{"id":196834,"date":"2001-09-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-09-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gammon-india-ltd-vs-gulmohar-estates-ltd-on-4-september-2001"},"modified":"2017-10-06T13:03:57","modified_gmt":"2017-10-06T07:33:57","slug":"gammon-india-ltd-vs-gulmohar-estates-ltd-on-4-september-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gammon-india-ltd-vs-gulmohar-estates-ltd-on-4-september-2001","title":{"rendered":"Gammon India Ltd vs Gulmohar Estates Ltd on 4 September, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"
National Consumer Disputes Redressal<\/div>\n
Gammon India Ltd vs Gulmohar Estates Ltd on 4 September, 2001<\/div>\n
  \n \n \n \n \n \n NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n \n\nNATIONAL CONSUMER\nDISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION\n\n \n\nNEW DELHI\n\n \n\n\u00a0 \n\n \n\nMISCELLANEOUS\nPETITION NO. 14 OF 1996\n\n \n\nIN\n\n \n\n ORIGINAL PETITION NO. 57 OF 1994  \n\n \n\n\u00a0 \n\n \n\nM\/s.\nGammon India Ltd.  .. Complainant \n\n \n\n Vs. \n\n \n\nM\/s.\nGulmohar Estates Ltd.   ..\nOpposite Party \n\n \n\n\u00a0 \n\n \n\nBEFORE:\n\n \n\n HONBLE MR.\nJUSTICE D.P. WADHWA,\n\n \n\n PRESIDENT\n\n \n\n HONBLE MR.\nJUSTICE C.L. CHAUDHRY, MEMBER\n\n \n\n HONBLE MR.\nJUSTICE J.K. MEHRA, MEMBER.\n\n \n\n MRS.\nRAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER. \n\n \n\nMR. B.K. TAIMNI, MEMBER\n\n \n\n\u00a0 \n\n \n\n\u00a0 \n\n \n\nNational Commission has no power to review\n- Judgment of  \n\n \n\nthe Supreme Court in Jyotsana Arvindkumar Shah and  \n\n \n\nOthers (1994) 4 SCC 325 relied upon. \n\n \n\n\u00a0 \n\n \n\n\u00a0 \n\n \n\n\u00a0 \n\n \n\nFor the Complainant : Ms. Indira Jai Singh, Sr. Advocate and\n\n \n\n  Mr. Prashant Kumar and Mr Prasanjit\nKeswani,\n\n \n\n  Advocates with her.\n\n \n\n\u00a0 \n\n \n\nFor the opposite party : N E M O\n\n \n\n\u00a0 \n\n \n\n \n\n ORDER \n<\/pre>\n
 \u00a0 <\/p>\n
 Dated
\nthe 4th September, 2001 <\/p>\n
 PER JUSTICE
\nD.P. WADHWA (PRESIDENT) <\/p>\n
 With this order we are
\ndeciding miscellaneous petition No.
\n14\/96 filed by the complainant seeking, in effect, review of the order of the
\nNational Commission dated 9.11.1995.\n<\/p>\n
 This
\npetition arises in the following circumstances.\n<\/p>\n
 On
\n3.3.1994 complaint was filed
\nby the complainant seeking direction to the opposite party to hand over possession of certain flats in
\nthe Garden Estates developed by the opposite party. The agreement under which contract was
\nentered into between the parties contain an arbitration clause as under:\n<\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
In the event
\nof any dispute or difference arising out of or relating to this Agreement between the parties, the same
\nshall be referred to the arbitration of a nominee of Shri A.N. Haksar, the
\nChairman of the Vendor and any award made in such arbitration shall be final,
\nconclusive and binding on the parties. The venue of such
\narbitration shall be New Delhi..\n<\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
 When the matter was
\ntaken up on 9.11.1995 following order was passed by the National Commission, declining to go into the merits of the
\ncomplaint:\n<\/p>\n
 For
\nthe Complainant  :\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Raju Ramachandran and<\/p>\n
  Mr. Vishwajit Singh, Advocates<\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
 For
\nthe Opp. Party  :\n<\/p>\n
Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, Sr. Advocate<\/p>\n
  and Mr. B.R. Menon & Mr. Rohit<\/p>\n
  Chaudhary, Advocates with him.\n<\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
   O
\nR D E R<\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
Since pursuant to the Clause
\ncontained in the contract between the parties the dispute raised in the present
\ncomplaint petition stands already referred to arbitration and the arbitrator is
\nsaid to have entered on the reference, we are not inclined to conduct a
\nconcurrent adjudication of the same question while the arbitration proceedings
\nare pending. On this short ground we decline to go into the merits of
\nthis complaint and dismiss this petition without expressing any opinion
\nwhatever on the contentions raised by the parties.\n<\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
 Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
 ..\n<\/p>\n
(V. BALAKRISHNA
\nERADI)<\/p>\n
  PRESIDENT<\/p>\n
 Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
 ..\n<\/p>\n
 (B.S.\n<\/p>\n
YADAV)<\/p>\n
    MEMBER<\/p>\n
 Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
 ..\n<\/p>\n
 (S.S.\n<\/p>\n
CHADHA)<\/p>\n
  MEMBER<\/p>\n
 Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
 ..\n<\/p>\n
 (R.\n<\/p>\n
THAMARAJAKSHI)<\/p>\n
  MEMBER<\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
 Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
 ..\n<\/p>\n
 (S.P.\n<\/p>\n
BAGLA)<\/p>\n
  MEMBER<\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
 Complainant took the
\nmatter to the Supreme Court (Civil
\nAppeal No.11637 of 1995), when it
\npassed the following order on 4.1.1996:\n<\/p>\n
We see no
\nground to interfere with the impugned order of the National Commission. The civil Appeal is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
Mr. R.K. Jain,
\nlearned senior counsel appearing for
\nthe appellant wanted to invite our attention to various documents to build an
\nargument that in fact there is no arbitration clause between the parties. He may, if so advised, show
\nthese documents to the Commission, if permitted under law.\n<\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
 Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
 .J<\/p>\n
 (Kuldip
\nSingh)<\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
 Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
 .J<\/p>\n
 (S.\n<\/p>\n
Saghir Ahmad)<\/p>\n
 In view of the observation made in the order of the Supreme
\nCourt, the complainant filed the present miscellaneous petition.
\nOn 24.8.2000 this Commission after receipt of this petition, passed the
\nfollowing order:\n<\/p>\n
The Original Petition is
\nrestored. Post this Original Petition
\nin due course.\n<\/p>\n
 Two questions arise as
\nto the validity of this order dated
\n24.8.2000 itself and the
\nmaintainability of miscellaneous petition.\n<\/p>\n
 It
\nhas been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Jyotsana Arvind Kumar Shah & Ors. Vs. Bombay Hospital Trust
\ndecided on 22.1.1999 that National Commission is not empowered to
\nreview its own order. Even an ex-parte
\norder on merit cannot be reviewed. This miscellaneous petition for review is
\ntherefore not maintainable as it is not permissible under the law.\n<\/p>\n
 The question as to the
\njurisdiction of the National Commission to review its order was recently
\nconsidered by this Commission in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court
\nin the case of Bombay Hospital Trust, in the
\nmatter M.O.H. Leathers Vs.
\nUnited Commercial bank (Miscellanoues petition No.1\/2001 in original
\npetition No.110\/1993, decided on 12.7.2001).
\nThis is how the matter was considered:\n<\/p>\n
This is an
\napplication seeking review of the order dated 30th May, 1996. The order though in brief is on merit. Against this order the complainant went in
\nappeal to the Supreme Court (Civil
\nAppeal no.10990\/96). On September 9, 1997, Supreme Court passed the following order:\n<\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
Learned
\ncounsel for the appellant states that the impugned order was passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission behind the back of the
\ncomplainant. It is stated that the
\nnotice was sent to the learned counsel
\nfor the complainant on May 20, 1996
\nfor hearing which was fixed on May 30, 1996.
\nThe notice was returned unserved as the counsel had already left for
\nsummer vacation. Be that as it
\nmay, we give liberty to the complainant to move an application for setting
\naside the order <\/p>\n
on the alleged
\nground. The appeal is disposed of. We, however, give liberty to the appellant
\nto approach this Court after the final order is passed by the Commission.\n<\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
On
\nstrength of this order present
\napplication has been filed seeking review<\/p>\n
of the order of
\nCommission dated May 30, 1996. No doubt
\nthe order of the Commission was made
\nex-parte. The order of the
\nCommission was, however, based on the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 under which the
\nCommission has been constituted.\n<\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
In Jyotsana Arvind Kumar Shah & Ors. Vs.
\nBombay Hospital Trust – 1999 (4) SCC
\n325 {decided on 22.1.1999} while
\nconsidering the powers of State Commission under the Act for setting aside an
\nex-parte order, Supreme Court held that
\nno such jurisdiction vested with the State Commission. In the case before the Supreme Court an ex-parte order was made against the respondent and
\non merit compensation of Rs.7.00 lakhs
\nwith interest @ 12% was awarded in favour of the appellant. Resondent instead of preferring an appeal
\nunder the Act filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court which was
\ndismissed with an observation that the respondent could approach the appellate
\nauthority or to make an appropriate application before the State Commission for
\nsetting aside the ex-parte order, if
\npermissible under the law. Armed with
\nthe order of the High court respondent filed an application before the state
\ncommission for setting aside ex-parte order which was allowed. Revision was filed by the respondent before
\nthe National Commission which was dismissed.
\nAppellant then filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against that
\norder. Supreme Court said that the
\norder of the State Commission setting
\naside its ex-parte order was one without jurisdiction. It said that State Commission fell into an
\nerror in not bearing in mind that the Act under which it was functioning had
\nnot provided it with a jurisdiction to set aside an ex-parte reasoned
\norder. Supreme Court added:\n<\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
It is also
\nseen from the order of the State
\nCommission that it was influenced by the concluding portion of the judgment of
\nthe Bombay High Court to the
\neffect that the respondent
\n(writ petitioner) could
\napproach <\/p>\n
the Appellate
\nAuthority or make an appropriate application before the State Commission for
\nsetting aside the ex parte order, if
\npermissible under <\/p>\n
the law.\n<\/p>\n
Here again, the State Commission
\nfailed to appreciate that the
\nobservation of the High court would help the respondent, if permissible under
\nthe law. If the law does not permit the
\nrespondent to move the application for setting
\naside the ex parte order, which appears to be the position, the order of
\nthe State Commission setting aside the ex parte order cannot be sustained. As stated earlier, there is no dispute that there is no provision in the Act
\nenabling the State Commission to set aside an ex parte order.\n<\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
This judgment
\nof the Supreme court squarely
\ncovers the present case and was
\nrendered considering the provisions of
\nthe very Act with which we are concerned.
\nThe learned counsel for the Complainant referred to other judgements of
\nthe Supreme Court however, not rendered under the provisions of the Act, to contend that there is inherent
\njurisdiction with any Tribunal to set
\naside its ex-parte order. It is not necessary for us to <\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
go into those
\njudgments as we have to follow the law
\nlaid down by the Supreme Court in the case of
\nJyotsana Arvind Kumar Shah & Ors. Vs. Bombay Hospital Trust. We have to consider the application for setting aside an ex
\nparte reasoned order as per law.\n<\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
 The
\napplication is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
 Similar arguments which
\nwe noticed in our aforesaid order have
\nbeen stressed again by Ms. Indira Jai Singh, learned Senior Advocate now
\nappearing for the complainant. We
\nare afraid, we are unable to agree with her contention. Then it was submitted by Ms. Singh that on the date of hearing
\nwhen the complaint was rejected it was
\njust on the statement made by counsel for the respondent and there was no time
\nfor the complainant to get instructions
\nif the matter had already been referred to arbitration. We cannot take note of such a contention,
\nparticularly when we find that two
\nsenior counsel engaged by the parties appeared before the Commission on that
\ndate. There was an arbitration clause
\nwhich we have quoted above. In view of the judgement of the Supreme
\nCourt in Bombay Hospital Trust case,
\nthe order restoring the original
\npetition is non est being contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme
\nCourt.. The order dated  <\/p>\n
9.11.1995 cannot be reviewed. In
\nthese circumstances, this miscellaneous petition fails and it is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
 .J.\n<\/p>\n
 (D.P.\n<\/p>\n
WADHWA) <\/p>\n
  PRESIDENT <\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
 ..J.\n<\/p>\n
 (C.L.\n<\/p>\n
CHAUDHRY) <\/p>\n
  MEMBER <\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
 ..J.\n<\/p>\n
 (J.K.\n<\/p>\n
MEHRA) <\/p>\n
  MEMBER <\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
 .\n<\/p>\n
 (RAJYALAKSHMI
\nRAO) <\/p>\n
 MEMBER <\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
\u00a0 <\/p>\n
 ..\n<\/p>\n
 (
\nB.K. TAIMNI) <\/p>\n
  MEMBER<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Gammon India Ltd vs Gulmohar Estates Ltd on 4 September, 2001 NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI \u00a0 MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 14 OF 1996 IN ORIGINAL PETITION NO. 57 OF 1994 \u00a0 M\/s. Gammon India Ltd. .. Complainant Vs. M\/s. Gulmohar Estates Ltd. .. Opposite […]<\/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":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-196834","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nGammon India Ltd vs Gulmohar Estates Ltd on 4 September, 2001 - 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\/gammon-india-ltd-vs-gulmohar-estates-ltd-on-4-september-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gammon India Ltd vs Gulmohar Estates Ltd on 4 September, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gammon-india-ltd-vs-gulmohar-estates-ltd-on-4-september-2001\" \/>\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=\"2001-09-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-06T07:33:57+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gammon-india-ltd-vs-gulmohar-estates-ltd-on-4-september-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gammon-india-ltd-vs-gulmohar-estates-ltd-on-4-september-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gammon India Ltd vs Gulmohar Estates Ltd on 4 September, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-09-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-06T07:33:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gammon-india-ltd-vs-gulmohar-estates-ltd-on-4-september-2001\"},\"wordCount\":1548,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gammon-india-ltd-vs-gulmohar-estates-ltd-on-4-september-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gammon-india-ltd-vs-gulmohar-estates-ltd-on-4-september-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gammon-india-ltd-vs-gulmohar-estates-ltd-on-4-september-2001\",\"name\":\"Gammon India Ltd vs Gulmohar Estates Ltd on 4 September, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-09-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-06T07:33:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gammon-india-ltd-vs-gulmohar-estates-ltd-on-4-september-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gammon-india-ltd-vs-gulmohar-estates-ltd-on-4-september-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gammon-india-ltd-vs-gulmohar-estates-ltd-on-4-september-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gammon India Ltd vs Gulmohar Estates Ltd on 4 September, 2001\"}]},{\"@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":"Gammon India Ltd vs Gulmohar Estates Ltd on 4 September, 2001 - 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\/gammon-india-ltd-vs-gulmohar-estates-ltd-on-4-september-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gammon India Ltd vs Gulmohar Estates Ltd on 4 September, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gammon-india-ltd-vs-gulmohar-estates-ltd-on-4-september-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-09-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-06T07:33:57+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gammon-india-ltd-vs-gulmohar-estates-ltd-on-4-september-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gammon-india-ltd-vs-gulmohar-estates-ltd-on-4-september-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gammon India Ltd vs Gulmohar Estates Ltd on 4 September, 2001","datePublished":"2001-09-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-06T07:33:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gammon-india-ltd-vs-gulmohar-estates-ltd-on-4-september-2001"},"wordCount":1548,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gammon-india-ltd-vs-gulmohar-estates-ltd-on-4-september-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gammon-india-ltd-vs-gulmohar-estates-ltd-on-4-september-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gammon-india-ltd-vs-gulmohar-estates-ltd-on-4-september-2001","name":"Gammon India Ltd vs Gulmohar Estates Ltd on 4 September, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-09-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-06T07:33:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gammon-india-ltd-vs-gulmohar-estates-ltd-on-4-september-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gammon-india-ltd-vs-gulmohar-estates-ltd-on-4-september-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gammon-india-ltd-vs-gulmohar-estates-ltd-on-4-september-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gammon India Ltd vs Gulmohar Estates Ltd on 4 September, 2001"}]},{"@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\/196834","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=196834"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/196834\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=196834"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=196834"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=196834"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}