{"id":157921,"date":"2009-10-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-10-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-a-b-mallikarjuna-vs-jubliant-biosys-limited-on-13-october-2009"},"modified":"2019-01-13T13:16:12","modified_gmt":"2019-01-13T07:46:12","slug":"sri-a-b-mallikarjuna-vs-jubliant-biosys-limited-on-13-october-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-a-b-mallikarjuna-vs-jubliant-biosys-limited-on-13-october-2009","title":{"rendered":"Sri A B Mallikarjuna vs Jubliant Biosys Limited on 13 October, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Sri A B Mallikarjuna vs Jubliant Biosys Limited on 13 October, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE\n\nDATED THIS THE 13*\" DAY OF OCTOBER  \n\nBEFORE :\n\nTHE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE MOHAl:\\%_SI~{AiS?\"1;A.l\u00a7)T4(\u00a7C)UV\u00a7)IiAi\u00a7*4._:\u00e9\n\nC.M.P. No.206;\u00a5.3009'v- A: A\n\nBetween 2\n\nA.B.Ma11i.kar_;una .. v\nAged about 59 years,,_   .  V\nSon of A.M.BasaVeg::wd-3, I\nResiding at NO395, g5\"\n\n12\"' Main, 1  \nR.M.V.EXtensi0n.,_ 5\nSadashivanvagar,      \nBangalore-1560 Q8'C;._--v     _ _' .. Petitioner\n\n[ By Sri Baeavaprabhi\ufb01  Pa-\u00a3ii;\"Si\".COunseI\nfor Giridhar\"&_.Co., A(_:1ve.ca\u00a3e:5; }\n\n1 .'  JLibI_ia'r1tV 'Bios-_\\}s_ Limited\nA Cioxrgp\u00e9iriy\ufb02vineqrporated under\nThe COmp_anie_s*Act, 1956.\n_ And having it\u00e9 registered\ngO\ufb01'1ce at : \n\n*  VP1m;No. IA, Sector ISA,\n T~[Nnvida;~.eU.P.\n_ \" _Indiaw$01301,\n __ \"*Re'p. By its Director.\n\n\n\nId\n\n2. Jubliant Biosys Limited,\nPlot No.96, Industrial Suburb\n11 Stage, Yeshwantpur,\nBangalore-560 022,\nRep. By its Director.\n\n3. Clinsys Clinical Research Limited,\nA company incorporated under\nThe Companies Act, 1956,\n\nAnd having its registered\nOffice at :\n\nPlot No.1A, Sector 16A,\nNoida, U.P.\n\nIndia-201 301,\n\nRep. By its Director.\n\n4. Clinsys Clinical ResearehVV_I..td._,V V\nPlot No.96, Industrial S1:1'bnrb-R _  \nII Stage, Yeshwcanitpnr,  i   _ \nBanga1ore--5_60'Oa2\u00a7';,_..if. '      \u00bb\nRep. By its Director.  \u00bb  A'    Respondents\n\n( By sr1\"s\"}i\u00e9ka:\u00a7t,?she\u00a3Ey ajagagii K-ug\ufb01\u00e9f Shetty,\nAdvocates}. \"  *   ' '\n\nThis\"Ci.V11 Mise\ufb01jetitiozn is filed under Section 11 (5) of the\n\n:_v\"Arb_itra.tion ;and..._ConciIia--ti~on Act, 1996, praying to appoint Sole\n'Arbitrator to decide over the dispute, which has arisen between\n\nth.e'petitioner\"a_r'1d the respondents for resolution of the claims\nof the petitioner iriat-erins of the notice dated 10.41.2009 of the\n\n ' p\ufb01\u00e9titioner as at--V':3gr1:'1exure~J.\n\nThis.' M1sc.Pet1tior; having been heard and reserved\n\n\"orders on \"1691 September 2009, pronounced the orders on\n '1  October 2009.\n\n\\<\\}?\n\n\n\n,3-\nORDER\n<\/pre>\n
This petition is filed under Section 31(8) of the<\/p>\n
Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 1996, {hereinafter referi”ede.1,Vo<\/p>\n
as ‘Arbitration Act of 1996’ in short) praying for it <\/p>\n
of Sole Arbitrator to decide over the dispute ”<\/p>\n
between the petitioner and respondents.<\/p>\n
2. Brief facts of the case areas under : Petitioner is:;i..1’ie
\nabsoiute owner of the immovable’=_p’1’o_perty’-bearing: No.94,
\nIndustriai Suburb, 2′”?   Y\u20acS}l\\RlaHth]._)L,I1′,
\nBangalore-580 022, with constfixiptfthilon{th.ereo–n’.; _’R\u20acSpOI1d\u20acl’ll.’~% 1<\/p>\n
and 3 areithelveonipanlies ineorpoi’ateVd under the provisions of<\/p>\n
Companiesvvl\ufb01et. V1956.j:>fl’nelV”petitioner and respondent No.1<\/p>\n
entered into alLease.A’gree_1nent as per Annexure–‘B’ dated 8′”<\/p>\n
:_v”Se.ptemb’er52OO8. LiI<ewi–se, another agreement of lease was<\/p>\n
entered 'vinto\u00e9llbetwteen petitioner and respondent No.3 as per<\/p>\n
   Anr1exure-'C'\u00ab  very day i.e., on 8"'! September 2008. I-'rior<\/p>\n
 thereto. a. Memorandum of Understanding was entered into<\/p>\n
-r.’be:w\u00e9e”n.t._ the petitioner and the 154 respondent as per<\/p>\n
 Ar:ne;xgure~?A’ on 6″} August 2008. Consequently, the<\/p>\n
it ‘  ‘aforeumentioned property was leased in favour of respondents E<\/p>\n
=\\\\~s*><\/p>\n
and 3 as per the Lease Deeds vide Annexures~’B’ and ‘C’. E: is<\/p>\n
the case of the petitioner that respondents I and <\/p>\n
affiliated companies and part of Jubiliant OI’ga11OSyfS~.\u20ac.}i'(lt’l’\u00e9.i::’ <\/p>\n
Companies and the companies are under””..the:f_”\u00bbsa.:n’e–.d<\/p>\n
management. The Memorandum of Ilnders\u00abtarldiI-mg’. a”s._well”;’.1s7<\/p>\n
the Lease Deeds set out the terms V4and.V_condi1ions ‘~agrj<}(:d'V<\/p>\n
between the parties. In accordairieeV'V"with  of
\nUnderstanding, the PEtit'ioner  a'dditi<m;.11
\nfacilities demanded by  the schedule
\nproperty. Aeeordin,_~\u00a7;'to_theAVpetiiiloaer;fh.eVV"agreed to all me<\/p>\n
demands made" By \u00a7:–relspon_d.ent_ l*\u20aco.*\u00abl_' and provided all the
\nadditionalfacilities even t.o"the extent of making' substamial
\nChanges and irnprovem:en_tbs'the schedule property to soil it)<\/p>\n
the convenience VofVrespond'enl. No.1 and its requirements,<\/p>\n
Je'onseqi,__1.\u00e9Ent}-y has inc1:irr'e'd additional expenditure of Rs.1 emJ:"e<\/p>\n
for alterationsl earned out based on the representation \/ de.11":e.-mat<\/p>\n
 rrnader  respondents No.1. The parties have 2.-igjreed :.":::it'.<\/p>\n
vW._'__respondentNo.1 will continue in possession of the propertjs 2.1533<\/p>\n
 :_ar~iessee'=for a block period of Eiiteen years. Howe\\Ie.r._ the Lcta.:\u00bbse<\/p>\n
 l"3leed.s reveal that the "1oek~in–per1'od" of lease would be for :35<\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n
-\u00a7_<\/p>\n
months i.e., three years. Ultimately. the letters ol’terrr1inaI_in<\/p>\n
of lease dated 8.12.2008 as per Annexures-‘D’ and ‘E’ sen: by<\/p>\n
respondent No.1 and 3 are received by the petitioner. h”;-“‘>l’f;’:”\\,’\\\/’<\/p>\n
of the termination of lease agreements coupled with oi’ <\/p>\n
the Lease Deeds, the petitioner called upon the 1″c?:slpondet\u00a7{si  u<\/p>\n
make the payment of the rents for a period   it<\/p>\n
the period of Lock in and Notice period) :to?:.alirrL;.\u00a7ltolla  \u00e9*;?Ej’_’<\/p>\n
Rs.6,59,-40,000\/-. vide letterydated “–‘i_7;v–12.2osa. f: as “gp;\u00e9>’1e
\nAnnexure–‘F’ to the writ Petition.  resPoii.den–t;s lik\ufb01ve :’~${“%’lt
\nreply on 12.2.2009 as per ,—Annex’:.i:res\u00a7_f’G’x”and “H’;”denyi1’1g the,<\/p>\n
prayer of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
3. From  i’t..ils’-clear’ that the dispute has a1’isse:’a<\/p>\n
between the partiesrajndVtheasaine needs to be resolved.<\/p>\n
C1ause~1_9_ of bothivthe.’–Le’as\u00e9”:Deeds reveals that any dispuie<\/p>\n
la’riSing’.lo{uti,_0f the Lease”‘Deeds or any matters reiat:ing th(:1’r.?l..<},<\/p>\n
lslaalltlbe.1r'eferred:"'t–o arbitration, which shall be decided in<\/p>\n
acoorda1iee"i\u00a3fjvth the Arbitration an.d Conciliatiori Act. l\u00e9li\u00e9ii\u00e9i.<\/p>\n
 "Such shall be held in Bangalore and the Cotirtea in<\/p>\n
" \u00abifj;v'B_ar.1ga1ore" alone will have jurisdiction. By iravolging the .sai<;l<\/p>\n
Vs<\/p>\n
~u()_<\/p>\n
ciatzse, this petition is fiied praying for appoin1:rnent otf__.e.;\u00a7e<\/p>\n
Arbitrator to resolve the dispute.\n<\/p>\n
4. Sri Basava Prabhu Patti. learned Senior ‘Coa,,:11′:,:.=;e,1′<\/p>\n
appearing on behalf of petitioner su’brnits\u00ab ._i.h,211′ -;1here_ <\/p>\n
dispute that the lease agreements were ent.e1’ed into’vbet\\.=;=r.\u00a7;=\u00a7i-*’av1.it<\/p>\n
the petitioner and respondent  Qma
\npetitioner and respondentvNog.3 ast’per}t.nn’e;;L11*c?\ufb01LC)”: Since the
\ndisputes have arisen between the l-ea:;e
\nDeeds and the matters  “.at,\u00a7.;Eai1’.1″ator is to be
\nappointed for   if V <\/p>\n
5.   iearned counsel
\nappearing  he.haif  conteiided that since the<\/p>\n
lease agreements’ between “the parties are evidenced by<\/p>\n
._”i111regist_ei’ed-.Lease Deecisfthe same cannot be acted upon \u00a7E:..)r<\/p>\n
enforeingiCta1ise”‘No’;–19 relating to arbitration agreement, 1-ant?<\/p>\n
” V’ =.__,vthat single pt\u00a7’titfCgT1:: is not maintainable under Section 11 {E3} of<\/p>\n
Vh~.._.t1’i\u00e93 _’AI’bitrati’o;1 Act of 1996 as two lease deeds are involxzezt in<\/p>\n
  in other words. the respondents <.:.~on'iend that <\/p>\n
 _pe\u00abtititg11er ought to have filed two separate pet it \u00a7.()1'1i'-3.<\/p>\n
\\gj\\.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6. in the matter on hand. the }ease c.leec:is in _qru_es_: 3;-1:11<\/p>\n
containing the arbitration clause are in wx’i1i1″1g a11_cE3_’are’ V.<\/p>\n
by both the parties. They are ur1regist.ere:.i’;”‘”liiefOrdeij 1.0. <\/p>\n
appreciate the rival contentions. it ‘is rele\ufb01rguiatp i.AoV”‘nd\u00a3e=..__%Em:’<\/p>\n
provisions of Section 7 of the Arb1t.ratiori’.V_A\u20ac’\u00a3 of:
\n107 of Transfer of Property Act.  arid ‘Sec_?Vti0:11  of me<\/p>\n
Registration Act, 1908.\n<\/p>\n
“Section 7 _;.:V’1.1._r’bit;:_’rA’VVc’tV–tV’i’\u00a2:v:\u00a7. \u00a2tgrtfeen\u00a2era:tV’V~ {1} In
\nthis Part, “arbitrati0ri’h’agreerrtest”   :.zg.1’eemer1t
\nby the parties _Vt0-::_4’_”S;:_1x1V3I.1d’ii: yttrjriatjjbitratiprit ail <31' ('remain
\ndisputes whieh h':;;Ve&Vaf1:'jIser1pr v.r'r1'i"(ih"'I'1r'1ay ztrise between
\nthem in respect of 'relationship, whether<\/p>\n
contractual or hot.\n<\/p>\n
(2%)  arbittrnatiion agreement may be in the form<\/p>\n
 ; of any arbitEratid’11.AC1ause in a Contract or in 1.11:? \u00a7’o1’rI1 of a<\/p>\n
separate saVgr._eerfIerit;..\n<\/p>\n
A {:3} Auarbitration agreemem. shali be in writing.<\/p>\n
.’ . ;(-4} A11. arbitration agreement is in writing if it is
\n contained in M\u00bb<\/p>\n
(a) A document signed by the parties:\n<\/p>\n
_ 3 AL
\n{b} An exchange of letters, telex, telegrams or<\/p>\n
other means of E.elecon1mur1ica1.ion which<\/p>\n
provide a record of the agreement: or<\/p>\n
(c} An exchange of statements of elairn  <\/p>\n
defence in which the existence of__ 3<\/p>\n
agreement is alleged by one party an'(l._11o:t:”- L”<\/p>\n
denieci by the other.   ~<\/p>\n
{5} The reference in a c()ntract”1_o:’*a :””lr)cnme11t’~<\/p>\n
containing an arbitration’~…claus”ey<.'nsti’t1.i’:es”‘ <\/p>\n
an arbitration agreenaentlllifyvtlzey cont-a_ct ‘is
\nwriting and thereference iss–such-..as to rnalce<\/p>\n
that arbitration clause  of tlie._cQz’\u00e9’\u00a3:;ract.”<\/p>\n
Section… of ‘i’TC!__!’_!.$fer. ‘.Pr\u00a2).g)TVe’\u00e9r’t:; Act : ~<\/p>\n
Leases” hdljv riifm’le”–.;”*- A “lease of immovable
\npropkerty ‘f1fon1.”‘vyearb “:.o””year_ or for any term
\nexceeding one yea.r;o_1’ “reserving a yearly rent, can<\/p>\n
be made only by  r’egis”i,’e1’e\u00a3l instrL1.rnenl_<\/p>\n
?”2~”1lllVl’otl1er leases of immovable property may<\/p>\n
V  .feV:::h*c;~ by a “registered insl.run’1ent or by<\/p>\n
‘-oral Vagreerlnvent accompanied by deiivery of<\/p>\n
posse\u00a2:\u00a7sior~I’.\n<\/p>\n
VVVWhere a lease of ilnmovable pm};)erty is<\/p>\n
 Vr;2ade by a registerecl instr:..:.me:”:E. such<\/p>\n
instrument or, Where there are more iI’1f:\u00e9l\u00a7”LJ.I’1’1\u20acI’11ZS<\/p>\n
V’<\/p>\n
i 10 e
\nProvided that an unregistered document
\naffecting immovable property and required by this
\nAct or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 [4 of
\n1882), to be registered may be received as
\nevidence of a Contract in a suit for  <\/p>\n
performance under Chapter II of the  <\/p>\n
Relief Act, 1877 (1 of 1877] or as’ev1eer;ee of  1  <\/p>\n
collateral transaction not required tobve effectedpu  <\/p>\n
by registered instrument.\n<\/p>\n
It is also relevant to note Clause’ l[a] and’fC1–eius’eE3 [a] 8!
\n(1) of the respective Lease llleeds  thus : V
\n” Clause Ila: :~ the rent<\/p>\n
herein    the  V covenants herein
\ncontai_ned_, hereby agree to demise
\nunto th’e_Lesse’e_, of lease, the Schedule
\nProperty  thevsame unto the Lessee, for<\/p>\n
A 2\u00a7.j”i>ez%iod’ll.9f 1eo””–[ehe Hundred Eighty] months.
\nA ‘  an aggregate monthly rent of
\n ._  (Rupees Elevan Lakhs seventy
\nAseven.~’E’ho’usand and Five hundred oniy] on or
\nbefore\ufb01the 10″ day of the month. in advance. In<\/p>\n
‘y if ‘the event of any deiay in payments of rent, the
\n“;:V”Lessee shalt be iiable to pay interest @ 2% per<\/p>\n
 month for the period of delay.\n<\/p>\n
*5}<\/p>\n
Vbli:\n<\/p>\n
Clause 3 la) :- To pay the monthly rent in
\nrespect of the Schedule Property, in advance, on.._l<\/p>\n
or before the 10″” day of the concerned month; <\/p>\n
Without the necessity of any notice or deIn_and=._ it<\/p>\n
from the Lessor, subject, however,  <\/p>\n
deductions required to be n’1ade__<\/p>\n
event that the Lessor produces av..ta;~;:_ \u20acX\u20acII!1\u00a7_?:il:3’11”<\/p>\n
certi\ufb01cate, the Lessee shall _ded1,r’ct.__anyA <\/p>\n
SOL1I’C\u20ac.\n<\/p>\n
Clause 3 (ii  Ja.nd’_V__Lessee
\nagree to an es_calatio:i””o’f* at  of the
\nmonthly  last’_pay’abieVon_ce=in’ every three (3)
\nYears.”       *  ‘<\/p>\n
The leaselof im1noirabl,e.”prop.erty is de\ufb01ned in Section 105<\/p>\n
of the Trarisfer   A transfer of right to enjoy a
\n ibonsiderativonlddof a price paid or promised to be
\n or on speci\ufb01ed occasions is the basic
\nx””‘V’fabric  lease. The provision says that such a transfer\n<\/p>\n
–  madevexpressly or by implication. Once there is such a
\n  right to enjoy a property, a lease stands created.<\/p>\n
.   __second paragraph of Section 107 of the Transfer of<\/p>\n
\\\\\/S”\n<\/p>\n
M12-\n<\/p>\n
Property Act clarifies that a lease by orai agreernent<\/p>\n
accompanied by delivery of possession is sufficient, if lease<\/p>\n
does not fall in first paragraph of Section 107.  ‘<\/p>\n
if the document is not registered, but_the’_1essee’was \u00bbindu:c.tedtgV if<\/p>\n
in possession, it is enough for the pu:1\u00a2posfeicre_a’tionn o1″f’j”t1rai.:<\/p>\n
relationship between the parties;’:_Ii1. the case of ‘0NY~i—vs– r L’<\/p>\n
K.C.ITTO0P 82. SONS ( 2900 (6)_:scc\u00ab.,.f394j; ‘ t_ held that,
\nwhen a lease is transfer    property and
\nsuch transfer can be made or…’hy1vp,in1p1ication, the
\nmere fact that  into existence
\nwould not stand   determine whether
\nthere    through such deed.\n<\/p>\n
When it is  that the respondents were<\/p>\n
inducted into possessiontof building by the owner thereof<\/p>\n
 the leasevdeeds and that the respondents were<\/p>\n
“‘re’nt:”or’ agreed to pay rent in respect of the<\/p>\n
  V.Vvbuildingfthegiegaieicharacter of the respondents possession has<\/p>\n
gtovbe att1’ihujt.ed to a jural relationship between the parties.<\/p>\n
  jurai relationship cannot be placed anything different<\/p>\n
V”\n<\/p>\n
V. 13 _
\nfrom that of lessor and lessee falling within the purview of the<\/p>\n
second para of Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act:–.__<\/p>\n
7. In the case of BURMAH SHELL OIL D1STRI;*3:t:I’Ii’h_’*J:(}vv\u00a2–<\/p>\n
vs~ KHAJA MIDHAT NOOR (AIR 1988 so 1470);}: p\u00e9.::~2\u00a7;5,l:’.ite <\/p>\n
is observed thus :\n<\/p>\n
” In view of the paragraphs  1o*:7_ \u00a2; .th\u00a7 ‘vii A
\nAct, since the lease was for “a _ period exceeding.i.oneVVV
\nyear. it could only have  _ extend:_edV’:  a
\nregistered instrument.v_execatedxt.:loyVVjboth the”les”sor<\/p>\n
and the lessee. the   registered
\ninstrument, the leases-shaill  be “lease<\/p>\n
from month’to,i:i1′:nonth”;    the very<\/p>\n
languag.eth.e Act which postulates
\nthatva lease_oj”\u00bb” property from year to
\nyear, for   exceeding one year. or<\/p>\n
,, .i_\u00a7eserving  .._vvyearl_1:,v rent. can be made on a
\nv’Vi’regEisterecl_ instrarnent. In the absence of reatstered<\/p>\n
V  V    must be a monthlu lease. The lessee
\nA.  the;_\u00a7;tth–lessee in facts of this case continued
\n“to  in possession of the property on paument
\nofrent as a tenant from month to month. The High<\/p>\n
A it _C_7?ourt so found. We are of the opinion that the Htqh<\/p>\n
‘ Court was gig’ ht.”\n<\/p>\n
(Emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
-14.,<\/p>\n
In the matter on hand, Clause 1 (a) and Clause 3(aj”–and<\/p>\n
(i) [mentioned supra} of the Lease Deeds prima facie,..r_eJve,ai,.<\/p>\n
the lessees have not only agreed to pay monthly-._:revn’ti,  V’ <\/p>\n
before 10th of concerned month, butjaA1Aso’tr)g_ pay;<\/p>\n
periodically. Hence, i find that <\/p>\n
remain in possession for about ‘three months*..as_.t1;ie tenants V<\/p>\n
from month to month. a A  _\n<\/p>\n
8. Moreover, the 155:7 49 of the
\nRegistration Act speci\ufb01ca\ufb02y'”mfentionsg   unregistered<\/p>\n
document may. the received as .__\u00ab’eiii<t1e11ce of any collateral<\/p>\n
transaction'   effected by registered document.
\nA document rea_ui1'ed"i:iy .1_a'W__gt'o.,b*e registered, if unregistered, is<\/p>\n
inadmissible as eyide1\ufb01ce'*of *9; transaction affecting immovable<\/p>\n
'Vprope1"i.3.xf:; but it mayKloe"'atimitted as evidence of coilateral facts.<\/p>\n
or_ffo'ra'ny 'co_iIatera1–purpose, that is for any purpose other than<\/p>\n
  that'creatirigI,_ declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing<\/p>\n
vff=._g__4a.right to immovable property. The proviso clearly empowers<\/p>\n
  the Courts to admit any unregistered document as evidence of<\/p>\n
 gcdollaterai transaction not required to be registered. { See the<\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n
— 1.5 —\n<\/p>\n
judgments in the cases of (1) Satish Chand Makhan and<\/p>\n
others –vs– Govardhan Das Byas and others
\n(MANU\/SC\/0691\/1998 : AIR 1984 SC 143), and (2) Rai
\nChand Jain —vs– Miss.Chandra Kanta Kftosla<\/p>\n
(MANU\/SC\/0185\/1991 :AIR 1991 SC 744).\n<\/p>\n
In the case of National Agriculturallbogoaieratio\u00e9 _ <\/p>\n
Marketing Federation India Ltd., -fiJs-  <\/p>\n
2007 (5) SCC 692), the Apex_C_ourt lhelcls. that lat: l:arbitr’ation”V.s<\/p>\n
clause is a collateral term in th’e\ufb01’contrae’t,_ivhiehlllrelates to
\nresolution of disputes,  notllllgjteiforniance. H\u00b0E’\\}Ven if the<\/p>\n
performance of the contract-Ieo:nes5to_.-,an.’.e:od on account of<\/p>\n
repudiati’on,:\ufb01ustration _o’r.u};$reach of contract, the arbitration<\/p>\n
agreement Woiilcl  the purpose of resolution of<\/p>\n
 disputes arising under or in connection with the contract. This<\/p>\n
.A’–._plosit_i.on  statu-t.orily recognised under Section 16(1) of the Act,<\/p>\n
Wliieh,Vtiriter..,,aiio;”‘f)roVides that an arbitration clause which<\/p>\n
V _forrns'”–parf__t ofthe contract, has to be treated as an agreement<\/p>\n
:'”v’.l’*–independent of the other terms of the contract and a decision<\/p>\n
  contract is null and Void shall not entail ipso jure the<\/p>\n
 ‘veinxralidity of the arbitration clause.<\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n
-{6_<\/p>\n
9. From the de\ufb01nition of the “arbitration agreement”<\/p>\n
under Section 7 of the Arbitration Act of 1996, it is cle’.ar’\u00bbthat<\/p>\n
the arbitration agreement does not require I’6giStl7a\ufb01’OI._1.”.VVj’ <\/p>\n
particular form is also prescribed. AI} that is  that _& it <\/p>\n
the arbitration agreement has :.o'”” be ._ in <\/p>\n
unregistered Lease Deed, can be looked. intogfor=coIia.teraI’,<\/p>\n
purpose. The unregistered lease agreements “containing V<\/p>\n
arbitration clause can  be psegi\u00e9[g’a.t\u00e9d._ and”*treated as
\nindependent agreement   signe_d by both the
\nparties which is..::bindir;ig’  An arbitration
\nagreement which  ‘recognised by the Act. It is
\nnecessarypthat  be reduced in writing and the<\/p>\n
agreement b’etWeenVVVthe:parti_es on such written terms is to be<\/p>\n
_yVestab1js\u00a7hed. As V’a’forementioned, the arbitration agreement is<\/p>\n
in V,not’reegui.red.’to’A’be in any particular form. If the intention of the<\/p>\n
pa;.tie.3_ the dispute to an Arbitrator, and if it can be<\/p>\n
 ‘clear1y”—ascertained from the terms of the agreement, or from<\/p>\n
 facts “and circumstances of the case, it is immaterial<\/p>\n
 wdhegthcri or not the agreement is registered. ( see the case of<\/p>\n
-17-<\/span><\/p>\n
NANDAN BIOMATRIX LIMITED -113\u00bb D.I. OILS LIMITED [<\/p>\n
(2009) 4 SCC 4-95).\n<\/p>\n
10. The arbitration clause is quite distinct_.–frlo’in’ .<\/p>\n
clauses of the contract. Other clauses ofmthe agreern\u00e9jray tmp’ose l u ”<\/p>\n
obligation, which the parties undertalge t_ow.ards. detach <\/p>\n
But the arbitration clause does7not
\nparties, any obligation in favourthe  The
\narbitration agreement em’bodies  betvtteen the
\nparties that, in case of  settled by an
\nArbitrator or Umpi_red-ajsliihthe lease  be?’it—-isilpertinent to note<\/p>\n
that there is niateriial differen\u00e9je gin\ufb01an\ufb02arbitration agreement,<\/p>\n
inasmuch  in’ lccolntraet; the obligation of the parties
\nto each othercannotl”‘general, be specifically enforced and<\/p>\n
breach such tern1’s._.ot contract results only in damages. The<\/p>\n
v’arbi’trat_ion \u00abhowever can be specifically enforced by the<\/p>\n
maci2.in’eryA it”_the’V.l.:;’Arbitration Act. In the case of ASHOK<\/p>\n
 frgansfes .a’Ns47″ANoTHER ~vs~ GURUMUKH DAS SALUJA<\/p>\n
it  otrfzsks (AIR 2004 so 1433), it has been categorically<\/p>\n
  in the scheme of Arbitration Act, 1996, the<\/p>\n
it arbitration clause is separable from other clauses of a Deed<\/p>\n
V”?\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
-13,<\/p>\n
and it constitutes an agreement by itself. The Apex Court in its<\/p>\n
recent judgment in the case of P.1m4NOHAR REDDY <\/p>\n
BROS. -~vs~ MAHARASHTRA KRISHNA <\/p>\n
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND OTHERS (Az1\u00e9’.\u00e9ooQ—  _<\/p>\n
1776], has observed that, an arbitration cla_u’s”e;’~  v’w,eli\u00bb,.v ll”<\/p>\n
known, is part of the contract. It being afoollaterale.terrrilineed’<\/p>\n
not, in all situations, perish w:3’th\u00ab.__eoniirigll’toV an_v:lvle.nd..,_V.of jthe
\ncontract. It may survive. This   of the
\narbitration clause is  Airbus, the
\narbitration Clause which    shall be<\/p>\n
treated as an agifeei\ufb01tehnt .::5,ncief5endent”xof–other terms of the<\/p>\n
contract. ‘ \u00abV.,_tl1e_ Arbitral Tribunal that the
\ncontract is vnulll=and’ Void,’ not entail ipsojure the invalidity<\/p>\n
of the arbitration cllause. A<\/p>\n
 i ,   above, it is clear that the arbitration clause<\/p>\n
in the”‘lagreen*ientVl.l.sliall have to be treated as an independent<\/p>\n
V lvagreernent betv.’een the parties and will have to be enforced as<\/p>\n
:.”.A,\u00a7i;1LCrlit _’_I’he”said Clause\/agreement does not depend upon the<\/p>\n
 invalidity of the agreement between the parties.<\/p>\n
W’<\/p>\n
041904<\/p>\n
12. There is no requirement that the arbitration<\/p>\n
agreement should be registered. Where the statute [Section 7<\/p>\n
of the Arbitration Act of 1996) has gone to great lengthsil~tro<\/p>\n
de\ufb01ne exactly what is meant by the term “in  .<\/p>\n
precluded from adding another term to the de\ufb01r1i’Li’on_.Vv blnideedisi it <\/p>\n
it is contrary to all rules of construction to reiadayxfords linto_anvr it<\/p>\n
Act unless it is absoiutely necessaryto dorsol Since’l’sta_i\u00a7.ute  ;<\/p>\n
is abundantly clear and unambiguously’ ‘this Cllourtldoesvgnot \ufb01nd
\nany reason to read certain  the _One of the main
\nobjectives of the Arbitrationyszict of .l_9\u00a3l_6,”isV.to~:l..nfii–nimise the role<\/p>\n
of the Court; additional requirernerits to the Act is<\/p>\n
antithetical to  a   adds a number of extra
\nrequirements \u00bb\u00bbseals, registration and originals,<\/p>\n
I would be enhancVingV”my”ro1’e; not minimising it. What is even<\/p>\n
 rn-ore Worrisoniey is thatiiie parties’ intention to arbitrate would<\/p>\n
b’es_’_fo-Llye\u00e9i  Section 7 of the Arbitration Act of 1996<\/p>\n
  does’  require}: that the parties stamp the agreement. it<\/p>\n
 xivoyuld be ~~i.nC;r>rrect to disturb the Pariiamenfs intention when it<\/p>\n
 .A__is”‘soV clearly stated and when it in no Way conflicts with the<\/p>\n
ll”  .___”(ionlstitution.\n<\/p>\n
‘YD<\/p>\n
Q0-\n<\/p>\n
13. The next contention of the respondents that the<\/p>\n
petitioner ought to have filed two petitions instead of too<\/p>\n
technical in nature. May be, the petitioner could   _<\/p>\n
petitions. However, the petitioner has chosen’\u00bb–to:r.fi’l’e.: sing1e”=<\/p>\n
petition. Mere \ufb01ling of single petition <\/p>\n
throw away the case of the .petitioner,  At   <\/p>\n
petitioner may be directed to  g:e’tv’:of’:court fee.
\nSuch a procedure may cureiihe  it<\/p>\n
14. Since the. disputesihhave  to the lease
\nagreements, .and4  in question clearly
\nreveal that the    to refer the matter to
\narbitration for :d’i–spute, it is a fit case to exercise<\/p>\n
jurisdiction  (6) of the Arbitration and<\/p>\n
 Conciliation Act,’ ~  Accordingly, the following order is<\/p>\n
 made:\n<\/p>\n
 Just_ice:'”K\ufb01hivashankar Bhat, Retired Judge of this<\/p>\n
 _Court;~– .’.,N\u00a2;47oi\/29, 12th Main, R.M.V. Extension,<\/p>\n
W H ” t\u00e9adashivanagar, Bangalore–80, is appointed as Sole Arbitrator<\/p>\n
 reselye the dispute between the parties. Learned Arbitrator<\/p>\n
‘:’_”eon—treceipt of copy of this order wili enter upon the reference,<\/p>\n
A\u00bb<\/p>\n
.,2].,<\/p>\n
issue notice to the parties and then proceed to resolye the
\ndispute in accordance with Arbitration and C0I1CillEi’tit;3:.I1_’A(V3’\u20ac,<\/p>\n
1996.\n<\/p>\n
Office is directed to send the ‘copy of this”  ”<\/p>\n
learned Arbitrator forthwith. It is furtheridirectedl  tire<\/p>\n
original papers if any, filed 2-1lVo’ng  the  <\/p>\n
petitioner to produce the same befoie the Arbitrator. V}
\nPetitioner is directed to pay ._set of court fee in
\nthe registry of this office witl’iinffor:.r  today.<\/p>\n
It is rna_.cie. tl1a_’t__th_e le_arr;ed llrbitrator shall not be<\/p>\n
bound by the,Vobseityationrswwhich have been made in
\nthis judglmenty ‘l7lieA:.tjqcbseryati’ons have been made only to
\ndecideyythis arbitration petition.\n<\/p>\n
‘  yx ‘- vsrfh\u00e9”Petition is Vcviillowed accordingly.<\/p>\n
Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
JUDGE<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Sri A B Mallikarjuna vs Jubliant Biosys Limited on 13 October, 2009 Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE DATED THIS THE 13*” DAY OF OCTOBER BEFORE : THE HON’BLE MRJUSTICE MOHAl:\\%_SI~{AiS?”1;A.l\u00a7)T4(\u00a7C)UV\u00a7)IiAi\u00a7*4._:\u00e9 C.M.P. No.206;\u00a5.3009’v- A: A Between 2 A.B.Ma11i.kar_;una .. v Aged about 59 years,,_ . V Son […]<\/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-157921","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSri A B Mallikarjuna vs Jubliant Biosys Limited on 13 October, 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-a-b-mallikarjuna-vs-jubliant-biosys-limited-on-13-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sri A B Mallikarjuna vs Jubliant Biosys Limited on 13 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-a-b-mallikarjuna-vs-jubliant-biosys-limited-on-13-october-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=\"2009-10-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-13T07:46:12+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=\"18 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-a-b-mallikarjuna-vs-jubliant-biosys-limited-on-13-october-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-a-b-mallikarjuna-vs-jubliant-biosys-limited-on-13-october-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sri A B Mallikarjuna vs Jubliant Biosys Limited on 13 October, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-13T07:46:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-a-b-mallikarjuna-vs-jubliant-biosys-limited-on-13-october-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3385,\"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-a-b-mallikarjuna-vs-jubliant-biosys-limited-on-13-october-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-a-b-mallikarjuna-vs-jubliant-biosys-limited-on-13-october-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-a-b-mallikarjuna-vs-jubliant-biosys-limited-on-13-october-2009\",\"name\":\"Sri A B Mallikarjuna vs Jubliant Biosys Limited on 13 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-13T07:46:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-a-b-mallikarjuna-vs-jubliant-biosys-limited-on-13-october-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-a-b-mallikarjuna-vs-jubliant-biosys-limited-on-13-october-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-a-b-mallikarjuna-vs-jubliant-biosys-limited-on-13-october-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sri A B Mallikarjuna vs Jubliant Biosys Limited on 13 October, 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 A B Mallikarjuna vs Jubliant Biosys Limited on 13 October, 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-a-b-mallikarjuna-vs-jubliant-biosys-limited-on-13-october-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sri A B Mallikarjuna vs Jubliant Biosys Limited on 13 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-a-b-mallikarjuna-vs-jubliant-biosys-limited-on-13-october-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-10-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-13T07:46:12+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-a-b-mallikarjuna-vs-jubliant-biosys-limited-on-13-october-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-a-b-mallikarjuna-vs-jubliant-biosys-limited-on-13-october-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sri A B Mallikarjuna vs Jubliant Biosys Limited on 13 October, 2009","datePublished":"2009-10-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-13T07:46:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-a-b-mallikarjuna-vs-jubliant-biosys-limited-on-13-october-2009"},"wordCount":3385,"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-a-b-mallikarjuna-vs-jubliant-biosys-limited-on-13-october-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-a-b-mallikarjuna-vs-jubliant-biosys-limited-on-13-october-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-a-b-mallikarjuna-vs-jubliant-biosys-limited-on-13-october-2009","name":"Sri A B Mallikarjuna vs Jubliant Biosys Limited on 13 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-10-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-13T07:46:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-a-b-mallikarjuna-vs-jubliant-biosys-limited-on-13-october-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-a-b-mallikarjuna-vs-jubliant-biosys-limited-on-13-october-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-a-b-mallikarjuna-vs-jubliant-biosys-limited-on-13-october-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sri A B Mallikarjuna vs Jubliant Biosys Limited on 13 October, 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\/157921","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=157921"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/157921\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=157921"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=157921"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=157921"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}