{"id":182204,"date":"2009-04-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-04-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mysore-minerals-limited-vs-veerabhadra-vahana-engineers-pvt-on-24-april-2009"},"modified":"2016-02-29T08:50:06","modified_gmt":"2016-02-29T03:20:06","slug":"mysore-minerals-limited-vs-veerabhadra-vahana-engineers-pvt-on-24-april-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mysore-minerals-limited-vs-veerabhadra-vahana-engineers-pvt-on-24-april-2009","title":{"rendered":"Mysore Minerals Limited vs Veerabhadra Vahana Engineers Pvt … on 24 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Mysore Minerals Limited vs Veerabhadra Vahana Engineers Pvt … on 24 April, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: P.D.Dinakaran(Cj) & V.G.Sabhahit<\/div>\n
JUDGMENT\n\nThese two writ appeals arise out of the order passedg\"\"'i3y\n\nthe learned Single Judge in W.P.No.12727\/2004...._\"\"t}'i\u00a7l\u00a7'e\u00a3,i:\"g_\n\n23\/6\/2007 and 3.8.2007 wherein the ieaifiied..Singi.e\n\nallowed the writ petition and quashed the ecrn'muniC'af!Q.0: dat\u00a7d'*~.p\n\n14.10.2003 and has dnected the drespondente\ufb01\/s) iayeore<\/pre>\n
Minerals Ltd., to supply the ba’ia4_nee   Fines at
\nthe rate which was preyailing .0\/;(iI\ufb02r’ev:\u00bbfi.’iing the writ
\npetition and has furth\u00e9eifaidgiretttetlhA.w’r–lt”v–hpetitioner to pay
\ninterest on Rs.40  from 14.10.2003
\ntill the date  that revised rate shall
\nnot carry any inter!est.V ‘V K 0 0 it<\/p>\n
2.1. The   the case leading upto these<\/p>\n
applegalyiwgitria.re;fere’npe tov\ufb02the rank of the parties in the writ<\/p>\n
Z _ petition -are;-a s’ fo’i’-:\u00abovwsV:e~ . V V <\/p>\n
  2.2. Ali’l1.F’.Vl_\\io..;u\u00a3..’2A”\/’27\/2004 was filed seeking for quashing of<\/p>\n
 dated 14.10.2003 issued by the respondent<\/p>\n
 -petition and for directir\\:;’\/the respondent to honour<\/p>\n
Iron Ore Fines from Subbarayanahalli Iron Ore Mines, Sandur
\nTaluk, Bellary District and petitioner has so far lifted only<\/p>\n
28,688.860 MT of Iron Ore Fines. In the meanwhile, to the great<\/p>\n
shock and surprise of the petitioner, the respondent issu.e:d.._:Oa.._<\/p>\n
letter dated 14.10.2003 unilaterally reducing the quanti.t\u00a7y.’oii~i’I.rj:on  _<\/p>\n
Ore Fines agreed to be supplied by themrespon’ti’e’nt’_~to’:the  <\/p>\n
petitioner from one lakh MT to 50,000  ontihereason'”t:h–aAt'<::_'i<\/p>\n
Subbarayanahalli Iron Ore Mines is fac':'~n_Vg lot'-of' prob'lve'rrjs…_,fro.m VA<\/p>\n
Forest Department,     same, the
\ncompany is not in a,-   quantity of Iron
\nOre Fines    to the extent of
\nadvance amount'  and to cancel the
\nremaining quantitiys,_VIinrnVed'iVatveiy:,'..'i'on receipt of the said letter
\nissued  responderit:.V,L:_n,i.I:atera|ly reducing the quantity of<\/p>\n
the iron'or'e~fine,s'fro.rri"one Iakh MT to 50,000 MT , the petitioner<\/p>\n
Zfwgrote to'.thVe,~–.respo'n"de'h.t'requesting the respondent not to reduce<\/p>\n
the quantity" .un.i,Vla'teral|y and brought to the notice of the<\/p>\n
res.p'on.dent'0–that the petitioner has already entered into a<\/p>\n
lniiiliv'-giithiiiits foreign buyer and that serious hardship would<\/p>\n
 caused by such reduction. However, the respondent did not<\/p>\n
\\5'<\/p>\n
respond to the said letter. It is further averred that in view of<\/p>\n
the promise held out by the respondent, petitioner entered into<\/p>\n
contract with foreign buyer and in view of the unilatera,l.__act'fondle.<\/p>\n
the part of the respondent in reducing the quantity lose it<\/p>\n
fines agreed to be soid, the petitioner has'suffered'._finahcial loss <\/p>\n
and Bank had sanctioned financial facilityuvtoiaV_xsum.'af"Rs;4'}\u00e9.S.,,iV"<\/p>\n
crores for a maximum period of.z45  t'imev..wben the
\ninitia\u00e9 purchase order was  "bye?Vthlejfgetgitioner on the
\nrespondent for supplygvone   Fines, there
\nwere oniy ten  lthelllllrespondent had
\nagreed to supply-a.h,o'ut"1;i3::;ia_ki:.:l$iii'Ao'i'ijrorriore Fines. In view of
\nthe very  there was no restriction
\nwhatsoever in theVV'm_,oveme.n't'Vof  for taking delivery of Iron
\nOrevV,.-Fignes  Subba'u=ay_a__r1ahalIi Iron Ore Mines and the<\/p>\n
responderjtiib,as_S!:arted__to supply Iron Ore Fines to about 43<\/p>\n
:{o_t,her purcVha.sers)'c.ont'riactors at a higher price than what was<\/p>\n
ag.ree.j with thtelpetitioner. In view of the increase in the number<\/p>\n
 oif~ibuy:ers, therev\ufb02lwas heavy rush. The number of vehicles to take<\/p>\n
 hcfithie material also increased thereby causing rush in<\/p>\n
..aVV._'t!'l._\u20ac3 movement of vehicles and because of this, the respondent<\/p>\n
\\'\/*'<\/p>\n
price and therefore, the impugned communication is liable to..i__3e<\/p>\n
quashed as sought for in the writ petition.<\/p>\n
4. The respondent filed statement of objections.coriteiniding av”  i <\/p>\n
that the writ petition is not maintainaible j;the’:4,petlt–ion,er.,,_.of<\/p>\n
complains of breach of contract which has to” workeidoiut injgau”<\/p>\n
\nsuit and the same is not amenable  this
\ncourt under Articles 226 and    India. It
\nis the petitioner who has ‘AA’oiV>..’contract and
\nsupply of Iron Ore Fir_i’Ves’jw.as   of Iron Ore
\nFines and due to the Department, PWD,
\nMOEPCD, the   one lakh MT of iron
\nore fines to the _:w.rit  therefore restricted the
\nsupply of ironpre  “iriiirespect: of the amount received from<\/p>\n
the”Vj._petitio’ne’r to the valtu\ufb02ewof Rs.4O iakhs and therefore, the<\/p>\n
_impugne.d:Vo-rder,:”is,ujust.i,fied and does not call for interference in<\/p>\n
f’the’Vv*.irit peti-t_ionV,> ~  if<\/p>\n
 _Addltio.r.t’al statement of objections is filed by the<\/p>\n
at”i.:’,-respon,dent–\u00bb.contending that the letter of intent was issued<\/p>\n
 sub;iect..toEthe condition that iron ore fines wouid be supplied at<\/p>\n
“R<\/p>\n
10<\/span><\/p>\n
the rate of Rs.100\/- PDMT stating that on the basis of the<\/p>\n
request letter made on 5.8.2003 50% of the value was to-“be<\/p>\n
paid before lifting the second half installment of V.<\/p>\n
quantity and that the duration for ali these transacti_:onis’h-was 0<\/p>\n
ninety days from the date of receiving <\/p>\n
Admittedly, petitioner has not Paid  va.itLJf?._gofi;p:eV”:aVi’io’tted
\nquantity before 90 days and vthge petiit’io.ri_er””h_as  total
\namount as indicated by him’   only on
\n28.8.2003 which is thesoizo  respondent
\nhas suppiied 47,79?;’2:’i_0V  of._iroii..ore :fi_:nesHon different dates
\nand the baianceq’ua’Vn~ti’t’y:’:o3f\u00ab20–2V.Si..Zi0′  be supplied and
\nhaving regard to from forest department,
\nPWD and environrnental  the respondent was not in
\na position  iiakh.\u00bb MT of iron ore fines as per the<\/p>\n
|ette:?x_Qf;int.ent.__’andp\u00b0therefore, the respondent–Company has<\/p>\n
:fd.eA_cVigded toi\u00e9.restr.ivct–“.tjhe.i=guantity offered to be supplied, amount<\/p>\n
_of.._advance p’ai.d'”by.’the writ petition and the speciai action has<\/p>\n
 been: t.a’i<enli'to other persons also to whom letter of intent has<\/p>\n
nz'A'"-\u00bb-efbleien'-issued."Additiona| statement of objections was again filed<\/p>\n
'flit:-\\,\/pgthewrespondent reiterating the averments made in the<\/p>\n
K3\u00bb<\/p>\n
11<\/span><\/p>\n
additionai objections statement and producing letter which has<\/p>\n
been issued in respect of other purchasers restricting the <\/p>\n
of iron ore fines and in the event the petitioner is giv  .<\/p>\n
sought for in the writ petition, the same __w.ou_id h_a\\\/e””a’_jserio’ug <\/p>\n
effect on other persons in respect of wh’o’m;’_’ais;o th_e* <\/p>\n
intent has been modified and theigrespondvent:colmpa._ny-….has
\nreieased iron ore fines to Oth\u20acF:’DUf’ChElS\u00e9Vl’S._b1;l.t onl’y”inVv_res;5ect of
\nthose who have paid the amount_1’and.v.?eiea’sied,the quantity of
\niron ore fines on diffetent  theVi?efor:e;’;\u00abVthe impugned
\ncommunication is justi”fie’d:v.a–i-id.’does’-nQt”_s’uffer’ from any error or<\/p>\n
iliegality as to ca-Ill-Vfoir’in.teri7er.en~cVe-.iVn  petition.<\/p>\n
6. Learned for the petitioner argued
\nreiterating the-vayerr4ne.nts”mad’e in the writ petition and learned<\/p>\n
couinsel”‘apVp”earing “fogr the\ufb02mrtespondent argued reiterating the<\/p>\n
I_avermentsimadefin” ttiie:’.1objections statement and the additional<\/p>\n
ob”jectionsAstate_me_nt before the learned Single Judge and the<\/p>\n
“i’earncd”‘*SAingie..Judge by order dated 3.8.2007 held that even in<\/p>\n
 oF–.contractual matter writ petition can be entertained<\/p>\n
  are not in dispute and further held that the reduction<\/p>\n
\\.\u00a7\u00bb’<\/p>\n
12<\/span><\/p>\n
of quantity of iron ore \ufb01nes agreed to be supplied from 50000<\/p>\n
PDMT to 8860 PDMT and enhancement of price from <\/p>\n
PDMT to Rs.3S0\/-PDMT was not justified and the <\/p>\n
couid not have unilaterally reduced the.quantity.Vavt”the””ra’te <\/p>\n
which was prevailing as on the date of filing <\/p>\n
and further held that since the writi’pe’titVi%oher-  p_:Ei’idiiithe
\nbalance of Rs.4O iakhs being the vaiuVe–..oif”gS_O’0QO  writ
\npetitioner should pay the said at 6% from
\n14.10.2003 till the date_:of.__payn*ten”trandi\u00ab\u00ab.th.exdifiierentiai amount
\nof revised price shall  if there wouid
\nbe any dispute _.re9?lVl’\u20acl:i’ng1–It:hV.e  in Marcn,2004 i.e.
\nthe date of filing of   Director of Mines the
\nsame shall be pl”ac_4ed,V “t:h’e4Vt)irector of Mines and the
\nDirector   price taking into account the<\/p>\n
respon_dent—comgApanyjfs,rate and the Mines and Minerais Trading<\/p>\n
QCgorporaltionis’ra’te”.’and\u00a7;;’accordingly, disposed of the writ petition<\/p>\n
d7’irecti–rig the”pet*ition’er to pay the amount within two weeks from<\/p>\n
  ‘ogi=t.t_neV”‘receipt of the order and\/or demand notice and<\/p>\n
‘within one week from the date of receipt of the<\/p>\n
it’ll”jeanfiounVt’s’,”lthe respondent shall issue the lifting order and shali<\/p>\n
\\:5<\/p>\n
13<\/span><\/p>\n
aiso facilitate the lifting or iron ore by the petitioner. Being<\/p>\n
aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge reg.a’i*d:’ifng”~._<\/p>\n
the direction issued to the respondent, the respo.r’iden,t:’iias<\/p>\n
preferred WA.No.1951\/2007 and the v.~:rit.._4pet’_i’tViovn”er]’  <\/p>\n
aggrieved by the direction issued by the \u00b0Sirig.i\u00e9’<\/p>\n
the impugned order in so far as it re|’aVte’s…to the ‘to
\ndeposit the amount of Rs.40 ‘_.Iai<hs   from
\n1410.203 tiii the date of that the price
\nfor suppiy of 50000 PEDVIS\/iff iron    'prevailing on
\nthe date of  has preferred
\nWA.2012\/2007:…   L     ii<\/p>\n
7. We have counsei appearing for the
\nappe||ant~writ petitiionevr counsei appearing for<\/p>\n
the respond.e;f3t’viri~ the writ p__etit.ion-M\/s. Mysore Minerais Ltd.,<\/p>\n
 appearing for M\/s. Mysore Minerals<\/p>\n
 submitted  iearned Singie Judge was not justified in<\/p>\n
 ‘enftertai-hing thewrit petition in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of<\/p>\n
 co’urft’ags:t’he matter pertains to post contract period and the<\/p>\n
 “to? whether there was breach of contract was disputed<\/p>\n
\\(,3<\/p>\n
21<\/span><\/p>\n
unilaterally reduced to 50000 MT and therefore, there is dispute<\/p>\n
about the contents and interpretation of the letter of intent’Va’n~d”‘–.,’<\/p>\n
aiso about the breach of contract alleged by respective.–parti,es\u00a7.f’  A *<\/p>\n
14. It is clear from the letter of that t~he-:safi:d’\u00ab!et,ter’VV <\/p>\n
of intent was valid for ninety days from thedate of:,.’re:’ceiptlV<\/p>\n
delivery order. One iakh MT of +650\/a””‘gi,rade iron._Voref’.fin’e,sHwas
\nagreed to be supplied at thefate o\u00a7ifrie’.f:,’oo”;;..,,Ppivi*rf’in’ei’uding
\nroyalty, forest permit charges,  if any
\nexcluding loading chargesgtanq i\u00e9o  is concerned,
\n50% of the allotted”  be paid as advance
\nwithin seven  of””‘letter of intent dated
\n18.8.2003 and  remaining value should be
\npaid before iifting oi’secoVn~.dfAnaif’:of installment of the allotted<\/p>\n
quaritifty.,and,t.,h*o\\ifvt:;-var, dura’t*i*o”n” was ninety days from the date of<\/p>\n
Petitioner has made payment of Rs.4G<\/p>\n
 on  way of four demand drafts for Rs.2G<\/p>\n
‘V,-fai<'_i'is,_'R.s.9 |ai<\/p>\n
22<\/span><\/p>\n
payment of the value of balance 50% of the iron ore fines<\/p>\n
agreed to be supplied as per the letter of intent.<\/p>\n
15. The scrutiny of the material on record wotiid   it<\/p>\n
show that since there was probiem inj’the’w_rni’ning fa’rea:’i~n’ <\/p>\n
Subbarayanahalli Iron Ore Mines by forest cie_pia–r_tment,_-v_ii?WD. <\/p>\n
environmentai authorities, the respon:cl’ent
\n50000 PDMT of +65% grade are *.fineVs”.–.._l~iow\u00e9ver;”}every
\neffort was made by the respondent fines on
\ndifferent dates as refeiffed  statement
\nreferred to above  50000 PDMT of
\n+65% iron  the value of the
\nsame comes to:”R.s.?i0  baiance of Rs.40 iakhs
\nvalue of theyremaininyg’   of +65% grade iron ore
\nfines””i~1a_s beendepo’s’ite-d\u00ab’by the writ petitioner cannot be<\/p>\n
disputed’ and_tn..\u00a2re;”is:’dispute between the petitioner and the<\/p>\n
:ires,pondentV_on thetsaitcfl question of fact as to whether the said<\/p>\n
_.ain’iouant_y\u00bbwas payabie within 90 days as the period for which the<\/p>\n
  of iintent was put in force or at the time of lifting 50000<\/p>\n
if   iron ore fines as per the delivery order can be decided<\/p>\n
\\?j><\/p>\n
24<\/span><\/p>\n
fact and interpretation of the clause in the contract, the parties<\/p>\n
have to work out their remedy before the competent civil court<\/p>\n
and cannot be granted relief in exercise of the writ jurisdiction:’j’o_f””–_<\/p>\n
this court and this court cannot substitute the con’L;racty:”.the<\/p>\n
contract in terms of the contract as ordered’ byHt’h”e-el\ufb01\ufb01airnedg <\/p>\n
Single Judge.\n<\/p>\n
17. It is clear from the reasor:in”g.’of thegiearfiizeds:Sin’g’Vlje
\nJudge himself that even as per the finyd’ing.’Ve_g:iv’en._by mm, the writ
\nDetitioner had not deposited Rsriibl for the vaiue
\nof 50000 PDMT in   siiifgle Judge has
\nobserved that the    be compensated by
\nawarding 6%  date of payment.\n<\/p>\n
when once thev:’l’ea’i’ned  held that the writ petitioner
\nhas not deposited   the value for 50000 PDMT in
\n200_3}’~thAe  S_ing.le”}ud.evcouid not have granted any reiief<\/p>\n
to the-,w.rit’ on the said finding itseif the writ<\/p>\n
.3tpetJi.tioner.wfotjld  entitled to any relief as sought for in the<\/p>\n
_ _vv’_i=~itV_petiption.”Fnrtijieyr, the learned Singie Judge having found that<\/p>\n
 g_uefstAiofn”-of supply of iron ore fines at the rate of Rs.100\/-<\/p>\n
\\3\u00bb5″\n<\/p>\n
25<\/span><\/p>\n
PDMT as per the letter of intent would not arise and could not<\/p>\n
have ordered that the supply of balance quantity shouid be made<\/p>\n
at the rate prevalent on the date of the writ petition. The ie4a..rned..V_<\/p>\n
Single Judge ought to have considered as to whether   _<\/p>\n
breach of contract on the part of the petitioner or the”i*esjpond:enAt it  <\/p>\n
and as to whether the said contentions canibe ig-on’euii’into.in  it<\/p>\n
petition or party should be relegatedvto-competent’ci’:JViIV’i’c\u00e9ouVrt <\/p>\n
working out remedy in respect of contracttiiengtered’  between<\/p>\n
the petitioner and the respondent? _ <\/p>\n
18. In any viewof’ the   the contract
\ncould not be changed |.ea\u00a7_mie’d_Si_ng_le_3’udge and the said
\ncontract could   substituted’. fresh terms of the<\/p>\n
contract as cione b’y:_ti’ie: ‘i’ear.ne\u00bbd44v_iSingi’e”Judge and therefore, the<\/p>\n
learned Single Jud’g.9:y\u00a2as -no*tv’ju.stified in entertaining the writ<\/p>\n
peti_t4ion_V_anl.d’\u00a7’~:.aEI_iAowVingltithe. ____ writ petition by compeiling the<\/p>\n
respo’nden.t”‘to_s.u’ppVI’y\u00e9::’5Q000 PDMT of iron ore fines as per the<\/p>\n
:iiie.t_ter of intent and.V–“p__er1i’nitting the petitioner to deposit the value<\/p>\n
g’ol<.._t_he.V_saici"Soloed PDEVIT though without considering as to<\/p>\n
 halV'i~n\u00abg found that there was breach of contract on the<\/p>\n
M<\/p>\n
26<\/span><\/p>\n
part of the writ petitioner and writ petitioner was not entitled to<\/p>\n
any relief in the writ petition. In any view of the matter, igtis<\/p>\n
clear that the learned Single Judge was not at all  <\/p>\n
going into the disputed questions of fact as perlthe’:.A_i.r~iy,al%3<\/p>\n
contentions of the petitioner and the respondent, and”o.ug*h,t._;t”o’__ <\/p>\n
have relegated the parties to civil courtto workout th,’e?ir.reri’1edy.”< it<\/p>\n
if the party suffered any loss or de'm:a;ge1duetsl.brea,erioi
\ncontract as alleged by the writ   J' V<\/p>\n
19. In a similar matter, Awhereirl._trl.erc\u00a7~.lrlias’El.’–modification
\nof the letter of reis_pond’e:nt:’V.’he~rein–M\/s. Mysore
\nMinerals Ltd., we  of the learned
\nSingle Judge it interpretation of
\ncontract on disputed’  cannot be gone into in the
\nwrit petition and paratiesv re.lVega.ted to the suit as per separate<\/p>\n
judgrneniz\ufb01ii l\/viii Appeal i$iet{275s\/2005. Accordingly, we hold<\/p>\n
,_that  by the learned Single Judge is<\/p>\n
lVunsu’stainat>’i~e ar3d’th.?eAsame is liable to be set aside and the writ<\/p>\n
 ‘p’etii:i,onfn:_ ligableto” be dismissed.<\/p>\n
\\\u00bb\u00bb~’>_<\/p>\n
20.<\/p>\n
(i)\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\n<\/p>\n
(iii)<\/p>\n
27<\/span><\/p>\n
Accordingly, we pass the following:\n<\/p>\n
0 R D E R<\/p>\n
Writ Appeal No.1951\/2007 is allowed.\n<\/p>\n
Writ Appeal No.2012\/2007 is dismhesedgyyliy  i
\nThe order dated 3.8.2007 lpas\u00e9\u00e9pdll byyme Ah
\nlearned Single    <\/p>\n
No.12727\/2004 isvset aside a_nd””wrEt petitiorig<\/p>\n
No.12727\/2004 is   it is
\nmade clear .’-[ha-_t_ A ‘petition
\nwill not work out
\nits  :E;ii;, law in the
\ncondpeteynt V can any observations<\/p>\n
made ir~..,uthisiorfder” pertaining to the contract<\/p>\n
 the’=pe_titvioner and the respondent<\/p>\n
‘ ll'”ahal!__n~ot\u00abvi.inf!.uence the said competent court to<\/p>\n
relief sought for by the writ<\/p>\n
p’etit’io_n.exr to work out its remedy regarding<\/p>\n
‘contract between the petitioner and the<\/p>\n
\\\u00bb–‘>><\/p>\n
 %  w_e5 Vi’-f’.F2J.S..t:A’  no<\/p>\n
Z A’ ‘  _ii<sv\/snb\/n1';\/iinn<\/p>\n
28<\/span><\/p>\n
respondent and the said proceedings shaii be
\ndecided independentiy on the basis of
\nevidence adduced by the parties and
\nbeing influenced by any of the’iobse-‘fva_tiorivs_
\nmade in this order. I I V l
\n   ustice<\/p>\n
In7dex:–Y{e”s\/No .<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Mysore Minerals Limited vs Veerabhadra Vahana Engineers Pvt … on 24 April, 2009 Author: P.D.Dinakaran(Cj) & V.G.Sabhahit JUDGMENT These two writ appeals arise out of the order passedg””‘i3y the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.12727\/2004…._””t}’i\u00a7l\u00a7’e\u00a3,i:”g_ 23\/6\/2007 and 3.8.2007 wherein the ieaifiied..Singi.e allowed the writ petition and quashed the ecrn’muniC’af!Q.0: dat\u00a7d’*~.p 14.10.2003 and has […]<\/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-182204","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMysore Minerals Limited vs Veerabhadra Vahana Engineers Pvt ... on 24 April, 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\/mysore-minerals-limited-vs-veerabhadra-vahana-engineers-pvt-on-24-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mysore Minerals Limited vs Veerabhadra Vahana Engineers Pvt ... on 24 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mysore-minerals-limited-vs-veerabhadra-vahana-engineers-pvt-on-24-april-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=\"2009-04-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-29T03:20:06+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mysore-minerals-limited-vs-veerabhadra-vahana-engineers-pvt-on-24-april-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mysore-minerals-limited-vs-veerabhadra-vahana-engineers-pvt-on-24-april-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mysore Minerals Limited vs Veerabhadra Vahana Engineers Pvt … on 24 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-29T03:20:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mysore-minerals-limited-vs-veerabhadra-vahana-engineers-pvt-on-24-april-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2773,\"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\\\/mysore-minerals-limited-vs-veerabhadra-vahana-engineers-pvt-on-24-april-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mysore-minerals-limited-vs-veerabhadra-vahana-engineers-pvt-on-24-april-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mysore-minerals-limited-vs-veerabhadra-vahana-engineers-pvt-on-24-april-2009\",\"name\":\"Mysore Minerals Limited vs Veerabhadra Vahana Engineers Pvt ... on 24 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-29T03:20:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mysore-minerals-limited-vs-veerabhadra-vahana-engineers-pvt-on-24-april-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mysore-minerals-limited-vs-veerabhadra-vahana-engineers-pvt-on-24-april-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mysore-minerals-limited-vs-veerabhadra-vahana-engineers-pvt-on-24-april-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mysore Minerals Limited vs Veerabhadra Vahana Engineers Pvt … on 24 April, 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":"Mysore Minerals Limited vs Veerabhadra Vahana Engineers Pvt ... on 24 April, 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\/mysore-minerals-limited-vs-veerabhadra-vahana-engineers-pvt-on-24-april-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mysore Minerals Limited vs Veerabhadra Vahana Engineers Pvt ... on 24 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mysore-minerals-limited-vs-veerabhadra-vahana-engineers-pvt-on-24-april-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-04-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-29T03:20:06+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mysore-minerals-limited-vs-veerabhadra-vahana-engineers-pvt-on-24-april-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mysore-minerals-limited-vs-veerabhadra-vahana-engineers-pvt-on-24-april-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mysore Minerals Limited vs Veerabhadra Vahana Engineers Pvt … on 24 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-04-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-29T03:20:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mysore-minerals-limited-vs-veerabhadra-vahana-engineers-pvt-on-24-april-2009"},"wordCount":2773,"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\/mysore-minerals-limited-vs-veerabhadra-vahana-engineers-pvt-on-24-april-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mysore-minerals-limited-vs-veerabhadra-vahana-engineers-pvt-on-24-april-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mysore-minerals-limited-vs-veerabhadra-vahana-engineers-pvt-on-24-april-2009","name":"Mysore Minerals Limited vs Veerabhadra Vahana Engineers Pvt ... on 24 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-04-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-29T03:20:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mysore-minerals-limited-vs-veerabhadra-vahana-engineers-pvt-on-24-april-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mysore-minerals-limited-vs-veerabhadra-vahana-engineers-pvt-on-24-april-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mysore-minerals-limited-vs-veerabhadra-vahana-engineers-pvt-on-24-april-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mysore Minerals Limited vs Veerabhadra Vahana Engineers Pvt … on 24 April, 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\/182204","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=182204"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/182204\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=182204"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=182204"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=182204"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}