{"id":167881,"date":"2009-07-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/olympic-industries-vs-mulla-hussainy-bhai-mulla-on-7-july-2009"},"modified":"2016-02-11T05:31:31","modified_gmt":"2016-02-11T00:01:31","slug":"olympic-industries-vs-mulla-hussainy-bhai-mulla-on-7-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/olympic-industries-vs-mulla-hussainy-bhai-mulla-on-7-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"Olympic Industries vs Mulla Hussainy Bhai Mulla … on 7 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Olympic Industries vs Mulla Hussainy Bhai Mulla … on 7 July, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: T Chatterjee<\/div>\n
Bench: Tarun Chatterjee, H.L. Dattu<\/div>\n
                                                                      1\n\n\n                                           REPORTABL\n                                               E\n\n           IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n         CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 4148-4149 OF 2009\n     (Arising out of SLP)Nos.23661-23662 of 2007)\n\nOlympic Industries                                ----Appellant\n\nVersus\n\nMulla Hussainy Bhai Mulla\nAkberally & Ors.                             ....Respondents\n\n\n                         JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.   Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
2.   These appeals are directed against the judgment<\/p>\n
     and order dated 15th of February, 2007 passed by<\/p>\n
     a learned Judge of the High Court of Judicature at<\/p>\n
     Madras in CRP (NPD) No.207 of 2002 and CMP<\/p>\n
     No.2249 of 2002, by which in the exercise of its<\/p>\n
     revisional power, the High Court had rejected the<\/p>\n
     application   for   permission   to   file    additional<\/p>\n
     counter statement.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                 2<\/span><\/p>\n
     3.    The brief facts necessitated for the disposal of<\/p>\n
           these appeals are as follows :\n<\/p>\n
The appellant became tenant under the respondents in<\/p>\n
respect of a portion of premises bearing Door No.37, West<\/p>\n
Mada Church Street, Royapuram, Chennai-13 for non<\/p>\n
residential purposes at a monthly rental of Rs.750\/-. Seeking<\/p>\n
fixation   of   fair   rent   at   Rs.10,177\/-   per   month,   the<\/p>\n
landlord\/respondents filed a petition before the XIIth Judge of<\/p>\n
the Small Causes Court at Chennai. The fair rent was sought<\/p>\n
for on the calculation of cost of construction of Madras<\/p>\n
Terraced Building (960 sq. ft) and Zinc Roofed Building (390<\/p>\n
sq. ft) and market value of the land. In the said application<\/p>\n
for fixation of fair rent, the appellant filed his counter<\/p>\n
statement contending that the monthly rent of Rs.750\/-<\/p>\n
being paid by the appellant was the fair rent and could be<\/p>\n
fixed as fair rent or alternatively to fix the fair rent according<\/p>\n
to the report of the Engineer appointed for that purpose.<\/p>\n
4.   Trial commenced and P.W.1 was examined. At this<\/p>\n
stage, the appellant filed an application seeking permission<\/p>\n
before the Rent Controller to file additional counter statement<\/p>\n
raising a plea that the appellant was the tenant of the land
\n                                                                  3<\/span><\/p>\n
alone in respect of the portion of tenanted premises to the<\/p>\n
extent of about 600 sq. ft. In the additional counter<\/p>\n
statement, the appellant also raised a plea that the<\/p>\n
appellant-Olympic Industries is only a lessee of the land<\/p>\n
measuring about 5600 sq. ft. and lessee of the room<\/p>\n
measuring 400 sq. ft. in the main building.\n<\/p>\n
5.     This application for acceptance of additional counter<\/p>\n
statement was resisted by the respondents alleging that the<\/p>\n
additional    counter     statement     containing       new     and<\/p>\n
inconsistent plea raised by the appellant at the belated stage,<\/p>\n
more    particularly,   after   completion   of    examination    of<\/p>\n
witnesses, could not be allowed as that it would cause<\/p>\n
serious prejudice to the respondents.        The Rent Controller<\/p>\n
allowed the said application, inter alia, on a finding that<\/p>\n
opportunity must be given to the appellant to put forth his<\/p>\n
additional   defence.    Feeling   aggrieved,     the   respondents<\/p>\n
preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority which also<\/p>\n
accepted the additional counter statement, inter alia, on a<\/p>\n
finding that when the existence of the lease was admitted,<\/p>\n
the party, that is the appellant, can file such additional<\/p>\n
counter statement. The Appellate Authority also took the
\n                                                                4<\/span><\/p>\n
view while accepting the additional counter statement that<\/p>\n
the averments in the additional counter statement would not<\/p>\n
alter the position of the parties and that the respondents<\/p>\n
would have sufficient opportunity to challenge the averments<\/p>\n
in the additional counter statement. In revision, the High<\/p>\n
Court had set aside the concurrent orders of the Rent<\/p>\n
Control Authority and rejected the application for acceptance<\/p>\n
of additional counter statement filed by the appellant.<\/p>\n
6.   It is this order which is under challenge before us<\/p>\n
which, on grant of leave, was heard in the presence of the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n
7.   Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and<\/p>\n
after going through the additional counter statement as well<\/p>\n
as the original counter statement and the application for<\/p>\n
fixation of fair rent and other materials on record, we are of<\/p>\n
the view that the High Court was not justified in interfering<\/p>\n
with the concurrent orders of the Rent Control Authorities in<\/p>\n
the exercise of its revisional power. A plain reading of the<\/p>\n
impugned order of the High Court would show that two<\/p>\n
grounds were given by the High Court to reject the<\/p>\n
application   for   acceptance     of   the   additional   counter
\n                                                             5<\/span><\/p>\n
statement filed by the appellant. The first ground was that<\/p>\n
the appellant had filed a belated application for acceptance of<\/p>\n
an additional counter statement when examination of P.W.1<\/p>\n
was already over. So far as this ground is concerned, we do<\/p>\n
not find that delay is a ground for which the additional<\/p>\n
counter statement could not be allowed, as it is well settled<\/p>\n
that mere delay is not sufficient to refuse to allow<\/p>\n
amendment of pleadings or filing of additional counter<\/p>\n
statement. At the same time, delay is no ground for dismissal<\/p>\n
of an application under Order 8 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil<\/p>\n
Procedure where no prejudice was caused to the party<\/p>\n
opposing such amendment or acceptance of additional<\/p>\n
counter statement which could easily be compensated by<\/p>\n
cost.   That apart, the delay in filing the additional counter<\/p>\n
statement has been properly explained by the appellant. The<\/p>\n
averments made in the additional counter statement could<\/p>\n
not be raised by the appellant earlier since the appellant was<\/p>\n
under the impression that the lease agreement was destroyed<\/p>\n
in a fire accident and that he incidentally discovered the<\/p>\n
lease files in an old trunk only in October 1996 while he was<\/p>\n
cleaning the house for Pooja celebration. This explanation, in
\n                                                             6<\/span><\/p>\n
our view, cannot be rejected. Therefore, the first ground on<\/p>\n
which the additional counter statement sought to be rejected<\/p>\n
by the High Court in the exercise of its revisional power, in<\/p>\n
our view, cannot be sustained. The second ground on which<\/p>\n
the High Court had interfered with the concurrent orders of<\/p>\n
the tribunal below in accepting the additional counter<\/p>\n
statement was that a new plea was raised in the same in<\/p>\n
respect of which there was no slightest basis in the original<\/p>\n
counter statement filed by the appellant. According to the<\/p>\n
High Court, the plea that vacant land was let out to the<\/p>\n
appellant is a fundamental alteration of the pleadings already<\/p>\n
put forth by the appellant and the appellant cannot be<\/p>\n
permitted to introduce totally a new case. The additional<\/p>\n
counter statement alleging that there was written agreement<\/p>\n
and that the appellant is only a lessee of vacant site<\/p>\n
introduces totally a new case which would totally displace<\/p>\n
the landlord. The High Court held that such a new plea<\/p>\n
cannot be permitted to be taken by permitting the appellant<\/p>\n
to file additional counter statement. In our view, this is also<\/p>\n
not a ground for which the High Court could interfere with<\/p>\n
the concurrent orders of the Rent Control Tribunal and reject
\n                                                            7<\/span><\/p>\n
the application for permission to file additional counter<\/p>\n
statement. In our view, even by filing an amendment or<\/p>\n
additional counter statement, it is open to the appellant to<\/p>\n
add a new ground of defence or substituting or altering the<\/p>\n
defence or even taking inconsistent pleas in the counter<\/p>\n
statement as long as the pleadings do not result in causing<\/p>\n
grave injustice and irretrievable prejudice to plaintiff or<\/p>\n
displacing him completely. [See : Usha Balasaheb Swami &<\/p>\n
Ors. vs. Kiran Appaso Swami & Ors.<\/a> (2007) 5 SCC 602].<\/p>\n
Therefore, we are unable to agree with the High Court on this<\/p>\n
ground as well. It is also well settled that the courts should<\/p>\n
be more generous in allowing the amendment of the counter<\/p>\n
statement of the defendant then in the case of plaint. The<\/p>\n
High Court in its impugned order has also observed that in<\/p>\n
order to file an additional counter statement, it would be<\/p>\n
open to the defendant to take inconsistent plea. The prayer<\/p>\n
for acceptance of the additional counter statement was<\/p>\n
rejected by the High Court on the ground that while allowing<\/p>\n
such additional counter statement to be accepted, it has to<\/p>\n
be seen whether it was expedient with reference to the<\/p>\n
circumstances of the case to permit such a plea being put
\n                                                            8<\/span><\/p>\n
forward at that stage. As noted herein earlier, the only<\/p>\n
ground on which the High Court had rejected the acceptance<\/p>\n
of the additional counter statement was (i) by filing of such<\/p>\n
additional counter statement, the appellant was introducing<\/p>\n
a new case and (2) the entire trial was to be reopened causing<\/p>\n
great prejudice to the respondents whose examination was<\/p>\n
completed. It was also observed by the High Court that the<\/p>\n
appellant cannot be able to take such inconsistent plea by<\/p>\n
filing additional counter statement after cross-examination of<\/p>\n
the appellant. In our view, the High Court was in error in<\/p>\n
interfering with the concurrent orders of the Rent Control<\/p>\n
Tribunal, as from the fact stated we find that no prejudice<\/p>\n
was caused to the respondents and even if some prejudice<\/p>\n
was caused that could be compensated by cost. As noted<\/p>\n
herein earlier, the appellant had already stated in his<\/p>\n
application for acceptance of   additional counter statement<\/p>\n
the reasons for taking such new plea, viz., he could trace out<\/p>\n
the lease deed pertaining to the lease only when he was<\/p>\n
cleaning the boxes. The respondents have also not disputed<\/p>\n
as to the existence of the lease deed only they are disputing<\/p>\n
the filing of the additional counter statement at such a
\n                                                               9<\/span><\/p>\n
belated stage. This being the position, we are of the view that<\/p>\n
even if the examination of PW-1 or his cross- examination<\/p>\n
was over, then also, it was open to the court to accept the<\/p>\n
additional counter statement filed by the appellant by<\/p>\n
awarding some cost against the appellant. It is also well<\/p>\n
settled that while allowing additional counter statement or<\/p>\n
refusing to accept the same, the court should only see that if<\/p>\n
such additional counter statement is not accepted, the real<\/p>\n
controversy between the parties could not be decided. As<\/p>\n
noted herein earlier, by filing an additional counter statement<\/p>\n
in the present case, in our view, would not cause injustice or<\/p>\n
prejudice to the respondents but that would help the court to<\/p>\n
decide the real controversy between the parties. In our view,<\/p>\n
the High Court was, therefore, not justified in rejecting the<\/p>\n
application   for   permission   to   file   additional   counter<\/p>\n
statement as no prejudice could be caused to the respondent<\/p>\n
which would otherwise be compensated in terms of cost.<\/p>\n
8.   There is another aspect of the matter. It is well settled<\/p>\n
that the High Court in the exercise of its revisional<\/p>\n
jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings<\/p>\n
(Lease and Rent) Control Act, could interfere with the
\n                                                             10<\/span><\/p>\n
concurrent orders of the tribunals below only if it finds that<\/p>\n
the findings of the tribunals below were either perverse or<\/p>\n
arbitrary, irregular or improper, but if the High Court finds<\/p>\n
that the findings of the tribunals below are based on correct<\/p>\n
application of the principles and in any way cannot be said to<\/p>\n
have acted illegally and with material irregularity, in that<\/p>\n
case it cannot be said that the High Court was entitled to<\/p>\n
interfere with the concurrent orders passed by the tribunals<\/p>\n
below in accepting the application for additional counter<\/p>\n
statement filed by the appellants. In our view, the High Court<\/p>\n
was also not justified to interfere with the concurrent orders<\/p>\n
of the tribunals below, as we find that the tribunals below, on<\/p>\n
consideration of the counter statement as well as the<\/p>\n
additional counter statement and the application for fixation<\/p>\n
of rent and other materials on record, accepted the counter<\/p>\n
statement in its discretion and, therefore, it was not open to<\/p>\n
the High Court to interfere with the same in the absence of<\/p>\n
any perversity or arbitrariness in such findings of the<\/p>\n
tribunals below.[See Usha Balasaheb Swami          & Ors. vs.<\/p>\n
Kiran Appaso Swami & Ors.<\/a> (2007) 5 SCC 602].\n<\/p>\n
                                                                 11<\/span><\/p>\n
9.      Accordingly, we are of the view that the High Court was<\/p>\n
not justified in passing the impugned order and in rejecting<\/p>\n
the prayer for acceptance of the additional counter statement<\/p>\n
filed on behalf of the appellant. However, such application<\/p>\n
must be allowed subject to deposit of cost which is assessed<\/p>\n
at Rs.10,000\/-. Such cost must be paid or deposited in the<\/p>\n
Small Causes Court, Chennai in the name of the respondent<\/p>\n
within two months from the date of supply of a copy of this<\/p>\n
order to the Small Causes Court, Chennai and in default of<\/p>\n
deposit of the aforesaid amount within the time specified<\/p>\n
herein above, the additional counter statement filed by the<\/p>\n
appellant shall stand automatically rejected. The respondent<\/p>\n
shall    be   entitled   to   withdraw   the   aforesaid   sum   of<\/p>\n
Rs.10,000\/- from the Court of Small Causes, Chennai<\/p>\n
without prejudice to his rights and contentions in the original<\/p>\n
case.\n<\/p>\n
10.     For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order of the<\/p>\n
High Court is set aside and that of the tribunals below are<\/p>\n
restored. The additional counter statement filed by the<\/p>\n
appellant be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                   12<\/span><\/p>\n
11.   For the reasons aforesaid, the appeals are allowed to the<\/p>\n
extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n
                                              ……………………\n<\/p>\n
J.<\/p>\n
\n                                                            [Tarun\nChatterjee]\n\n\nNew Delhi;                                          ..................\n.......J.\nJuly 07, 2009.                              [H.L.Dattu]\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Olympic Industries vs Mulla Hussainy Bhai Mulla … on 7 July, 2009 Author: T Chatterjee Bench: Tarun Chatterjee, H.L. Dattu 1 REPORTABL E IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 4148-4149 OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP)Nos.23661-23662 of 2007) Olympic Industries —-Appellant Versus Mulla Hussainy Bhai […]<\/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-167881","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nOlympic Industries vs Mulla Hussainy Bhai Mulla ... on 7 July, 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\/olympic-industries-vs-mulla-hussainy-bhai-mulla-on-7-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Olympic Industries vs Mulla Hussainy Bhai Mulla ... on 7 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/olympic-industries-vs-mulla-hussainy-bhai-mulla-on-7-july-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=\"2009-07-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-11T00:01:31+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\\\/olympic-industries-vs-mulla-hussainy-bhai-mulla-on-7-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/olympic-industries-vs-mulla-hussainy-bhai-mulla-on-7-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Olympic Industries vs Mulla Hussainy Bhai Mulla … on 7 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-11T00:01:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/olympic-industries-vs-mulla-hussainy-bhai-mulla-on-7-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2117,\"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\\\/olympic-industries-vs-mulla-hussainy-bhai-mulla-on-7-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/olympic-industries-vs-mulla-hussainy-bhai-mulla-on-7-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/olympic-industries-vs-mulla-hussainy-bhai-mulla-on-7-july-2009\",\"name\":\"Olympic Industries vs Mulla Hussainy Bhai Mulla ... on 7 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-11T00:01:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/olympic-industries-vs-mulla-hussainy-bhai-mulla-on-7-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/olympic-industries-vs-mulla-hussainy-bhai-mulla-on-7-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/olympic-industries-vs-mulla-hussainy-bhai-mulla-on-7-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Olympic Industries vs Mulla Hussainy Bhai Mulla … on 7 July, 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":"Olympic Industries vs Mulla Hussainy Bhai Mulla ... on 7 July, 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\/olympic-industries-vs-mulla-hussainy-bhai-mulla-on-7-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Olympic Industries vs Mulla Hussainy Bhai Mulla ... on 7 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/olympic-industries-vs-mulla-hussainy-bhai-mulla-on-7-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-11T00:01:31+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\/olympic-industries-vs-mulla-hussainy-bhai-mulla-on-7-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/olympic-industries-vs-mulla-hussainy-bhai-mulla-on-7-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Olympic Industries vs Mulla Hussainy Bhai Mulla … on 7 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-11T00:01:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/olympic-industries-vs-mulla-hussainy-bhai-mulla-on-7-july-2009"},"wordCount":2117,"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\/olympic-industries-vs-mulla-hussainy-bhai-mulla-on-7-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/olympic-industries-vs-mulla-hussainy-bhai-mulla-on-7-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/olympic-industries-vs-mulla-hussainy-bhai-mulla-on-7-july-2009","name":"Olympic Industries vs Mulla Hussainy Bhai Mulla ... on 7 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-11T00:01:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/olympic-industries-vs-mulla-hussainy-bhai-mulla-on-7-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/olympic-industries-vs-mulla-hussainy-bhai-mulla-on-7-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/olympic-industries-vs-mulla-hussainy-bhai-mulla-on-7-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Olympic Industries vs Mulla Hussainy Bhai Mulla … on 7 July, 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\/167881","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=167881"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/167881\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=167881"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=167881"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=167881"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}