04-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-10T13:48:16+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rodemadan-india-limited-vs-international-trade-expo-centre-on-17-april-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rodemadan-india-limited-vs-international-trade-expo-centre-on-17-april-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rodemadan India Limited vs International Trade Expo Centre … on 17 April, 2006","datePublished":"2006-04-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-10T13:48:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rodemadan-india-limited-vs-international-trade-expo-centre-on-17-april-2006"},"wordCount":3795,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rodemadan-india-limited-vs-international-trade-expo-centre-on-17-april-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rodemadan-india-limited-vs-international-trade-expo-centre-on-17-april-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rodemadan-india-limited-vs-international-trade-expo-centre-on-17-april-2006","name":"Rodemadan India Limited vs International Trade Expo Centre ... on 17 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-04-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-10T13:48:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rodemadan-india-limited-vs-international-trade-expo-centre-on-17-april-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rodemadan-india-limited-vs-international-trade-expo-centre-on-17-april-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rodemadan-india-limited-vs-international-trade-expo-centre-on-17-april-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rodemadan India Limited vs International Trade Expo Centre … on 17 April, 2006"}]},{"@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\/157581","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=157581"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/157581\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=157581"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=157581"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=157581"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}