{"id":158394,"date":"2010-03-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/spectrum-estates-private-ltd-vs-act-and-having-their-address-at-on-2-march-2010"},"modified":"2018-09-29T20:04:42","modified_gmt":"2018-09-29T14:34:42","slug":"spectrum-estates-private-ltd-vs-act-and-having-their-address-at-on-2-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/spectrum-estates-private-ltd-vs-act-and-having-their-address-at-on-2-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"Spectrum Estates Private Ltd vs Act And Having Their Address At on 2 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Spectrum Estates Private Ltd vs Act And Having Their Address At on 2 March, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: Anoop V.Mohta<\/div>\n
    Arbp412.09                               1\n\n                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n                    ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                                                                             \n                        ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 412 OF 2009\n\n\n\n\n                                                     \n    Spectrum Estates Private Ltd.,\n    A Private Limited Company incorporated\n\n\n\n\n                                                    \n    under the provisions of the Companies\n    Act 1956 and carrying on business at\n    35, Interlink Industrial Estate,\n    Caves Road, Jogeshwari (East),\n\n\n\n\n                                                \n    Mumbai-400 080.           ig                              ...Petitioner.\n\n\n                  Vs.\n                            \n    Charkop Gagan Vihar CHS Limited,\n    A Co-operative Housing Society\n         \n\n    Incorporated under the provisions of\n    the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies \n      \n\n\n\n    Act and having their address at, A\/1,\n    R.D.P.-7, Plot No.A\/2, R.S.C.-52 &\n    Plot No. A\/1, R.S.C.-59, MHADA Lay-out,\n\n\n\n\n\n    Charkop-Kandivli (West), \n    Mumbai-400 067 and having\n    address for communication at Shri Anil G. Jadhav,\n\n\n\n\n\n    the Administrator Charkop Gagan Vihar\n    C.H.S. Ltd., C\/o. P.H. Patil, Building\n    No. 6, Room No.26, Near Police Colony,\n    Mahim (West), \n    Mumbai-400 016.                                  ...Respondent.\n\n\n    Mr. Milind Sathe, Sr. Counsel with Mr. Mukul Taly with Mr. Sheikh Yusuf Ali \n    i\/by M\/s. Mohmedbhai & Co. for the Petitioner.\n\n\n\n                                                     ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:39:41 :::\n     Arbp412.09                                     2\n\n    Mr. Arif Bookwala, Sr. Counsel with Mr. Kiran Gandhi i\/by M\/s. Little & Co. \n    for the Respondent.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                         \n                                     CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                                     DATED  :-  2ND MARCH, 2010.\n<\/p>\n
    JUDGMENT:-\n<\/p>\n
    1            The   Petitioner   has   invoked   Section   9   of   the   Arbitration   and <\/p>\n
    Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act) for interim relief\/ <\/p>\n
    protection   in   view   of   the   Memorandum   of   Understanding   (MoU)\/ <\/p>\n
    Agreement dated 1st March, 2008.\n<\/p>\n
    2            The basic events are as under:-\n<\/p>\n
                 In the year 2002, Mr. S.C. Pandey as the Chief Promoter of Gagan <\/p>\n
    Vihar   CHS   (proposed)   applied   to   MHADA   (Maharashtra   Housing   and <\/p>\n
    Development Authority) for allotment of land for the Co-operative Housing <\/p>\n
    Society of Central Government Employees.\n<\/p>\n
    3            On 06\/12\/2007, MHADA by its letter of allotment bearing No.8512 <\/p>\n
    and   dated   06\/12\/2007   allotted   land   bearing   No.   RSC-52,   RSC-59   and <\/p>\n
    RDP-7 admeasuring in the aggregate  4179.69 sq. mts. Situate at Charkop, <\/p>\n
    Kandivli Mumbai in favour of the Gagan Vihar C.H.S. (proposed).\n<\/p>\n
    4            On 06\/12\/2007, the essential condition of the letter of allotment was <\/p>\n
    that   an   amount   of   Rs.3,13,69,015\/-   towards   cost   of   land   be   paid   to <\/p>\n
    MHADA within 30 days from the date of receipt of the letter of allotment.\n<\/p>\n
    The said letter of allotment also stipulated that in the event of the allottee <\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:39:41 :::<\/span>
\n     Arbp412.09                                      3<\/span><\/p>\n
    not being able to pay the land cost to MHADA within 30 days a further <\/p>\n
    extension of 90 days would be given on the written request of the allottee <\/p>\n
    and   on   payment   of   interest   at   13.5%   p.a..     The   said   allotment   also <\/p>\n
    stipulated that on the expiration of the extended   period of 90 days the <\/p>\n
    allotment would stand cancelled.\n<\/p>\n
    5            On 30\/12\/2007, the Chief Promoter and other members approached <\/p>\n
    Developers as such a huge amount need to be paid within the stipulated <\/p>\n
    time.  At a meeting of the members held on 30\/12\/2007, the Offers were <\/p>\n
    scrutinized and the proposal of the Petitioner was accepted.\n<\/p>\n
    6            On 02\/01\/2008, the MoU dated 02\/01\/2008 was executed by the <\/p>\n
    Chief Promoter of the Respondent in favour of the Petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
    7            On   04\/01\/2008,   the   Petitioner   paid   the   consideration   of   Rs.\n<\/p>\n
    1,00,00,000\/- (Rupees One Crore only) to MHADA within the stipulated <\/p>\n
    time.\n<\/p>\n
    8            On 17\/01\/2008, the Respondent Society was registered.\n<\/p>\n
    9            On   02\/02\/2008,   the   1st  General   Body   Meeting   of   the   Respondent <\/p>\n
    Society   was   held   and   the   resolution   to  grant  development   rights   to   the <\/p>\n
    Respondent Society was unanimously passed.\n<\/p>\n
    10           On 01\/03\/2008, the Development Agreement was executed between <\/p>\n
    the Respondent Society and the Petitioners for the development of the said <\/p>\n
    land and the Power of Attorney was also granted to the Developers.  Both <\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:39:41 :::<\/span>
\n     Arbp412.09                                   4<\/span><\/p>\n
    the documents are duly registered.\n<\/p>\n
    11           On 11\/08\/2008, letter from the Petitioner to the MHADA requesting <\/p>\n
    them to take steps to give possession of the said land.\n<\/p>\n
    12           On 03\/10\/2008, letter from the Petitioners to MHADA explaining the <\/p>\n
    cause for delay in taking possession of the said land.\n<\/p>\n
    13           On 16\/10\/2008, letter from the Petitioners to the Respondents being <\/p>\n
    the   2nd  reminder.     This   letter   makes   a   detailed   reference   to   the <\/p>\n
    consideration   paid   by   the   Petitioner   in   consideration   of   the   Agreement <\/p>\n
    dated   1st  March,   2008   and   the   irrevocable   power   of   attorney   in <\/p>\n
    consideration thereof.\n<\/p>\n
    14           On   17\/11\/2008,   the   Petitioner   received   a   letter   from   the <\/p>\n
    Administrator along with the identical letters from the members denying <\/p>\n
    the knowledge of registered Agreement dated 01\/03\/2008.\n<\/p>\n
    15           On 24\/11\/2008, a letter from the Petitioner to the Administrator of <\/p>\n
    the Respondent Society being a reply to the letter dated 17\/11\/2008. On or <\/p>\n
    about 2nd Week of December, 2008, the copies of the resolution passed on <\/p>\n
    29th November, 2008, was received by the Petitioners from some members.\n<\/p>\n
    16           On 18\/12\/2008, a letter from the Petitioner to the Administrator of <\/p>\n
    the Respondent Society invoking the Arbitration Clause.\n<\/p>\n
    17           On 20\/01\/2009, a reply letter from the Advocate for the Respondent <\/p>\n
    addressed to the Advocate for the Petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:39:41 :::<\/span>
\n     Arbp412.09                                        5<\/span><\/p>\n
    18           On 22\/01\/2009, further letter dated 22\/01\/2009 addressed by the <\/p>\n
    Advocate for the Petitioner to the Advocate for the Respondent.\n<\/p>\n
    19           In   the   month   of   June,   2009,   the   Petitioner   has   learnt   that   the <\/p>\n
    Respondent   is   taking   steps   to   appoint   a   developer   in   respect   of   the <\/p>\n
    property.\n<\/p>\n
    20           This Court on 19th June, 2009, after considering the averments made <\/p>\n
    in paragraph 14 and as the case was made out, granted ad-interim relief in <\/p>\n
    terms of prayer (a) and also directed to the parties to maintain status-quo <\/p>\n
    while admitting the matter.\n<\/p>\n
    21           Heard   the   parties   finally.   The   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the <\/p>\n
    Respondent   has   contended   that   there   is   no   agreement   and   arbitration <\/p>\n
    clause which entitled the Petitioner to invoke the provisions of Arbitration <\/p>\n
    Act as done in the present case.  The strong reliance was placed on Nasir  <\/p>\n
    Hussain Films Pvt. Ltd Vs. Saregama India Ltd. & Anr. Appeal No. 457  <\/p>\n
                                                             th
\n     of 2007 in Arbitration Petition No. 81 of 2007, dated 7
\n                                                                 April, 2008   <\/p>\n
    And   Oberoi   Construction   Pvt.   Ltd.   Vs.   Worli   Shivshahi   Co.op.   Hsg.\n<\/p>\n
    Society Ltd., 2008(5) Bom.C.R. 855.  and thereby contended that before <\/p>\n
    passing any order under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, the Court must <\/p>\n
    consider the existence of agreement, as well as, Arbitrable dispute.\n<\/p>\n
    22           It is settled that existence of Arbitration Agreement\/ clause read with <\/p>\n
    Arbitrable dispute are must before passing any order under Section 9 of the <\/p>\n
    Arbitration Act.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:39:41 :::<\/span>
\n     Arbp412.09                                       6<\/span><\/p>\n
    23           I   have   already   observed   in  Perma   Container   (UK)   Line   Ltd.   Vs.  <\/p>\n
    Perma Container Line (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., MANU\/MH\/1045\/2009, <\/p>\n
    after considering above Judgments cited by the learned counsel appearing <\/p>\n
    for   the   Respondent   and   by   following   the   Supreme   Court   Judgment   in <\/p>\n
    National   Insurance   Company   Limited   Vs.   Boghara   Polyfab   Pvt.   Ltd.\n<\/p>\n
    2009 (4) Bom. C.R. 891,  that the Court before passing any order under <\/p>\n
    Section   9,   need   to   consider   and   observe   prima   facie   the   existence   of <\/p>\n
    agreement\/Arbitration Clause and Arbitrable issue, as relied by the learned <\/p>\n
    senior   counsel   appearing   for   the   Petitioner,   and   passed   interim   order\/ <\/p>\n
    injunction under Section 9 by observing as under:-\n<\/p>\n
                 “31    It   is   observed   in  Adhunik   Steels   Ltd.   V\/s.   Orissa  <\/p>\n
                 Manganese and Minerals (P) Ltd. In (2007) 7 S.C.C. 125), <\/p>\n
                 referring to the Siskina (1979) AC 210,<\/p>\n
                        “The   right   to   obtain   an   interlocutory   injunction   is
\n                 merely ancillary and incidental  to the pre-existing cause of
\n                 action.   It is granted to preserve the status quo pending the
\n                 ascertainment by the court of the rights of the parties and the
\n                 grant to the plaintiff of the relief to which his cause of action <\/p>\n
                 entitles   him,   which   may   or   may   not   include   a   final
\n                 injunction.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 “16. Recently, in  Fourie V. Le Roux, (2007) 1 W.L.R. 320,
\n                 the  house of Lords  speaking  through Lord Scott of  Foscote
\n                 stated:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                        “An   interlocutory   injunction,   like   any   other   interim
\n                 order, is intended to be of temporary duration, dependent on <\/p>\n
                                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:39:41 :::<\/span>
\n     Arbp412.09                                           7<\/span><\/p>\n
                 the   institution   and   progress   of   some   proceedings   for
\n                 substantive relief.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 45     It   is   observed   in  Kishorsinh   Ratansinh   Jadeja   v.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 Maruti Corp. & Ors., JT 2009 (5) SC 180 as under :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                         “12 In   addition   to   the   above,   Mr.Ranjit   Kumar   also
\n                 referred to the decision of this Court in  Mandali Ranganna &
\n                 ors   v.   T.   Ramachandra   [2008   (11)   SCC   1]  wherein   an
\n                 additional   principle   was   sought   to   be   enunciated   relating   to
\n                 grant of injunction by way of an equitable relief.  This Court held <\/p>\n
                 that   in   addition   to   the   three   basic   principles,   a   Court   while
\n                 granting   injunction   must   also   take   into   consideration   the  <\/p>\n
                 conduct of the parties. …..”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 46      The  Apex  Court   in  Adhunik   Steels  Ltd.  (Supra)    has <\/p>\n
                 observed:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 “It is true that Section 9 of the Act speaks of the Court by way of
\n                 an   interim   measure   passing   an   order   for   protection,   for   the  <\/p>\n
                 preservation, interim custody or sale of any goods, which are
\n                 the   subject-matter   of   the   arbitration   agreement   and   such
\n                 interim measure of protection as may appear to the court to be
\n                 just and convenient.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 “Moreover,   when   a   party   is   given   a   right   to   approach   an
\n                 ordinary   court   of   the   country   without   providing   a   special
\n                 procedure or a special set of rules in that behalf, the ordinary
\n                 rules followed by that court would govern the exercise of power
\n                 conferred by the Act.   On that basis also, it is not possible to  <\/p>\n
                 keep out the concept of balance of convenience, prima facie case,
\n                 irreparable injury and the concept of just and convenient while
\n                 passing interim measures under Section 9 of the Act.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    24           In   view   of   above   fact,   there   remained  no   dispute  that   the  parties <\/p>\n
    have  acted   upon   the   said  agreement\/   clauses   of   agreement\/  MOU,  that <\/p>\n
    itself sufficient to consider that the Petitioner has right\/ entitled to specific <\/p>\n
                                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:39:41 :::<\/span>
\n     Arbp412.09                                   8<\/span><\/p>\n
    performance of the agreement as the interest has also been created in the <\/p>\n
    land  (Chheda   Housing   Development   Corporation   Vs.   Bibijan   Shaikh  <\/p>\n
    Farid & Ors. 2007 (3), Mh.L.J. 403, and as the Petitioner based upon the <\/p>\n
    agreement,   acted   and   made   the   payment   initially   of   Rs.1   Crore   to   the <\/p>\n
    MHADA on 04\/01\/2008 and the balance of Rs.1,93,98,827\/-, thereafter.\n<\/p>\n
    On   2nd  February,   2008,   the   Respondent   Society   unanimously   passed   the <\/p>\n
    resolution   confirming   the   grant   of   development   rights   in   favour   of   the <\/p>\n
    Petitioner with Arbitration Clause 13 of the agreement. The Respondent <\/p>\n
    also   executed   and   delivered   an   irrevocable   power   of   attorney   dated   1st <\/p>\n
    March, 2008 in favour of the Petitioner for necessary acts arising out of the <\/p>\n
    said   agreement.   The   said   power   of   attorney   was   also   registered.   The <\/p>\n
    averments  made  in Para 14 of the  Petition  are not substantially denied, <\/p>\n
    except   now   raising   the   plea   that   the   signatures   on   the   General   Body <\/p>\n
    Resolution   are   dishonest,  fraudulent     with   intention   to   create  valid  and <\/p>\n
    binding   resolution   and   the   agreement.   The   issue   with   regard   to   the <\/p>\n
    fabrication   of   the   document   and\/or   of   forged   signature   is   a   matter   of <\/p>\n
    detailed   trial   and   inquiry   before   the   Arbitral   Tribunal.   The   existence   of <\/p>\n
    document, in view of above, itself is not in dispute and also the Arbitration <\/p>\n
    Clause. The challenge by reply, is to the validity and\/or execution of those <\/p>\n
    documents.\n<\/p>\n
    25           Therefore, to say there exists no agreement or valid agreement or <\/p>\n
    Arbitration   clause,   in   view   of   above   itself   is   unacceptable.   Under   what <\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:39:41 :::<\/span>
\n     Arbp412.09                                          9<\/span><\/p>\n
    circumstance   those   documents   were   executed   by   the   authorized   or <\/p>\n
    unauthorized person or by misrepresentation or by playing fraud, that itself <\/p>\n
    cannot be the reason to overlook, at this stage, under Section 9, that there <\/p>\n
    exists no agreement\/ MOU\/ Arbitration Clause between the parties.  In my <\/p>\n
    view, there exists Arbitration Agreement and Arbitrable dispute.\n<\/p>\n
    26           The   learned   senior   counsel   appearing   for   the   Petitioner   has   also <\/p>\n
    relied on 2010(1) Bom. C.R. 360, Godrej Industries Ltd. Vs. Jer Rutton  <\/p>\n
    Kavasmaneck (Alias Jer Jaswahar Thadani) & Ors..  In that matter also <\/p>\n
    validity of the MOU, having Arbitration Clause was challenged.   In that <\/p>\n
    case also the submission was that MOU is not enforceable and not binding <\/p>\n
    agreement.  I have already held in para 27, 28 as under:-\n<\/p>\n
                 “27. The   Petitioner,   therefore,   in   my   view,   has   made   out   a  <\/p>\n
                 sufficient   case   under   Section   9   of   the   Act   read   with   Order  <\/p>\n
                 40,Rules 1 and 2 and\/or Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of
\n                 Civil  Procedure  (C.P.C.)   for   appropriate  order  and\/or   interim
\n                 measure as sought, unless and until the case of respondents 4
\n                 and 5 is accepted and\/or decided finally in their favour through  <\/p>\n
                 the   Arbitral   Tribunal   which   the   parties   are   free   to   appoint\/
\n                 constitute as per the MOU.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 28. There is no power under Section 9 of the Act to decide
\n                 and   declare   such   MOU   null   and   void   finally.     The   Arbitral
\n                 Tribunal may do so.   Therefore, unless it is declared so, in <\/p>\n
                 view   of   the   agreed   and   signed   MOU   and   the   respective
\n                 clauses   referred   above,  that  itself,  in   my   view,  sufficient   to
\n                 maintain the interim order already granted and\/or pass such
\n                 interim measure\/protection as prayed.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    27           In the present case, therefore, without observing anything on merits <\/p>\n
    of   the   matter   with   regard   to   the   rival   submissions   so   raised   on   the <\/p>\n
    documents about its validity, at this stage, as prima faice the case is made <\/p>\n
                                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:39:41 :::<\/span>
\n     Arbp412.09                                  10<\/span><\/p>\n
    out and as the balance of convenience lies in favour of Petitioner and to <\/p>\n
    avoid further complications and to protect\/ secure the property, pending <\/p>\n
    the Arbitration, I am inclined to confirm the interim order passed on 19th <\/p>\n
    June, 2009.  However, a liberty is granted to the parties to take appropriate <\/p>\n
    plea and defence before arbitral tribuanl.   All points are kept open.   This <\/p>\n
    order shall be in operation till the constitution of Tribunal and four weeks <\/p>\n
    thereafter.\n<\/p>\n
    28           The Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). No costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                                       (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:39:41 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Spectrum Estates Private Ltd vs Act And Having Their Address At on 2 March, 2010 Bench: Anoop V.Mohta Arbp412.09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 412 OF 2009 Spectrum Estates Private Ltd., A Private Limited Company incorporated under the provisions of the […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-158394","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSpectrum Estates Private Ltd vs Act And Having Their Address At on 2 March, 2010 - 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\/spectrum-estates-private-ltd-vs-act-and-having-their-address-at-on-2-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Spectrum Estates Private Ltd vs Act And Having Their Address At on 2 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/spectrum-estates-private-ltd-vs-act-and-having-their-address-at-on-2-march-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-03-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-29T14:34:42+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/spectrum-estates-private-ltd-vs-act-and-having-their-address-at-on-2-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/spectrum-estates-private-ltd-vs-act-and-having-their-address-at-on-2-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Spectrum Estates Private Ltd vs Act And Having Their Address At on 2 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-29T14:34:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/spectrum-estates-private-ltd-vs-act-and-having-their-address-at-on-2-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1983,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/spectrum-estates-private-ltd-vs-act-and-having-their-address-at-on-2-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/spectrum-estates-private-ltd-vs-act-and-having-their-address-at-on-2-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/spectrum-estates-private-ltd-vs-act-and-having-their-address-at-on-2-march-2010\",\"name\":\"Spectrum Estates Private Ltd vs Act And Having Their Address At on 2 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-29T14:34:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/spectrum-estates-private-ltd-vs-act-and-having-their-address-at-on-2-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/spectrum-estates-private-ltd-vs-act-and-having-their-address-at-on-2-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/spectrum-estates-private-ltd-vs-act-and-having-their-address-at-on-2-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Spectrum Estates Private Ltd vs Act And Having Their Address At on 2 March, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Spectrum Estates Private Ltd vs Act And Having Their Address At on 2 March, 2010 - 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\/spectrum-estates-private-ltd-vs-act-and-having-their-address-at-on-2-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Spectrum Estates Private Ltd vs Act And Having Their Address At on 2 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/spectrum-estates-private-ltd-vs-act-and-having-their-address-at-on-2-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-29T14:34:42+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/spectrum-estates-private-ltd-vs-act-and-having-their-address-at-on-2-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/spectrum-estates-private-ltd-vs-act-and-having-their-address-at-on-2-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Spectrum Estates Private Ltd vs Act And Having Their Address At on 2 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-29T14:34:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/spectrum-estates-private-ltd-vs-act-and-having-their-address-at-on-2-march-2010"},"wordCount":1983,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/spectrum-estates-private-ltd-vs-act-and-having-their-address-at-on-2-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/spectrum-estates-private-ltd-vs-act-and-having-their-address-at-on-2-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/spectrum-estates-private-ltd-vs-act-and-having-their-address-at-on-2-march-2010","name":"Spectrum Estates Private Ltd vs Act And Having Their Address At on 2 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-29T14:34:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/spectrum-estates-private-ltd-vs-act-and-having-their-address-at-on-2-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/spectrum-estates-private-ltd-vs-act-and-having-their-address-at-on-2-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/spectrum-estates-private-ltd-vs-act-and-having-their-address-at-on-2-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Spectrum Estates Private Ltd vs Act And Having Their Address At on 2 March, 2010"}]},{"@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\/158394","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=158394"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/158394\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=158394"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=158394"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=158394"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}