{"id":183490,"date":"2010-10-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/barbrik-project-limited-vs-4-m-l-haldkar-on-5-october-2010"},"modified":"2016-06-07T21:25:53","modified_gmt":"2016-06-07T15:55:53","slug":"barbrik-project-limited-vs-4-m-l-haldkar-on-5-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/barbrik-project-limited-vs-4-m-l-haldkar-on-5-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Barbrik Project Limited vs 4 M L Haldkar on 5 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court<\/div>\n
Barbrik Project Limited vs 4 M L Haldkar on 5 October, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n             HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR      \n\n\n               Writ Petition C No 1087 of 2010\n\n                           Barbrik    Project    Limited\n                                                       ...Petitioners\n\n\n\n                            Versus\n\n                      1       State     of    Chhattisgarh\n\n                        2       Chief    Executive   Officer\n\n\n                        3       Chief  Engineer\n\n                        4       M L      Haldkar\n                                               ...Respondents\n\n\n\n\n!     Shri Ankit Pandey  counsel for the petitioner\n\n\n^     Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur Deputy Advocate General  for the State\n\n\n CORAM:         Honble Shri Dhirendra Mishra &  Honble Shri R N Chandrakar JJ\n\n  Dated:    05\/10\/2010\n\n:  Judgement \n\n\n                           O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
                 (Passed on 5th October, 2010)<\/p>\n
      The following order of the Court was passed by Dhirendra
\nMishra, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.    The petitioner has filed the instant petition and prayed<\/p>\n
for  quashing of the order dated 6th February, 2010 (Annexure-<\/p>\n
P\/1) whereby the petitioner’s registration as a contractor  in<\/p>\n
S-5 category in the Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Agency  <\/p>\n
(hereinafter referred to as `the CGRRDA’) has been cancelled.<\/p>\n
2.   Briefly stated, the petitioner’s case is that M\/s Bajrang<\/p>\n
Lal  Agrawal,  a  partnership  firm,  was  registered  as  S-5<\/p>\n
contractor  with the respondent CGRRDA since 2000.   With  the<\/p>\n
passage  of  time the business of the firm grew.   Considering<\/p>\n
the  same,  almost  all the partners of the firm  decided  for<\/p>\n
external  expansion  by incorporating  a  company  limited  by<\/p>\n
shares in the name and style of M\/s Barbrik Project Limited in<\/p>\n
the year 2008 and accordingly, the petitioner was incorporated<\/p>\n
in  the  year  2008  and the certificate of incorporation  was<\/p>\n
issued  by the Registrar of Companies on 7th April,  2008  and<\/p>\n
the Company commenced the business w.e.f. 2nd May, 2008.    <\/p>\n
3.    The  petitioner vide its resolution dated 2nd May,  2008<\/p>\n
took over the entire business of M\/s Bajrang Lal Agrawal as  a<\/p>\n
going concern (Annexure-P\/6) and an agreement was entered into <\/p>\n
between  M\/s  Bajrang Lal Agrawal and the  petitioner  company<\/p>\n
vide Annexure-P\/7.  By virtue of the agreement, the petitioner<\/p>\n
succeeded  the business of M\/s Bajrang Lal Agrawal along  with<\/p>\n
its  assets and liabilities.  M\/s Bajrang Lal Agrawal firm was<\/p>\n
dissolved w.e.f. 2nd May, 2008 vide deed of dissolution  dated<\/p>\n
2nd may, 2008 (Annexure-P\/9) and the same was communicated  to    <\/p>\n
the Assistant Registrar, Firms and Organizations on 12th July,<\/p>\n
2008 (Annexure-P\/10).\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.    CGRRDA as also other Government departments allowed  the  <\/p>\n
petitioner’s  application for registration  as  contractor  in<\/p>\n
their  department  and issued registration  certificate.   The<\/p>\n
petitioner  was duly registered as S-5 contractor with  CGRRDA<\/p>\n
(Annexure-P\/15),  however, respondent No.4 issued  show  cause <\/p>\n
notice  (Annexure-P\/16) to M\/s Bajrang Lal Agrawal on 7-8-2009<\/p>\n
contemplating   cancellation  of  the  registration   of   the<\/p>\n
petitioner  for merging with the petitioner’s company  without<\/p>\n
permission  from the CGRRDA.  The petitioner  replied  to  the<\/p>\n
above  show cause notice vide Annexure-P\/17 dated 18th August, <\/p>\n
2009.   The  petitioner was again served with a  notice  dated<\/p>\n
14th  October, 2009 calling upon him to show cause as  to  why<\/p>\n
his  registration  as S-5 category contractor  should  not  be<\/p>\n
cancelled,  which  was  replied vide Annexure-P\/19.   However,<\/p>\n
after   issuing  another  notice  dated  11-11-2009,   CGRRDA,<\/p>\n
respondent  No.2,  cancelled  the registration  vide  impugned<\/p>\n
order of Annexure-P\/1.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
5.   Shri Ankit Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of<\/p>\n
the  petitioner, submitted that the petitioner’s  registration<\/p>\n
as S-5 contractor has been erroneously cancelled on the ground<\/p>\n
that  it  did  not  have experience of its  own  for  claiming<\/p>\n
registration with the CGRRDA and the registration  is  claimed<\/p>\n
on  the  basis  of experience of Director or  partner  of  the<\/p>\n
petitioner’s  company  whereas,  the  petitioner  applied  for<\/p>\n
registration  on  the  basis of its  own  experience,  as  the<\/p>\n
petitioner vide its resolution dated 2nd May, 2008  has  taken<\/p>\n
over  the  business  of the firm as a going  concern  and  the<\/p>\n
registration  certificate was granted  to  the  petitioner  by<\/p>\n
respondent No.3 by accepting merger of M\/s Bajrang Lal Agrawal <\/p>\n
with  the  petitioner with all the contracts and the  work  in<\/p>\n
hand  vide  Annexure-P\/15.   From  the  note  sheets  of   the<\/p>\n
respondents,  which  have been filed by the  petitioner  along<\/p>\n
with  his rejoinder as Annexure-P\/23, it would be evident that<\/p>\n
the respondents after considering that M\/s Bajrang Lal Agrawal<\/p>\n
has   merged   in  the  petitioner  company  recommended   for<\/p>\n
registration as S-5 category contractor and the same has  been<\/p>\n
accepted  by  the  Chief  Engineer  of  the  CGRRDA  and   the<\/p>\n
registration  certificate of S-5 contractor has  been  issued.<\/p>\n
From  the document of Annexure-P\/15, it would be evident  that<\/p>\n
his  registration could be down-graded, cancelled or suspended<\/p>\n
only  as per clauses 2.097, 2.100, 2.101 & 2.102 of the  Works<\/p>\n
Department Manual, 1983.\n<\/p>\n
6.    On  the other hand, Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur,  learned<\/p>\n
Deputy  Advocate General for the State would submit  that  M\/s<\/p>\n
Bajrang  Lal Agrawal was registered as S-5 category contractor<\/p>\n
with  RES  whereas CGRRDA came into existence on 1-2-2003  and    <\/p>\n
the  rules  regarding registration of contractor  with  CGRRDA<\/p>\n
came into force w.e.f. 27-1-2006.  Even otherwise, M\/s Bajrang<\/p>\n
Lal Agrawal entered into agreement with the petitioner company<\/p>\n
without seeking permission from the authorities of the CGRRDA.<\/p>\n
The  petitioner has averred in the petition that  M\/s  Bajrang<\/p>\n
Lal Agrawal has merged with the petitioner and the same stands<\/p>\n
dissolved  w.e.f. 2nd May, 2008 (Anneure-P\/9).   However,  the<\/p>\n
predecessor  firm  is still carrying on the construction  work<\/p>\n
out  of  total works awarded to M\/s Bajrang Lal Agrawal.   166<\/p>\n
works  were  awarded  to the said firm, 136  roads  have  been<\/p>\n
completed  but  the work of 40 roads is still going  on.   The<\/p>\n
firm  has further agreed to maintain those roads for a further<\/p>\n
period of 5 years.  If the firm has received payment for their<\/p>\n
works  from the answering respondents, it makes the  documents <\/p>\n
filed by the petitioner suspicious.  CGRRDA in the meeting  of<\/p>\n
its  Executive  Committee  held on  27-1-2006  prescribed  the<\/p>\n
procedure  for  registration  of  the  contractors  of  CGRRDA<\/p>\n
(Annexure-P\/22).   As  per the document of  Annexure-P\/22  for<\/p>\n
registration of S-5 category contractor, the contractor should<\/p>\n
have work experience in his own name and the experience of the<\/p>\n
Director\/Partner of the Company\/Firm could not  be  considered<\/p>\n
as experience of the company.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
7.   We have heard learned counsel for the parties.<\/p>\n
8.    Indisputably,  after  incorporation  of  the  petitioner<\/p>\n
company and after agreement with M\/s Bajrang Lal Agrawal,  the<\/p>\n
petitioner applied for registration with the respondents along<\/p>\n
with  necessary deposits.  His application was duly  processed<\/p>\n
by  the respondents, as would be evident from the document  of<\/p>\n
Annexure-P\/23.   The  petitioner claimed registration  as  S-5<\/p>\n
category contractor on the ground that M\/s Bajrang Lal Agrawal<\/p>\n
has  merged  in  the company, showing the work  experience  of<\/p>\n
predecessor company as its own, the same was duly accepted and   <\/p>\n
the registration certificate of Annexure-P\/15 was issued.  The<\/p>\n
above fact has not been controverted by the respondents.<\/p>\n
9.    From  perusal of the documents of Annexure-P\/15,  it  is<\/p>\n
clear     that    the    registration    could    be     down-\n<\/p>\n
graded\/cancelled\/suspended as per clauses 2.097, 2.100,  2.101<\/p>\n
and 2.102 of the Works Department Manual, 1983, (Para-1).   It<\/p>\n
is  not  the  case of the respondents that the certificate  of<\/p>\n
registration has been cancelled for breach of any of the above<\/p>\n
clauses.    Even   otherwise,  after   examining   the   above<\/p>\n
provisions,  we  find  that  the same  does  not  provide  for<\/p>\n
cancellation  of  the  contract on the grounds  on  which  the<\/p>\n
registration of the petitioner has been cancelled.<\/p>\n
10.   On  due consideration of the documents annexed with  the<\/p>\n
petition  and  further considering that the respondents  after<\/p>\n
accepting  the contention of the petitioner that  M\/s  Bajrang<\/p>\n
Lal  Agrawal  has merged with the petitioner and treating  the<\/p>\n
experience of predecessor as the experience of the petitioner,<\/p>\n
registered  the petitioner as contractor of S-5  category,  we<\/p>\n
are  of the opinion that the respondent No.4 was not justified<\/p>\n
in  canceling the registration certificate by referring to the<\/p>\n
order  of Annexure-P\/22 which was very much in force  even  at<\/p>\n
the  time  when the certificate of registration was issued  to<\/p>\n
the petitioner by respondent No.4.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
11.   In  the  result, the writ petition is  allowed  and  the<\/p>\n
impugned   order  dated  6-2-2010  (Annexure-P\/1)  passed   by<\/p>\n
respondent No.4 is quashed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                   J U D G E<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court Barbrik Project Limited vs 4 M L Haldkar on 5 October, 2010 HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition C No 1087 of 2010 Barbrik Project Limited …Petitioners Versus 1 State of Chhattisgarh 2 Chief Executive Officer 3 Chief Engineer 4 M L Haldkar …Respondents ! Shri Ankit Pandey counsel for […]<\/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":[12,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-183490","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chattisgarh-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBarbrik Project Limited vs 4 M L Haldkar on 5 October, 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\/barbrik-project-limited-vs-4-m-l-haldkar-on-5-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Barbrik Project Limited vs 4 M L Haldkar on 5 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/barbrik-project-limited-vs-4-m-l-haldkar-on-5-october-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=\"2010-10-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-07T15:55:53+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/barbrik-project-limited-vs-4-m-l-haldkar-on-5-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/barbrik-project-limited-vs-4-m-l-haldkar-on-5-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Barbrik Project Limited vs 4 M L Haldkar on 5 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-07T15:55:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/barbrik-project-limited-vs-4-m-l-haldkar-on-5-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1232,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Chattisgarh High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/barbrik-project-limited-vs-4-m-l-haldkar-on-5-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/barbrik-project-limited-vs-4-m-l-haldkar-on-5-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/barbrik-project-limited-vs-4-m-l-haldkar-on-5-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Barbrik Project Limited vs 4 M L Haldkar on 5 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-07T15:55:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/barbrik-project-limited-vs-4-m-l-haldkar-on-5-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/barbrik-project-limited-vs-4-m-l-haldkar-on-5-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/barbrik-project-limited-vs-4-m-l-haldkar-on-5-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Barbrik Project Limited vs 4 M L Haldkar on 5 October, 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":"Barbrik Project Limited vs 4 M L Haldkar on 5 October, 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\/barbrik-project-limited-vs-4-m-l-haldkar-on-5-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Barbrik Project Limited vs 4 M L Haldkar on 5 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/barbrik-project-limited-vs-4-m-l-haldkar-on-5-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-07T15:55:53+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/barbrik-project-limited-vs-4-m-l-haldkar-on-5-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/barbrik-project-limited-vs-4-m-l-haldkar-on-5-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Barbrik Project Limited vs 4 M L Haldkar on 5 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-07T15:55:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/barbrik-project-limited-vs-4-m-l-haldkar-on-5-october-2010"},"wordCount":1232,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Chattisgarh High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/barbrik-project-limited-vs-4-m-l-haldkar-on-5-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/barbrik-project-limited-vs-4-m-l-haldkar-on-5-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/barbrik-project-limited-vs-4-m-l-haldkar-on-5-october-2010","name":"Barbrik Project Limited vs 4 M L Haldkar on 5 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-07T15:55:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/barbrik-project-limited-vs-4-m-l-haldkar-on-5-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/barbrik-project-limited-vs-4-m-l-haldkar-on-5-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/barbrik-project-limited-vs-4-m-l-haldkar-on-5-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Barbrik Project Limited vs 4 M L Haldkar on 5 October, 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\/183490","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=183490"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/183490\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=183490"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=183490"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=183490"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}