{"id":207723,"date":"2010-10-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thiruvananthapuram-695-036-vs-discovery-of-india-bldg-on-1-october-2010"},"modified":"2017-11-11T08:23:20","modified_gmt":"2017-11-11T02:53:20","slug":"thiruvananthapuram-695-036-vs-discovery-of-india-bldg-on-1-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thiruvananthapuram-695-036-vs-discovery-of-india-bldg-on-1-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Thiruvananthapuram-695 036 vs “Discovery Of India” Bldg. on 1 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Thiruvananthapuram-695 036 vs “Discovery Of India” Bldg. on 1 October, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: Anoop V.Mohta<\/div>\n
                                                1                      arbp458.07.sxw\n\n\n                IN THE  HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                             \n                   ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION\n\n                    ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 458  OF 2007\n\n\n\n\n                                                     \n    B.K. Gopakumar,\n    Indian Inhabitant, Focus Films, \n    P.B. No. 5710, Hotel Silver Sands\n\n\n\n\n                                                    \n    Thiruvananthapuram-695 036.                               ....Petitioner.\n\n          Vs.\n\n\n\n\n                                          \n    M\/s. National Film Development\n    Corporation Ltd., Regd. Office;\n                           \n    \"Discovery of India\" Bldg., Nehru Centre,\n    Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli,\n    Mumbai-400 018, represented\n                          \n    by Dy. Manager (S& L\/ P&A)                                ....Respondent.\n\n\n    Ms. Priti Menon i\/by M\/s. Shreeji & Lal for the Petitioner.\n    Mr. A.K. Singh i\/by M\/s. Lex Remedeum for the Respondent. \n          \n       \n\n\n\n                             CORAM :  ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                JUDGMENT RESERVED ON  :-  24\/09\/2010
\n                JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON :-  01\/10\/2010<\/p>\n
    JUDGMENT:-\n<\/p>\n
          Rule, returnable forthwith.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    2     Heard finally by consent of the parties.\n\n\n\n    3     The Petitioner-Producer - original Respondent has challenged award \n\n<\/pre>\n
    dated 7th March, 2007, passed by an ex-officio- Arbitrator who was also the <\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:30:03 :::<\/span>
\n                                                      2                        arbp458.07.sxw<\/p>\n
    Chairman of M\/s. National Film Development Corporation Ltd. (for short, <\/p>\n
    the   Corporation),   based   upon   the   Arbitration   agreement   between   the <\/p>\n
    parties.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    4      Loan   agreement   dated   10th  November,   1992   (the   agreement) <\/p>\n
    executed   between   the   Petitioner   and   the   Respondent-Corporation.\n<\/p>\n
    Supplemental   loan   agreement   dated   30th  September,   1994   was   also <\/p>\n
    executed.  As the Petitioner-producer unable to repay the amount, principal <\/p>\n
    as well as interest, as of 31st  March, 2001, by notice dated 29th  October, <\/p>\n
    2001, the Corporation Manager invoked clause 17 of the Agreement and <\/p>\n
    submitted to the then Chairman-Sole Arbitrator to invoke and adjudicate <\/p>\n
    the claims against the Petitioner-producer.  The said arbitration proceeding <\/p>\n
    could not be proceeded as a new Chairman was appointed.  By letter dated <\/p>\n
    12th May, 2005 again request was made to adjudicate the claims to the new <\/p>\n
    Chairman who was also an ex-officio Arbitrator. The Arbitrator, thereafter, <\/p>\n
    issued notice to both the parties on 14th  May, 2005.   Preliminary meeting <\/p>\n
    dated 20th May, 2005 the Petitioner was absent.  The Arbitrator directed the <\/p>\n
    Corporation to file statement of claims. It was filed accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
    5      The  next meeting  was  held on  18th  June,  2005.    On  28th  January, <\/p>\n
    2006,   25th  March,   2006   and   27th  May,   2006,   the   Petitioner   was   again <\/p>\n
    absent.  The meeting was held on 20th January, 2007 to give an opportunity <\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:30:03 :::<\/span>
\n                                                           3                        arbp458.07.sxw<\/p>\n
    to the Petitioner.  He was present on that day.  As it is stated the Arbitrator <\/p>\n
    after hearing both the parties, by an award directed the Petitioner to pay <\/p>\n
    the amount within six months from 7th March, 2007.\n<\/p>\n
    6      The   Petitioner   has   filed   an   application   on   20th  January,   2007   and <\/p>\n
    raised   a   preliminary   objection   that   the   Arbitrator   has   no   jurisdiction   to <\/p>\n
    proceed with the dispute and to adjudicate the claims in view of the clauses <\/p>\n
    17 (b) and 17 (c) of the Agreement it is  stipulated that the Arbitrator shall <\/p>\n
    make   the   award   within   12   months   from   the   date   of   entering   on   the <\/p>\n
    reference.  The Arbitrator shall be entitled with the consent of the parties to <\/p>\n
    extend the time to make award.  There was no consent obtained or given by <\/p>\n
    the Petitioner at any point of time.  Nothing is pointed on record with this <\/p>\n
    regard even the consent of otherside.   The Arbitrator without considering <\/p>\n
    the above, passed impugned order on 07\/03\/2007.\n<\/p>\n
    7      Clause 17 (a), (b) (c) of the agreement are reproduced as under:-\n<\/p>\n
           “17.a)In the event of any dispute or difference or question or
\n                 Non-performance   arising   between   the   parties   hereto
\n                 however   touching   this   agreement   or   as   to   the
\n                 construction or meaning or effect of this agreement or of
\n                 any of the terms, clauses or things therein contained as to
\n                 the   rights,   duties   and   liabilities   of   the   parties   hereto
\n                 under   these   presents   or   otherwise   howsoever   on   any
\n                 amount   then   the   same   shall   be   referred   to   the   sole
\n                 arbitration   of   the   Chairman   of   the   Corporation   whose
\n                 decision shall be final and binding upon the parties and it  <\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:30:03 :::<\/span>
\n                                                            4                         arbp458.07.sxw<\/p>\n
                   shall   be   no   objection   by   the   Producer   that   the   said
\n                   arbitrator   is   interested   in   the   Corporation   or   in   the  <\/p>\n
                   dispute   or   difference   or   questions   or   that   he   has   dealt
\n                   with any matter in dispute or difference or that he has in
\n                   the course of his duties expressed views on all or any of  <\/p>\n
                   the matters in disputes or differences or questions and the
\n                   decision of the said arbitrator shall be final, conclusive
\n                   and binding on the both the parties.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           b)      The   Arbitrator   shall   make   his   award   within   twelve
\n                   months of entering on the reference.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           c)      the Arbitrator shall be entitled with the consent of the <\/p>\n
                   parties to extend the time to make award.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    8<\/span><\/p>\n
           There is no serious dispute with regard to the clauses so raised above.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    The   parties   have   agreed   for   above   clauses   to   get   adjudicated   their <\/p>\n
    differences\/ disputes.  As noted, at the first time the dispute was raised in <\/p>\n
    the year 2001.  There is nothing on record to show what happened to that <\/p>\n
    proceedings,   once   initiated   by   invoking   the   above   clauses   in   question.\n<\/p>\n
    Second time in 2005, same clauses were invoked again and the Chairman <\/p>\n
    being Arbitrator, issued notice to the Petitioner.  The Petitioner for various <\/p>\n
    reasons   unable   to   attend   the   meetings   so   fixed   by   the   Arbitrator.     The <\/p>\n
    Respondent filed statement of claim on 06\/06\/2005.  The matter was again <\/p>\n
    adjourned from time to time to give opportunity to the Petitioner, within 12 <\/p>\n
    months.  The Arbitration proceedings could not be completed.  Admittedly, <\/p>\n
    there   is   no  written  consent  on  record.    On   the  contrary,  the   application <\/p>\n
    dated 20th January, 2007 was filed by the Petitioner raising the preliminary <\/p>\n
    objections in view of clause 17 (a), (b) and (c) as referred above, as there <\/p>\n
                                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:30:03 :::<\/span>
\n                                                          5                        arbp458.07.sxw<\/p>\n
    was no consent to extend the time to make the award.  The continuation of <\/p>\n
    proceedings after expiry of 12 months  from the date of reference, itself is, <\/p>\n
    therefore, illegal and bad in law.  Even, we take 14th May, 2005, the date on <\/p>\n
    which the Arbitrator issued notice and though served, the Petitioner failed <\/p>\n
    to   appear   on   the   fixed   dates   except   20th  January,   2007.     The   Arbitrator <\/p>\n
    ought not to have proceeded further as there was no further time provided <\/p>\n
    or agreed to extend the time to pass the award.   The Application so filed <\/p>\n
    shows that there was no consent given by the petitioner to extend the time <\/p>\n
    to make the award.   First reference was made in the year 2001 and the <\/p>\n
    second in May, 2005.  In both these cases, the Arbitrator unable to pass the <\/p>\n
    award within 12 months from the date of the reference.  The application so <\/p>\n
    filed  by the  Petitioner  was   not decided.  The  Petitioner  appeared on  20th <\/p>\n
    January,   2007,   that   itself   was   after   12   months   from   May,   2005.     The <\/p>\n
    Arbitrator has not even referred to the earlier reference made in the year <\/p>\n
    2001.  The   award,  therefore,  so passed  without  obtaining  the  consent as <\/p>\n
    required,   therefore,   was   beyond   the   stipulated   and   agreed   period   of   12 <\/p>\n
    months.     Therefore,   such   award   is   bad   in   law   and   unsustainable.     The <\/p>\n
    Arbitrator   could   have   passed   ex-parte   award   within   12   months,   as   the <\/p>\n
    Petitioner was not appearing inspite of service. <\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n    9      The   Arbitrator,   cannot   on   his   own,   without   consent,   even   within \n\n    stipulated   period,   extend   the   time   for   making\/passing   the   award.     The \n\n\n\n\n                                                                ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 16:30:03 :::<\/span>\n                                                        6                        arbp458.07.sxw\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
    Arbitrator, as well as, the parties are bound by the consent terms\/ clauses.\n<\/p>\n
    As per Section 21 of the Act, the Arbitrator as referred, entered into the <\/p>\n
    reference dated 20\/05\/2005 and as per the agreement bounding period for <\/p>\n
    making the award itself expired in May, 2006. Instead passing an ex-parte <\/p>\n
    order within the period  fixed of 12 months, in absence of the Petitioner, the <\/p>\n
    extension so granted even for granting opportunity to the Petitioner, is of no <\/p>\n
    use, as  the  Arbitrator  could not have  continued with the  proceedings in <\/p>\n
    view of the specified clause and the agreed time. He looses the jurisdiction <\/p>\n
    to adjudicate the matter.  Such clauses, in my view, need to be respected in <\/p>\n
    all circumstances.  The parties have agreed for such clauses with intention <\/p>\n
    to see and settle the dispute as early as possible within agreed time. If they <\/p>\n
    themselves   breach   such   clauses,   there   is   no   question   of   accepting   the <\/p>\n
    submission based upon  Section 4 of the Act revolving around the doctrine <\/p>\n
    of   waiver   and\/or   estoppel   merely   because   the   Petitioner   or   other   party <\/p>\n
    though served not appeared within stipulated time. If the clause provided <\/p>\n
    that   Arbitrator   should   make   award   within   12   months   of   entering   into <\/p>\n
    reference, there is no question of waiting beyond 12 months by any one.\n<\/p>\n
    The Arbitrator could have obtained the consent from the parties to extend <\/p>\n
    the time to make the award.  In the present case, there is no such extension <\/p>\n
    pointed out. The submission that there was implied consent, in the present <\/p>\n
    facts and circumstances, is of no use for want of material and\/or related <\/p>\n
    evidence on the record.\n<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:30:03 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                           7                        arbp458.07.sxw\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                         \n    10     The   Apex   Court   in  2010   (3)   Mh.L.J.   18,   NBCC   Ltd.   Vs.   J.G.  \n\n<\/pre>\n
    Engineering Private Limited, referring to sections 14, 15, 21 and 32 held <\/p>\n
    that -(a) if consent is not given by the parties for enlargement of time the <\/p>\n
    authority of the Arbitrator ceases automatically after expiry of the time so <\/p>\n
    fixed; (b) the Court cannot exercise its inherent power to extend the time <\/p>\n
    fixed by the parties in the absence of the consent of both the parties the <\/p>\n
    same applies even to the arbitral tribunal; (c) the parties, if not agreed to <\/p>\n
    the extension, the Arbitration proceeding terminates automatically.\n<\/p>\n
    11     The good intention of the Arbitration clause to resolve their disputes <\/p>\n
    speedily through this process, as provided under the Act, still in the present <\/p>\n
    facts and circumstances, is defeated completely.   In my view, such clauses <\/p>\n
    need   to   be   respected   and   in   the   present   case   it   supports   the   Petitioner <\/p>\n
    though there was no specific denial to the claims raised by the Respondent.\n<\/p>\n
    In view of above, therefore, no option but to set aside the impugned award <\/p>\n
    on this ground itself.\n<\/p>\n
    12     The award dated  7th  March, 2007  was dispatched on 4th  May, 2007 <\/p>\n
    and received on 17th  May, 2007. The Petition under Section 34 (3) of the <\/p>\n
    Act   was   filed   on   16th  August,   2007.     Considering   the   facts   and <\/p>\n
    circumstances of the case as it is still within limitation of 3 months and 30 <\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:30:03 :::<\/span>
\n                                                8                       arbp458.07.sxw<\/p>\n
    days, the submission that the Petition is barred by law is unacceptable as <\/p>\n
    there is case made out even to condone the delay, even if any.  Therefore, <\/p>\n
    the delay is also condoned. But the award need to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
    13    Resultantly, the Petition is allowed.  The impugned award is quashed <\/p>\n
    and set aside.\n<\/p>\n
    14    Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). No costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                                  (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:30:03 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Thiruvananthapuram-695 036 vs “Discovery Of India” Bldg. on 1 October, 2010 Bench: Anoop V.Mohta 1 arbp458.07.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 458 OF 2007 B.K. Gopakumar, Indian Inhabitant, Focus Films, P.B. No. 5710, Hotel Silver Sands Thiruvananthapuram-695 036. ….Petitioner. Vs. M\/s. National […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-207723","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThiruvananthapuram-695 036 vs "Discovery Of India" Bldg. on 1 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\/thiruvananthapuram-695-036-vs-discovery-of-india-bldg-on-1-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Thiruvananthapuram-695 036 vs "Discovery Of India" Bldg. on 1 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thiruvananthapuram-695-036-vs-discovery-of-india-bldg-on-1-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=\"2010-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-11T02:53:20+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thiruvananthapuram-695-036-vs-discovery-of-india-bldg-on-1-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thiruvananthapuram-695-036-vs-discovery-of-india-bldg-on-1-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Thiruvananthapuram-695 036 vs “Discovery Of India” Bldg. on 1 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-11T02:53:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thiruvananthapuram-695-036-vs-discovery-of-india-bldg-on-1-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1567,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thiruvananthapuram-695-036-vs-discovery-of-india-bldg-on-1-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thiruvananthapuram-695-036-vs-discovery-of-india-bldg-on-1-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thiruvananthapuram-695-036-vs-discovery-of-india-bldg-on-1-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Thiruvananthapuram-695 036 vs \\\"Discovery Of India\\\" Bldg. on 1 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-11T02:53:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thiruvananthapuram-695-036-vs-discovery-of-india-bldg-on-1-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thiruvananthapuram-695-036-vs-discovery-of-india-bldg-on-1-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thiruvananthapuram-695-036-vs-discovery-of-india-bldg-on-1-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Thiruvananthapuram-695 036 vs “Discovery Of India” Bldg. on 1 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":"Thiruvananthapuram-695 036 vs \"Discovery Of India\" Bldg. on 1 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\/thiruvananthapuram-695-036-vs-discovery-of-india-bldg-on-1-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Thiruvananthapuram-695 036 vs \"Discovery Of India\" Bldg. on 1 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thiruvananthapuram-695-036-vs-discovery-of-india-bldg-on-1-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-11T02:53:20+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thiruvananthapuram-695-036-vs-discovery-of-india-bldg-on-1-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thiruvananthapuram-695-036-vs-discovery-of-india-bldg-on-1-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Thiruvananthapuram-695 036 vs “Discovery Of India” Bldg. on 1 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-11T02:53:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thiruvananthapuram-695-036-vs-discovery-of-india-bldg-on-1-october-2010"},"wordCount":1567,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thiruvananthapuram-695-036-vs-discovery-of-india-bldg-on-1-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thiruvananthapuram-695-036-vs-discovery-of-india-bldg-on-1-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thiruvananthapuram-695-036-vs-discovery-of-india-bldg-on-1-october-2010","name":"Thiruvananthapuram-695 036 vs \"Discovery Of India\" Bldg. on 1 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-11T02:53:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thiruvananthapuram-695-036-vs-discovery-of-india-bldg-on-1-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thiruvananthapuram-695-036-vs-discovery-of-india-bldg-on-1-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thiruvananthapuram-695-036-vs-discovery-of-india-bldg-on-1-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Thiruvananthapuram-695 036 vs “Discovery Of India” Bldg. on 1 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\/207723","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=207723"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/207723\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=207723"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=207723"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=207723"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}