{"id":191276,"date":"2009-04-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-04-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sri-bala-gopal-constructions-vs-union-of-india-on-21-april-2009-2"},"modified":"2015-02-24T15:49:15","modified_gmt":"2015-02-24T10:19:15","slug":"ms-sri-bala-gopal-constructions-vs-union-of-india-on-21-april-2009-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sri-bala-gopal-constructions-vs-union-of-india-on-21-april-2009-2","title":{"rendered":"M\/S Sri Bala Gopal Constructions … vs Union Of India on 21 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S Sri Bala Gopal Constructions … vs Union Of India on 21 April, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: S.Abdul Nazeer<\/div>\n
v4...R.epId,.v.\u00bbB--y V \n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\n\nDATED THIS THE 2}\". DAY OF APRIL 2009\n\nBEFORE\n\nTHE HON 'BLIE MRJUS TICE S. A131) UL Nxiziixin J  .\n\nCIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETIT:I,0N;'N\u00a3\u00a7;62;f2?)'dc5f'   \n\nBetween:\n\nM\/s Sri Bale: Gopal C0nst1'uctibn,s Ltclti \" _' V \n(Formeriy M\/s Shree IugaiinathConsLi'uc%;iens\u00a7\"--Igtd, \nReptd. By its Managing Diieczioi',   V   \"\n6-3-1 105, Rajbhavan Road, So.1\"i\":a1j\u00bbi.gi';(Ja;*  _ \u00abV :\nHyderabad M 500    _.    ff-.__..,\u00a7'Petiti0:1er.\n\nAnd : V' A z T\n\nUnion of_!--n.dia,\n\n ~  'The Genera}'?s\/1_z1nagc:1',\n\n' ix)\n\n V.S0u'ih.iWeS:::iiLnV'Railway,\n* A Hub} i, K~a\"i:'na'1iaka.\n\nT1ie..Chiei* Administrative 0-i'i'i_cei- (C),\n' A Sou{h..Wes{ern Railway,\n V. '  Miller Road.\n'  V'--B:1i1ga1(>re.\n\n\n\nre\n\n3 The Chief Engineer (C),\nSouth Western Railway,\nHubli, Karnataka.\n\n(By Sri N.S. Sanjay Gowda, Adv.)   ._\n\nThis Civil Misc. Petition is fiiieptlimtnder'Section 1l.v.1.(5~)__ot' the\nArbitration and Conciliation Act, i996:.praying to~.appoint  Soie\nArbitrator with regard to the dispute bet'wjeenthe pet.itioner and the\nrespondent, etc. V  *  . \n\nThis Civil Misc. Petititincorniithgion fo1=..2\\di_i;i.s\u00a33ion this day,\nthe Court made the io_iitswing:.\" V V   - \u00ab \"\n\nThe'peti.ti'on.er\"Visifa.\"Company incorporated under the\n\nCompanies Ac't..__lit1v.i:1g' its're;gist_ered office at Hyderabad. it was\n\n Vpf\u20acVi(}L1f3.5\u00a7':y known as \"{\"SI'j_'JagE'ti111E1lh Constructions Limited' and its\n\nV\"n_Vame\"has beenpC\u00abh_ang_ed to the present name. It has been executing\n\nW01'\u00a7(S oi? 'vai*it)a.':g -.Cje=nVtra1 and State Governments Organisations and\n\ntheit: inst1jurn.e:itaiities. The second responcient had called for\n A tei:ajei'si\"for execution of earthwork in widening of existing cutting\n\n \"and einbank:.nent, forming trolly refugees, side drains, c:onstrt:ction\n\nit\n\nI\n\n    .\n<\/pre>\n
of retaining walls, ballast retainers and protective works in R..\u20ac’-t1C.h’\ufb01V<\/p>\n
V111 between KM 57\/1 and KM 66\/} (excluding K0d’Ei:\u00e92.if&’l,IV;1:il.lF <\/p>\n
yard) between Dongal and Yedakumari stations thimjgit <\/p>\n
10.11.1998. The otter made by the pet1.;1on.\u00a2.r.}&u;is;..,.i’1ir.: “1\u00a7wese:.,_ <\/p>\n
Therefore, the second respontfentil’ the t)i’i.e1′.;.e\u00a3f_L
\npetitioner through his letter dated  ietitet at
\nAnnextire ‘B’. In terms of initial value 01′
\nthe work was  should be
\ncompleted   tlieij\u00e9titilteiolhaeeeptanee letter
\nie. the   10.11.1999. The
\nsaid   the petitioner to deposit an<\/p>\n
amount o1’Rs.3.lakhs  S\u00e9{:’~Urlly deposit and the said amount<\/p>\n
__has sinee been 1*eeeve1’ed fl”()11″i the running bills of the petitioner<\/p>\n
“‘~7:’1n(\ufb01 the 1*e:spon.Cie1it:~.yliave the said amount lying with them.<\/p>\n
1  tE1eie._ets.se of the petitioner that on receiving the<\/p>\n
1  acceptance lt:*.te1*.’..–i’t commenceti the work. As the work had to be<\/p>\n
1′ -‘\u00ab\u00ab_ex~eeuted iiighat section where plying of vehicles will he very<\/p>\n
(‘=31 {<\/p>\n
difficult more particularly in rainy season. To ply the V\u20ac3i1i_Lf’vi{‘)$”-i_l’1K’~.,<\/p>\n
the forest area, the respondents should obtain pe1’in.is_sjion’front”;.<\/p>\n
Karnataka Forest Departinent. Due to peculiar site cond_i’tti.on’:;.:’th_e<\/p>\n
petitioner had executed works beyond the gagreen1’c\u00ab.nt’tquafntiti.e-sV’that  _ 7<\/p>\n
were reguiarised belatedly due to gwhichii’p_ayi.nents .i:_i_ue'”{;o tyltich it is not in a g\ufb01gitititi to file the copy of the said<\/p>\n
G’<\/p>\n
agreernent before this Court. However, the respondents 23ccepite._(;li’-.<\/p>\n
the work executed by the petitioner and periodical payinents'”w’ei”e.eh <\/p>\n
made though belatedly, Although the petitioner had”eX’eciuteld’=thc.V<\/p>\n
work to the extent possible, the 2″” respo’itdeiit’ ‘o_n’~83.2ft)l)’3\u00a2.”*1.\/_A<\/p>\n
(Annexure ‘C’) requested the petitionerto increase the\n<\/p>\n
3. It is further contended that th”e._agifeeineiit’-isgugovernfzd by<\/p>\n
the General Conditions ol”co’n_trztc_tA gt)Vu\u20ac’fllll}.vvg”\u00abI’llt3 Engineering
\nDepartment of South–Western Rai’lwayiV_ar-id tilevSpiec.ial Conditions<\/p>\n
of Contract appent_le’dh”e;to’ the”.agre’en1ent._Clat:ses 63 and 64 of<\/p>\n
General Conditions of7″‘Cor;ttra’ct_deal ‘with resolution of disputes<\/p>\n
through arbitr’ation, Since’. theiljresporidents were not xnaking<\/p>\n
_.pay.tnen,t:s\u00a7 “petitioner”eddi’essed a letter dated l9.6.2007 calling<\/p>\n
npontheg 2’19 .t’espon’d.ent to pay certain arnounts as stated i.n the said<\/p>\n
letter;  iespolrtdeiits did not pay the amounts demanded, the<\/p>\n
pet.it.ioner invol<e'<:l Clause 651 of the General Conditions of Contract<\/p>\n
 requested the 1" respondent to constitute an arbitral Trihuital<\/p>\n
 for resolxling the dispute betwj\ufb01cgn the parties as per its notice at<\/p>\n
{<\/p>\n
Annexure 'G'. Since the procedure has failed, petitioner has fii"e–r..i<\/p>\n
this petition under Section E 1(6) of the A1'bitration and Conciiiaititinf. *<\/p>\n
Act, 1996 ('Act" for short) for appointment of a sole E1'i'hi:[1'2Zti.:()'I". to<\/p>\n
resoive the dispute and the outstanding is;\u00a7uies"h'etweei1.;th.e_"psi.a'ties" <\/p>\n
in accordance with the provisions of, the agreefiiieiiiti' in<\/p>\n
No.S25\/AM'\/99-00\/GC\/BNC dated 1s;caiis99. 3<\/p>\n
4. The respondents have \ufb01led tviteiit st_:1te’tn.ent”i0’t’ objections
\ncontending that t!1e..p’e.tvit;ionei1_ouight’t’\u00ab.!itix\u20ace-.conii)leted the work<\/p>\n
within at perioci offeight’i”in(>4\ufb01’t\u00a7’.’-:3A}1s;.i:stiotilated in the letter of<\/p>\n
acceptanceieglated ‘.:’i.\u00a3:):9t’;3.t.bi'”F.h:\u00e9””‘i)etitioner did not complete the<\/p>\n
work though eiglititegtteiisioaas”were granted and the East extension<\/p>\n
was up–,to’A 3V0.”3.2()03i Asoper AI]I1\u20acXUi’6f\\\\ 601 anti ‘Es, petitioner has<\/p>\n
‘n1ade”his fii”st.Vc.laiim__ in June, 2007 i.e. 4 years after the last<\/p>\n
extension,’There\u20acforeT;= the ciztim is stale and barred by time.<\/p>\n
2  A’ .’5.–~.TheHpetitioi1er has filed rejoinder contending that there is<\/p>\n
 a.i.’.–ch2tnge of name of the petitioner from ‘M\/s Sri J’ztgan.nath<\/p>\n
ii<\/p>\n
Constructions’ to ‘Sri Balagopai Constructions Limited’ and it <\/p>\n
further contended that petitioner has been re1n.indin~g..\u00a2’th.e’ <\/p>\n
respondents on various occasions to record final ineasu1fC.1’ncnts.arid<\/p>\n
prepare the final bill. In spite of coinpletion <)f':_ngorli_lVl isllrtotljpavicl.  <\/p>\n
terms of the agreement remain ialive 2iI}5C’.V’l1C.1_1i3\u00a7\u00a7.”il,’ cannot be said
\nthat the claims raised by the petitioner are t.stt1’lc:V V<\/p>\n
6. lVl1avee li’e.a1″cl lithe lea_rned’Counsel for the parties.<\/p>\n
‘7. It  in dis_pnt.e that. the agreement between the parties<\/p>\n
 gV_o’\u20ac:erned by ‘Generalv Conditions of contract governing<\/p>\n
V’-,Enwgiiiee1’ln_gaDefjartment oi’ South~ Western Railway and the<\/p>\n
special condilti<;)nsl of the contract appended to the agreement.<\/p>\n
lq_'Clauses.. 63. and 64 of the Geneifal Conditions of the contract<\/p>\n
'1;i*VoVi'des for the settlement of the dispute through arbitration. which<\/p>\n
are as under:\n<\/p>\n
it<\/p>\n
“Settlement ofD1’sputes:\n<\/p>\n
63. Matters \ufb01nally determined by the Railway: Al.}_m~. <\/p>\n
disputes and difference of any kind whatsoever a1*i:__4ing’  \u00bb ” ‘<\/p>\n
out of or in connection with the eomraci, w_hiether:f~<\/p>\n
during the progress of the work or \u00ab’:l-i’t’\u00e91T”-it?-2’CO!\u00a71]pl.\u20actlOI\u00a7._ ‘ A<\/p>\n
and whether before or after the de:te1’m.,i’nial’ion1’0f”the   <\/p>\n
contract shall be referred by’ the CenL_1’$;iet01′  <\/p>\n
Railway and the Railway shalliV”w:ili1in 120″ ~day’s–V\u00e9:f’Iei”;:<\/p>\n
receipt of the C0n{rac;–‘uqi”s l'(‘”3p’l””E$.*’ir’5′.i:’:1″iia[“l”\\’).1’1 makeikmd
\nnotify decision on all r\ufb01atlters forifwliieihi\/VVi3i’evision has<\/p>\n
been.vm\u00e9ieleeiiii\ufb01eleiil\ufb01jes;  l8,  39, 43(2), 45m),
\n55,  M2) and 62(l)(b) of
\nGenereivVCenclii.ienis”nf \u20ac.lie’—-eeni{1″aet or in any clause fo
\nthe.special’L0i1d’i:iens.i0fifhe eoniraet shall be deemed<\/p>\n
af$’:”‘e>\u00a7.Ce;3l.ed mziiiier:s’–‘–\u00absl2all stand specifically excluded<\/p>\n
~ :”f1’QI1;._the p_urview of the arbitration clause and not<\/p>\n
 . ’15efe1’1’e\u00ab:l\u00b0i<)_ 21i'h'i'\u00a3i5ati0n.\n<\/p>\n
64(1′)(i);:. Demand for Arbirratioiu In the event of any<\/p>\n
 AA dispute or difference between the parties here to as to<\/p>\n
 lil’1t;’AC0HS{fUCfiOI} or operation of this ecmtraet, or the<\/p>\n
ll<\/p>\n
9<\/span><\/p>\n
respective rights and liabilities of the parties on any<\/p>\n
matter in question, dispute 0}’ difference on any  2<\/p>\n
account or  to the withholding by the Railwayspi’ <\/p>\n
any certificate to which the Contractor may claiit1.to~ ” <\/p>\n
entitled to, or if the Railway fails towrnake <\/p>\n
within \u00a320 days, then and in any such case,;bit.tj except’ –. <\/p>\n
in any 0.!’ the ‘excepted tnatters’ i*et’erred_to in chtuse ‘~<\/p>\n
63 of these conditions, the C>()\u00a3vlil’i1\u00a73E()l’, “afteri.1.20-tdays” <\/p>\n
but within 180 days of his preseiitingg his final claim on?
\ndisputed matters, sl1all4″ti.eina’iAid pin” –wri.tii’i’ig that then
\ndispute or difference be rel’er1’ed=to arb.itrati.on; <\/p>\n
(ii) – The deinand for arb.i.tration’ i.s’i1:1_1l ifspeeify the<\/p>\n
rnatiiers w_hich:are_ in qu.es’tion or subject of the dispute
\nor dif\u00a77ere’nce as arse Ih’3__A’E.I’1’I’.t5uill of claim item–wise.
\nOnly such d’ispute(s;; oir~.-“difference(s) in respect of<\/p>\n
\\’.ihichi’~the dernand has been made, together with<\/p>\n
A \u00ab.pcic:t1nt’erclai”:tt_s or set or shall be referred to arbitration<\/p>\n
and ‘iv”i7I’3\u00e93.:5;[(\u20aci’S shalt not be included in the<\/p>\n
i A re’t’erence)-\n<\/p>\n
V . yi(\u00a7i)(a)”‘– The arbitration proceedings shall be assumed<\/p>\n
” .t_o_,i’1ave commenced from the day, a written and valid<\/p>\n
 demand for arbitration is received by the railway.<\/p>\n
K<\/p>\n
10<\/span><\/p>\n
(b) The claimant shall submit his claim stating that the<\/p>\n
facts supporting the claims alongwitli all rele\\.rant”–i  ”<\/p>\n
documents and the relief or remedy sought ag:ii_ns’t”‘<\/p>\n
each claim within a period of 30 days from <\/p>\n
appointment of the Arbitral Tribunal;\n<\/p>\n
(c) The Railway shall submit its del’e4ncei’statenientand ‘<\/p>\n
counter claim(s). if any, within.t__a'”periodvof 60. S<\/p>\n
receipt of copy of claims frotniii’-TVri.biunal therefafterf
\nunless otherwise exte_nsionhasVi”t3eenVy”‘granted by<\/p>\n
Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
(il’\u00a3’)i.:_ N_o_ne’w_’vc]aiVi’nyshall’be added during proceedings
\nby eithei’– party.’  party may amend or<\/p>\n
st1lJ})leme’nt [113 r,?ri2inal~.–“iclaim or defence thereof<\/p>\n
during~tl1e coiursevof arbitration proceedings subject to<\/p>\n
‘ \u00ab _ accetitaaiceby Tribunal; having due regarci to the delay<\/p>\n
 Vein’ i:1,aki,n g it.–._ <\/p>\n
  Contractor(s) does\/do not prefer his\/their<\/p>\n
‘ .. ;specific and final claims in writing, within a period of<\/p>\n
*  of i’eceivi.ng the intimation from the Railways<\/p>\n
 that the final bill is ready for payment, he\/they will be<\/p>\n
lit<\/p>\n
“I1<\/p>\n
deemed to have waived his\/their elaim(s) and the<\/p>\n
Railway shall be dischtirged and released of all<\/p>\n
liabilities under the contract in respect of <\/p>\n
claims.”\n<\/p>\n
8. It is evident from Clause 64(l)(iv) that if the\ufb01eoiitraetor:A<\/p>\n
does not prefer his specific and final el;1irn’i1i.w1i’.itin.;g Witliin <\/p>\n
period of 90 days after receiving the intimz1tio_n:’froni Rzii_iwt;ys’~ ‘<\/p>\n
the final bill is ready for payment, “h.ex”will be’-.cfeeme’.:.i  hiive
\nwaived his claim and the Rz1ii<w;1y shtillliiibevjidiseinirged and released<\/p>\n
of all liabilities under the cont1'z1c.tf.in re'spet:t of ithef claim.<\/p>\n
9. His not the”;-:tse\u00abot”the” respondents that they have issued<\/p>\n
an intimation’ thzitlithe finz’t’lAi’t,i,ll”‘i.sV ready for payment. The case of<\/p>\n
the respondents is ii”i3.{_ petitioner has made his first claim in June,<\/p>\n
V’?.20O7’\u00ab  :1l’t”er i”c)u”r’…yet1rs after the last extension and therefore, the<\/p>\n
chiinji b2t1*;*e’d,_h34i’VV’it.inie. The provisions of the Limitation Act<\/p>\n
V an liesto a1i=bitrat’i’on as it it lies to other roeeedintzs of the Court,
\nLP A PP P ..\n<\/p>\n
Vr’i”S star from Section 43 of the Act. Article :37 of the<\/p>\n
K”.\n<\/p>\n
4_ . by 1im.i.ta\u00a7ti()nI~<\/p>\n
12<\/span><\/p>\n
Limitation Act makes it obligatory for claims to be filed <\/p>\n
three years from the date of accrual of cause of action. .\u00bb”Fhe_A’:;.ai6.7.j’ , A’<\/p>\n
Article lays down that any other application for which nolpeitied “(iii a <\/p>\n
limitation is provided elsewhere in the Artiel\u00bbes,thre’.e ype4arsiI.t}eriod;p.<\/p>\n
is allowed when the right to apply acci’ties:i”*As7’peri:c.la\ufb01sep”G6l(<\/p>\n
of the General Conditions of the’rit_oi’;~tyract, it is
\ncontractor does not prefer his  final  writing
\nwithin a period of 90 days  from the
\nRailways that the finalbill is  jforv  lwill be deemed<\/p>\n
to have waived his2p’claiin.’ It is. not the   respondents that<\/p>\n
they have sent  inVtiir1*=::1’t.iAoisi_tha–t_tlrie final bill is ready for payment.<\/p>\n
Therefore, p1′.l1;1*k\u00a31__’f\u00a31Cie,iiI_at1’l..0i’w[l;l_t3 View that the claim is not barred<\/p>\n
lo.  Apex cider’ in SHREE RAM MILLS LTD. VS.\n<\/p>\n
 (P) LTD. —- (2007) 4 SCC 599, has held that<\/p>\n
 while c’o_nsidei”in\u00a7_j~i’an application under Section ll of the Act, the<\/p>\n
-.  justice. or his designate has to decide about the teri’itorial<\/p>\n
ll<\/p>\n
13<\/span><\/p>\n
jurisdiction and also whether there exists an arbitration agi’eem_enti’~.<\/p>\n
between the parties and whether such party has 21ppi’o2fehed”–.tlje.i i”<\/p>\n
Court for appointment of the arbitrator.  (_3_hiei”–‘J’tisti’ee’; <\/p>\n
examine as to whether the claim is a dead ‘e”ne~”orliin  <\/p>\n
whether the parties have already
\nhave recorded sat.isfnction of their gins and tibliitgativeiiis or
\nWhether the parties   satisfaction
\nregarding the fina11cialA’el;-iirnst.’i’ii’exiiimii.ni.i\ufb01i  parties have
\nrecorded their _the” there will
\nhe no questionVof”i:1riyii–s;s_uVe   in this sense that the
\nChief Justice has  there remains anything<\/p>\n
to be decided between iiheii);trtiefs= in respect of the agreement and<\/p>\n
_Vaiiything_\u00a7.&\u00abto ‘he decidedv between the parties in respect of the<\/p>\n
‘a_gi’ee1’ne_nt ai1d.wyhiet.h_ei’ the parties are still at issue on any such<\/p>\n
Iilallt’;-[‘A.’.i”f~ the Chief’;lt1stice does not, in the strict sense, decide the<\/p>\n
issue, in ‘li’1El{l”\u20ac3’VCl}[, it is for him to locate such issue and record his<\/p>\n
 i’:~;ati.sliaetio:1 that such issue exists between the parties. It is only in<\/p>\n
~th:1t  that the finding on a live issue is given. The same thing<\/p>\n
I4<\/p>\n
is about the limitation, which is aiways a mixed question of<\/p>\n
and fact. The Chief Justice only has to record his sa.!\u00a7isf\u00e9eti\u00a7;–:i_f  _<\/p>\n
that prima facie the issue has not becometlead hy”ti”1e.::ia;5se of<\/p>\n
time or that any party to the agree111erit has not slept to-aetV:i’t._s_A in<\/p>\n
rights beyond the time per111ittedwt$_y'<-lgiw ~-agiitate
\ncovered by the agreement. All   his
\nsatisfaction that the p\u00a3ll'ilCSvi"i~.\u00a3ll~':\u20ac"ntV)t rights and the
\nmatter has not been hai'i'ed  I am of the
\nView that the   VVtoWV'zi'trhit1'21ti(in under
\nSection ll(v6)__Vo:f to a coneiusion
\nthat the pJ:O.Cee.dir.tisiV"es*e- by'time.. The said question is a<\/p>\n
mixed questioii tofiawxandi i7ac'ti,iy=hieh has to be re–examined by the<\/p>\n
_. fc1i'blti."3E.O_ilf along with the other questions.<\/p>\n
 \u00abV hi' I'. Fl7cnce,..\u00a2l pass thewfollowingz
\nORDER<\/p>\n
A  Civii _M'iscelianeous Petition is allowed.\n<\/p>\n
it<\/p>\n
15<\/span><\/p>\n
b). Horfbie Justice Sri M.P.Chinnappa, Retired Judge of this
\nCourt is appointed as the S016 Arbitrator to resoive the dispute<\/p>\n
between the parties ariseing out of the agreement dated 18.6. E999.___<\/p>\n
C). The question of limitaiion is 21130 kept open 1’01’<\/p>\n
arbitrator to decide.\n<\/p>\n
(1). Registry is directed \u00a30 send 3. cgp.y.__Qf {1:i$\u00a7”OV’rdei\u00a7\u00bbt(i5″tiieV<\/p>\n
learned Arbitrator.\n<\/p>\n
e). The parties are directed to b_ei1::Vtheir.(3w11 <'Qsi:~:,  <\/p>\n
BMM\/–<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court M\/S Sri Bala Gopal Constructions … vs Union Of India on 21 April, 2009 Author: S.Abdul Nazeer v4…R.epId,.v.\u00bbB–y V IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 2}”. DAY OF APRIL 2009 BEFORE THE HON ‘BLIE MRJUS TICE S. A131) UL Nxiziixin J . CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETIT:I,0N;’N\u00a3\u00a7;62;f2?)’dc5f’ Between: M\/s […]<\/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-191276","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S Sri Bala Gopal Constructions ... vs Union Of India on 21 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\/ms-sri-bala-gopal-constructions-vs-union-of-india-on-21-april-2009-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S Sri Bala Gopal Constructions ... vs Union Of India on 21 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sri-bala-gopal-constructions-vs-union-of-india-on-21-april-2009-2\" \/>\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=\"2009-04-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-02-24T10:19:15+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sri-bala-gopal-constructions-vs-union-of-india-on-21-april-2009-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sri-bala-gopal-constructions-vs-union-of-india-on-21-april-2009-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S Sri Bala Gopal Constructions … vs Union Of India on 21 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-24T10:19:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sri-bala-gopal-constructions-vs-union-of-india-on-21-april-2009-2\"},\"wordCount\":2363,\"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\\\/ms-sri-bala-gopal-constructions-vs-union-of-india-on-21-april-2009-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sri-bala-gopal-constructions-vs-union-of-india-on-21-april-2009-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sri-bala-gopal-constructions-vs-union-of-india-on-21-april-2009-2\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S Sri Bala Gopal Constructions ... vs Union Of India on 21 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-24T10:19:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sri-bala-gopal-constructions-vs-union-of-india-on-21-april-2009-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sri-bala-gopal-constructions-vs-union-of-india-on-21-april-2009-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sri-bala-gopal-constructions-vs-union-of-india-on-21-april-2009-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S Sri Bala Gopal Constructions … vs Union Of India on 21 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":"M\/S Sri Bala Gopal Constructions ... vs Union Of India on 21 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\/ms-sri-bala-gopal-constructions-vs-union-of-india-on-21-april-2009-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S Sri Bala Gopal Constructions ... vs Union Of India on 21 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sri-bala-gopal-constructions-vs-union-of-india-on-21-april-2009-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-04-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-02-24T10:19:15+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sri-bala-gopal-constructions-vs-union-of-india-on-21-april-2009-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sri-bala-gopal-constructions-vs-union-of-india-on-21-april-2009-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S Sri Bala Gopal Constructions … vs Union Of India on 21 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-04-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-24T10:19:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sri-bala-gopal-constructions-vs-union-of-india-on-21-april-2009-2"},"wordCount":2363,"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\/ms-sri-bala-gopal-constructions-vs-union-of-india-on-21-april-2009-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sri-bala-gopal-constructions-vs-union-of-india-on-21-april-2009-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sri-bala-gopal-constructions-vs-union-of-india-on-21-april-2009-2","name":"M\/S Sri Bala Gopal Constructions ... vs Union Of India on 21 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-04-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-24T10:19:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sri-bala-gopal-constructions-vs-union-of-india-on-21-april-2009-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sri-bala-gopal-constructions-vs-union-of-india-on-21-april-2009-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sri-bala-gopal-constructions-vs-union-of-india-on-21-april-2009-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S Sri Bala Gopal Constructions … vs Union Of India on 21 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\/191276","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=191276"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/191276\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=191276"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=191276"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=191276"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}