{"id":219048,"date":"2009-04-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-04-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maytas-infra-limited-vs-utility-energytech-and-engineers-on-29-april-2009"},"modified":"2018-05-06T00:40:43","modified_gmt":"2018-05-05T19:10:43","slug":"maytas-infra-limited-vs-utility-energytech-and-engineers-on-29-april-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maytas-infra-limited-vs-utility-energytech-and-engineers-on-29-april-2009","title":{"rendered":"Maytas Infra Limited vs Utility Energytech And Engineers on 29 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Maytas Infra Limited vs Utility Energytech And Engineers on 29 April, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: Anoop V.Mohta<\/div>\n
ssm\n sm            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n                    ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION\n\n\n           ARBITRATION PETITION (LODGING) NO.366 OF 2009\n\n\n\n\n                                                                               \n      Maytas Infra Limited                                   ...Petitioner.\n\n\n\n\n                                                       \n                      V\/s.\n\n      Utility Energytech and Engineers\n      Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.                                       ...Respondents.\n\n\n\n\n                                                      \n      Mr.N.H.Seervai, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Chetan Kapadia\n      i\/b.Mr. Ashu V. Thakur for the Petitioner.\n\n\n\n\n                                           \n      Mr.J.J.Bhatt, Sr. Counsel with Ms. Anjali Chandurkar\n      i\/b.M\/s.Mulla & Mulla for the Respondents.\n                            ig         CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.\n<\/pre>\n
                                       DATED : 29th April,              2009\n                          \n      P.C.\n\n\n      1.      The     Petitioner      has    invoked Section            9    of     the\n\n      Arbitration         and   Conciliation Act, 1996               (for      short,\n        \n\n\n      \"the     Arbitration       Act\").       There     is     an     arbitration\n     \n\n\n\n      clause     in       the   construction         agreement        dated        19th\n\n      February,       2008 between the Petitioner and                   Respondent\n\n\n\n\n\n      No.1.         The    contract    was    for     the    construction             of\n\n      existing        carriageway     of     about    62     km.,       on        Salem\n\n      Ulundurpet          section of National Highway No.                 68 in the\n\n\n\n\n\n      State of Tamil Nadu.\n\n\n\n      2.      Respondent        No.1 had advanced to           the      Petitioner\n\n      total     sum       of Rs.39,39,98,000\/- (Rupees               thirty        nine\n\n\n\n\n                                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:33:47 :::<\/span>\n                                           ( 2 )\n\n\n\n\n     crore        thirty     nine lacs ninty eight            thousand          only).\n\n     The     Petitioner had furnished (A) Mobilization Advance\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                \n     Bank     Guarantee        (B)       Performance     Bank       Guarantee          to\n\n     Respondent            No.1,      for    an   aggregate            amount          of\n\n\n\n\n                                                        \n     Rs.39,39,98,000\/-.\n\n\n\n\n                                                       \n     3.      The contract provides the reciprocal                      obligations\n\n     with object to complete the project in time.                            There is\n\n     also     a     provision for extension of time.                     There       are\n\n\n\n\n                                           \n     various        details        provided in for the          performance            of\n                           \n<\/pre>\n
     their respective obligations in time.\n<\/p>\n
     4.      On     31\/03\/2009, the Petitioner placed                    on     record<\/p>\n
     various        problems       and     developments.          Therefore,           on<\/p>\n
     02\/04\/2009,           a meeting took place, apart from                   earlier<\/p>\n
     correspondence          and discussion between the parties                        to<\/p>\n
     settle        the disputes and differences.                Respondent No.1<\/p>\n
     after         this     sent     drawings     for      minor       bridges         on<\/p>\n
     03\/04\/2009.            The Petitioner has raised bills also                       on<\/p>\n
     the ground of delays.\n<\/p>\n
     5.       On      06\/04\/2009,             Respondent          No.1        invoked<\/p>\n
     Mobilization          Bank      Guarantee     of        Rs.39,39,98,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
     (Rupees        thirty     nine       crores thirty nine           lacs       ninty<\/p>\n
     eight thousand only) and encashed the same.\n<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:33:47 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                        ( 3 )<\/p>\n
     6.     By letter dated 10\/04\/2009 Respondent No.1 alleges<\/p>\n
     even     stoppage\/ abandonment of work by the                         Petitioner<\/p>\n
     since 02\/04\/2009 which according to them affecting the<\/p>\n
     project.\n<\/p>\n
     7.       The        Petitioner     on        15\/04\/2009            received           a<\/p>\n
     termination          notice       dated           13\/04\/2009        issued          by<\/p>\n
     Respondent      No.1.        There are various reasons\/                    grounds<\/p>\n
     mentioned      in the said termination notice.                        There is a<\/p>\n
     clause<\/p>\n
     26.3.4.        of<\/p>\n
                  in the notice based upon the terms of<\/p>\n
                          the     construction            agreement
\n                                                                                Article<\/p>\n
                                                                             which       is<\/p>\n
     reproduced as under:-\n<\/p>\n
            “4.     Therefore, this notice is issued in terms<\/p>\n
                    of      Art      26.3.4       of      the       Construction<\/p>\n
                    Agreement        calling upon you to remedy the<\/p>\n
                    breaches\/defaults             within one month                from<\/p>\n
                    the     date of receipt hereof.                   Please note<\/p>\n
                    that        failure      to    cure          each      of       the<\/p>\n
                    breaches\/        defaults (Specified Events) to<\/p>\n
                    our complete satisfaction within the said<\/p>\n
                    period      of    one month,           the      Construction<\/p>\n
                    Agreement shall stand terminated.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:33:47 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                       ( 4 )<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     8.      The Petitioner has resisted and replied the                         same<\/p>\n
     by notice dated 27\/04\/2009.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     9.      Therefore, if the Petitioner failed to remedy the<\/p>\n
     breaches       \/ defaults within one month from the date of<\/p>\n
     the     receipt of the notice, the construction agreement<\/p>\n
     in     question       shall stand terminated.           If that is           so,<\/p>\n
     the     various       consequences should follow,              which        also<\/p>\n
     means     revocation      of the remaining           Performance            Bank<\/p>\n
     Guarantee.        Respondent      No.1 has not yet             invoked         or<\/p>\n
     given notice to invoke the said Bank Guarantee by this<\/p>\n
     termination letter.\n<\/p>\n
     10.      This     termination letter itself is                intended         to<\/p>\n
     give     one    month     time pursuance to the             agreement          to<\/p>\n
     remove or remedy the breaches\/ defaults.\n<\/p>\n
     11.      The    submission     of the learned           Senior        counsel<\/p>\n
     appearing       for Respondent No.1 based upon the                    various<\/p>\n
     Judgments       of the Supreme Court including (i) (2008) 1<\/p>\n
     S.C.C.         544,    Vinitec Electronics Private               Ltd.        Vs.<\/p>\n
     HCL     Infosystems Ltd.      (ii) (2006) 2 S.C.C.                 728, BSES<\/p>\n
     Ltd.     (Now     Reliance Energy Ltd.) Vs.                 Fenner        India<\/p>\n
     Ltd.     &     Anr.    (iii) (1997) 6 S.C.C.            450,       Dwarikesh<\/p>\n
     Sugar    Industries       Ltd.   Vs.     Prem      Heavy       Engineering<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:33:47 :::<\/span>
\n                                          ( 5 )<\/p>\n
     Works (P) Ltd.           & Anr.     and (iv) (1994) 1 S.C.C.                     502,<\/p>\n
     Svenska Handelesbanken Vs.                M\/s.    Indian Charge Chrome<\/p>\n
     and     Ors.       The contention is that in absence                       of     any<\/p>\n
     averments and or material on record, at this stage, to<\/p>\n
     support           the      case      of      “irreparable                 injury”,<\/p>\n
     “irretrievable          injustice”        and    or       “fraud”,         in     the<\/p>\n
     present facts and circumstances of the case, no relief<\/p>\n
     can     be     granted     in favour of         the       Petitioner.             The<\/p>\n
     encashment        of     irrevocable unconditional                  performance<\/p>\n
     Bank         Guarantee     just     cannot      be      nullify           by      the<\/p>\n
     injunction order against the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
     12.         The contractual clauses cannot be read into                           the<\/p>\n
     clauses       of the Bank Guarantee.             Both these             documents<\/p>\n
     are     independent        though    such        Bank        Guarantees           are<\/p>\n
     executed after execution of the agreement in question.\n<\/p>\n
     The parties are also entered into such Bank Guarantees<\/p>\n
     only     after      full understanding of the clauses of                          the<\/p>\n
     contract.           Once      the    terms       and         conditions             of<\/p>\n
     unconditional           irrevocable Bank Guarantees are signed,<\/p>\n
     it     is     binding on the parties, even if there                        is     any<\/p>\n
     breach       of    any contract committed by the person                          like<\/p>\n
     Respondent        No.1     who    had already           invoked         the      Bank<\/p>\n
     Guarantee         and now entitled to invoke the                    Performance<\/p>\n
     Bank     Guarantee        in view of agreed terms of this                        Bank<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:33:47 :::<\/span>
\n                                          ( 6 )<\/p>\n
     guarantees.\n<\/p>\n
     13.      There     are allegations and counter                 allegations.\n<\/p>\n
     Both     the     parties     are blaming each other               for      their<\/p>\n
     respective        defaults.       The facts on record shows                  that<\/p>\n
     there     is     a clear contract termination notice                     Though<\/p>\n
     replied by the Petitioner yet at this stage, the merit<\/p>\n
     or     de-merit of the differences and disputes cannot be<\/p>\n
     gone     into     in detail, which is a matter                 of     detailed<\/p>\n
     enquiry before the Arbitral Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
     14.      The     Court\n                            ig   needs    to     consider     the        facts     and\n                          \n     circumstances          of   the     case while      dealing         with      the\n\n     aspect     of     granting any injunction or any such                      order\n\n     from     encashing the Bank Guarantee, though law in this\n      \n\n\n     regard     is     settled and crystalised.             The judgment             so\n   \n\n\n\n     cited     above itself shows that in most of the matters,\n\n     the     Court has considered the facts and                   circumstances\n\n<\/pre>\n
     of the case including the nature of Bank Guarantee and<\/p>\n
     also the basic agreement between the parties.\n<\/p>\n
     15.      In     the    present      case, as noted,          there       is     no<\/p>\n
     dispute        about    the contents of the Bank Guarantee                      in<\/p>\n
     question.         Admittedly,        there is no reference to                 any<\/p>\n
     particular clause of the agreement between the parties<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:33:47 :::<\/span>
\n                                              ( 7 )<\/p>\n
     in     the Bank Guarantee.               Even otherwise the clause                     of<\/p>\n
     Bank     Guarantee in the present case, are unconditional<\/p>\n
     and     irrevocable.             This document being a separate                      and<\/p>\n
     independent needs to be considered from the commercial<\/p>\n
     point of view in all respects.\n<\/p>\n
     16.      The     submission that there are various                           breaches<\/p>\n
     and\/or     failure on the part of the parties to                              perform<\/p>\n
     their     respective             agreements\/obligations need                    detail<\/p>\n
     inquiry        and        trial.       The construction “agreement”                    of<\/p>\n
     this<\/p>\n
     is<\/p>\n
              nature where the vast land\/area of about 62 kms.\n<\/p>\n
            involved           and    the     requirement         to     complete         the<\/p>\n
     project        within        stipulated         time,        just      cannot          be<\/p>\n
     overlooked.           The delay in handing over the site and\/or<\/p>\n
     drawings        and\/or          other    compliances on             the      part      of<\/p>\n
     respondent           no.1 cannot be gone into at this stage                            of<\/p>\n
     the     proceeding.              The     termination          notice         and     the<\/p>\n
     correspondences             reflect       reasons for such               delay       and<\/p>\n
     defaults.            On 2nd April, 2009 inspite of letter dated<\/p>\n
     31.03.2009,           the parties tried to resolve the dispute,<\/p>\n
     but     failed        to        do so, though after 2nd               April,        2009<\/p>\n
     respondent           no.1 sent some more drawings for the small<\/p>\n
     bridges and yet immediately without due notice invoked<\/p>\n
     the     Bank     Guarantee.              The said       invocation           of     Bank<\/p>\n
     Guarantee,           as     contended,      is in        breach        of     various<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:33:47 :::<\/span>
\n                                       ( 8 )<\/p>\n
     clauses        of the agreement.        Therefore, as alleged              the<\/p>\n
     whole        action of the respondents including termination<\/p>\n
     notice in question is illegal and unlawful, that again<\/p>\n
     needs detail trial.\n<\/p>\n
     17.      The        submission   with    regard    to     clause        1.5.4<\/p>\n
     whereby        it     is necessary for the parties to give                 one<\/p>\n
     month’s notice to remedy or cure such defects is again<\/p>\n
     a     part     of the basic agreement between             the      parties.\n<\/p>\n
     The     termination notice itself provides a clause based<\/p>\n
     upon this, whereby respondent no.1 has granted time of<\/p>\n
     one month to the petitioner to comply or cure the said<\/p>\n
     defects.            By the said termination notice,            respondent<\/p>\n
     no.1     has        not invoked specifically       this      performance<\/p>\n
     Bank     Guarantee.        There is no reference made about the<\/p>\n
     same.         In a commercial contract of this nature, it is<\/p>\n
     the     concerned        party   who     should    decide        and      take<\/p>\n
     appropriate action or decision.             Whether the action of<\/p>\n
     the     respondent        is right or wrong in the           absence         of<\/p>\n
     clinching         material, it is difficult for the court                    to<\/p>\n
     decide       in      favour   of the aggrieved      party,         at     such<\/p>\n
     interlocutory          stage.    This is again a matter of trial<\/p>\n
     and discussion.\n<\/p>\n
     18.      The petitioner, after receipt of the termination<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:33:47 :::<\/span>
\n                                           ( 9 )<\/p>\n
     notice,         has       replied     the     same      by     notice             dated<\/p>\n
     27.04.2009 and basically re-iterated their submissions<\/p>\n
     and     their        case as already referred in                 their       notice<\/p>\n
     dated     31.03.2009.            Both these notices show that there<\/p>\n
     are     various        disputed       facts and       submissions            raised<\/p>\n
     based     upon        the       material    available        with        both      the<\/p>\n
     parties.            It also means that there is serious dispute<\/p>\n
     about the various facets covering the delay in handing<\/p>\n
     over     the        land, plan, drawings, maps and about                       other<\/p>\n
     requisite        details.         The reason for termination                   based<\/p>\n
     upon<\/p>\n
     material
\n              the<\/p>\n
                         agreement<\/p>\n
                     available
\n                                         between<\/p>\n
                                       with
\n                                                     the<\/p>\n
                                                respondent
\n                                                               parties<\/p>\n
                                                                  no.1
\n                                                                               and<\/p>\n
                                                                             including
\n                                                                                        the<\/p>\n
     their     assessment based upon various admitted position<\/p>\n
     on     record,        which       includes the invocation               of     force<\/p>\n
     majeure        clause under clause 43.1(a), the recession in<\/p>\n
     the     market, the respondents assessment of capacity or<\/p>\n
     ability        of     the       petitioner to complete             the       project<\/p>\n
     within     time,          need     detail trial,        to     justify          their<\/p>\n
     termination          of     the     contract.      The       fact        that      the<\/p>\n
     parties        unable       to settle or resolve the                differences<\/p>\n
     inspite        of meeting dated 2.4.2009 is also a                        relevant<\/p>\n
     factor.\n<\/p>\n
     19.      Lastly,          the     allegations     with       regard          to    the<\/p>\n
     petitioner’s          case that they have already invoked                          the<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:33:47 :::<\/span>
\n                                              ( 10 )<\/p>\n
     Bank     Guarantee that itself amounts to fraudulent                                act<\/p>\n
     and     that        they       will suffer irretrievable                  injury      or<\/p>\n
     injustice,           for want of convincing material on record,<\/p>\n
     [(2007)        6     SCC       470, Mahatma Gandhi           Sahakra         Sakkare<\/p>\n
     Karkhane v.           National Heavy Engg.Coop.Ltd.                     &<\/a> anr.], I<\/p>\n
     am     of the view that the petitioner has not made out a<\/p>\n
     case     of        exception as contemplated for                   granting         the<\/p>\n
     relief        also        in    view     of    the    judgments           cited     and<\/p>\n
     referred above.                Having once come to a conclusion that<\/p>\n
     both     the        contracts          are different,        independent            and<\/p>\n
     there<\/p>\n
     unconditional<\/p>\n
               is a clear performance Bank Guarantee which<\/p>\n
                               and     irrevocable, therefore no case
\n                                                                                           is<\/p>\n
                                                                                           is<\/p>\n
     made     out        by     the petitioner to grant any                    relief      as<\/p>\n
     prayed.            Resultantly, the petitioner is not                       entitled<\/p>\n
     for     any        ad interim reliefs in terms of prayers                          (f),<\/p>\n
     (g)     and        (h).        There is no question              even      to     grant<\/p>\n
     refund        of     amount as already encashed in                    a     petition<\/p>\n
     under Section of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
     20.      By order dated 17.04.2009 this Court has granted<\/p>\n
     an     exparte        ad-inteim relief observing not to                         encash<\/p>\n
     the     Performance             Bank    Guarantee,          if     not       already<\/p>\n
     encashed,          till        next    date.         This    order         has     been<\/p>\n
     continued          by further order dated 24.04.2009.                        Now, in<\/p>\n
     view     of        above,       the interim order           so     granted         also<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:33:47 :::<\/span>
\n                                    ( 11 )<\/p>\n
     stands vacated.\n<\/p>\n
     21.    The    learned      counsel for the         petitioner           seeks<\/p>\n
     continuation       of    interim order dated          17.04.2009           for<\/p>\n
     some reasonable time.\n<\/p>\n
     22.    In the present case, admittedly, respondent no.1<\/p>\n
     has   not yet invoked the said Bank Guarantee pursuance<\/p>\n
     to clause 1.5.4 and in fact granted the petitioner one<\/p>\n
     month’s     time    to    comply with or cure or             remedy        the<\/p>\n
     13.04.2009<\/p>\n
     defects and defaults.         The termination notice is dated<\/p>\n
                    and received on 15.04.2009.                Therefore,           I<\/p>\n
     am    inclined      to    grant   or   continue         this        interim<\/p>\n
     order\/protection         till 15th May, 2009, though objected<\/p>\n
     by the learned counsel for respondent no.1<\/p>\n
     23.    In view of above reasoning, nothing left in                         the<\/p>\n
     petition.      However, as submitted, S.O.                to 18th June,<\/p>\n
     2009 for disposal at admission stage.\n<\/p>\n
                                       [ANOOP V.      MOHTA, J.]\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                   ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:33:47 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Maytas Infra Limited vs Utility Energytech And Engineers on 29 April, 2009 Bench: Anoop V.Mohta ssm sm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION (LODGING) NO.366 OF 2009 Maytas Infra Limited …Petitioner. V\/s. Utility Energytech and Engineers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. …Respondents. Mr.N.H.Seervai, Sr. Advocate […]<\/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-219048","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMaytas Infra Limited vs Utility Energytech And Engineers on 29 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\/maytas-infra-limited-vs-utility-energytech-and-engineers-on-29-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Maytas Infra Limited vs Utility Energytech And Engineers on 29 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maytas-infra-limited-vs-utility-energytech-and-engineers-on-29-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-04-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-05T19:10:43+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\\\/maytas-infra-limited-vs-utility-energytech-and-engineers-on-29-april-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maytas-infra-limited-vs-utility-energytech-and-engineers-on-29-april-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Maytas Infra Limited vs Utility Energytech And Engineers on 29 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-05T19:10:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maytas-infra-limited-vs-utility-energytech-and-engineers-on-29-april-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1608,\"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\\\/maytas-infra-limited-vs-utility-energytech-and-engineers-on-29-april-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maytas-infra-limited-vs-utility-energytech-and-engineers-on-29-april-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maytas-infra-limited-vs-utility-energytech-and-engineers-on-29-april-2009\",\"name\":\"Maytas Infra Limited vs Utility Energytech And Engineers on 29 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-05T19:10:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maytas-infra-limited-vs-utility-energytech-and-engineers-on-29-april-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maytas-infra-limited-vs-utility-energytech-and-engineers-on-29-april-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maytas-infra-limited-vs-utility-energytech-and-engineers-on-29-april-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Maytas Infra Limited vs Utility Energytech And Engineers on 29 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":"Maytas Infra Limited vs Utility Energytech And Engineers on 29 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\/maytas-infra-limited-vs-utility-energytech-and-engineers-on-29-april-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Maytas Infra Limited vs Utility Energytech And Engineers on 29 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maytas-infra-limited-vs-utility-energytech-and-engineers-on-29-april-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-04-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-05T19:10:43+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\/maytas-infra-limited-vs-utility-energytech-and-engineers-on-29-april-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maytas-infra-limited-vs-utility-energytech-and-engineers-on-29-april-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Maytas Infra Limited vs Utility Energytech And Engineers on 29 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-04-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-05T19:10:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maytas-infra-limited-vs-utility-energytech-and-engineers-on-29-april-2009"},"wordCount":1608,"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\/maytas-infra-limited-vs-utility-energytech-and-engineers-on-29-april-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maytas-infra-limited-vs-utility-energytech-and-engineers-on-29-april-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maytas-infra-limited-vs-utility-energytech-and-engineers-on-29-april-2009","name":"Maytas Infra Limited vs Utility Energytech And Engineers on 29 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-04-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-05T19:10:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maytas-infra-limited-vs-utility-energytech-and-engineers-on-29-april-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maytas-infra-limited-vs-utility-energytech-and-engineers-on-29-april-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maytas-infra-limited-vs-utility-energytech-and-engineers-on-29-april-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Maytas Infra Limited vs Utility Energytech And Engineers on 29 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\/219048","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=219048"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/219048\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=219048"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=219048"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=219048"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}