{"id":219403,"date":"2004-12-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-12-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/guru-dev-enterprises-vs-the-chairman-on-15-december-2004"},"modified":"2019-03-06T02:02:44","modified_gmt":"2019-03-05T20:32:44","slug":"guru-dev-enterprises-vs-the-chairman-on-15-december-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/guru-dev-enterprises-vs-the-chairman-on-15-december-2004","title":{"rendered":"Guru Dev Enterprises vs The Chairman on 15 December, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Guru Dev Enterprises vs The Chairman on 15 December, 2004<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 15\/12\/2004  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. KULASEKARAN             \n\nW.P. No. 34312 of 2004 \nand \nW.M.P. No. 41444 of 2004  \n\nGuru Dev Enterprises \nrep. by its Partner\nM. Mohammed Rabi    \nNo.1, 10th Street\nJothi Nagar, Tiruvottriyoor\nChennai  600 019                                                .. Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The Chairman \n   Tamil Nadu Electricity Board\n   Anna Salai\n   Chennai  600 002\n\n2. The Superintending Engineer\n   V.E.D.C.\n   Tamil Nadu Electricity Board\n   Villupuram  605 602\n\n3. Sri Vinayaga Metals\n   No.559, Nawab Hakkem Road   \n   Coimbatore  641 001                                  .. Respondents\n\n\n        Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India  praying\nfor a Writ of Declaration as stated therein.\n\nFor Petitioner :       Mr.  S.  Subbiah\n\nFor Respondents        :       Mr.  Vasudevan for RR1 and 2\n\n:ORDER  \n<\/pre>\n<p>        The  petitioner has come forward with this writ petition praying for a<br \/>\nWrit of Declaration to declare that the auction  held  on  05-11-2004  by  the<br \/>\nsecond  respondent,  in  respect  to  the  sale  of  ferrous  and  non-ferrous<br \/>\nmaterials, is without jurisdiction and null and void.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.      The second respondent herein  invited  tenders  from  eligible<br \/>\npersons  for  purchase  of  ferrous and non-ferrous scrap and other materials;<br \/>\nthat the petitioner herein has submitted  his  tender  by  quoting  a  sum  of<br \/>\nRs.35,84,000\/- and  the tenders were opened on 05-11-2004 at 2.00 p.m.  by the<br \/>\nsecond respondent.  According to the petitioner, subsequent to the opening  of<br \/>\nthe  tender  and  awarding  of  the  contract, he came to know that the second<br \/>\nrespondent herein is not competent to  call  for  the  tenders  as  the  first<br \/>\nrespondent  herein  has  authorised only the Chief Engineers of the respective<br \/>\ndivision under B.P.  (FB) 273 Technical Branch dated 22-11-1996 and  that  the<br \/>\nsecond respondent is not empowered to invite tenders in respect of scrap items<br \/>\nand  prayed  to declare that the auction conducted on 05-11-2004 by the second<br \/>\nrespondent is without jurisdiction and null and void.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.      Mr.  Subbiah, learned counsel for the petitioner submits  that<br \/>\nthe  powers to deal with the sale of the damaged articles under the provisions<br \/>\nof the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Act LIV of  1948  are  available  to  the<br \/>\nBoard,  under  the various Regulations called The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board<br \/>\nTender Regulations, 1991, but when under the said power, the powers  delegated<br \/>\nto  the  Superintending  Engineer had been discontinued and entrusted with the<br \/>\nChief Engineers, the second respondent has no power or  jurisdiction  to  call<br \/>\nfor  any  tenders  or  to deal with any articles; that the first respondent by<br \/>\nproceedings dated 22-1 1-1998 had conferred the powers  only  upon  the  Chief<br \/>\nEngineers and that the second respondent ought not to have been allowed by the<br \/>\nfirst  respondent to deal with those specified and notified articles; that the<br \/>\nsecond respondent had abused his powers as Superintending Engineer and he  has<br \/>\nno power to bring in the sale of the notified items and prayed to declare that<br \/>\nthe  auction  conducted  by  the second respondent on 05-11-2004 in respect of<br \/>\nferrous and non-ferrous materials as void.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.      Per contra, Mr.  Vasudevan, learned counsel appearing for  the<br \/>\nrespondents  1  and 2 submits that auction notification was issued only by the<br \/>\nChief Engineer and that he had authorised the second respondent to receive and<br \/>\nopen the tenders, however, he alone is empowered to finalise the  tenders  and<br \/>\nhe has done so; that under the permanent B.P.  (FB)     273  Technical  Branch<br \/>\ndated 22-11-1996 the Chief Engineer is delegated with the powers in respect of<br \/>\n12 items including copper; that the  Chief  Engineer  only  had  directed  the<br \/>\nSuperintending Engineer to open the tender and accordingly it was opened and a<br \/>\nreport   was  forwarded  to  the  Chief  Engineer;  that  the  petitioner  has<br \/>\nparticipated in the tender and that his offer was not accepted, hence  he  has<br \/>\nfiled this vexatious writ petition; that the petitioner is not entitled to any<br \/>\nremedy   to  stall  the  tender  process  as  per  the  provisions  of  Tender<br \/>\nTransparancy Act; that the Electricity Board exercised  its  powers  conferred<br \/>\nunder  Section  79  (g) of the Electricity Supply Act 1998 in inviting tenders<br \/>\nand prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.      The word &#8216;tender&#8217; imports not merely  the  readiness  and  the<br \/>\nability  to  pay  or perform, at the time and place mentioned in the contract,<br \/>\nbut also the actual production of thing to be paid or delivered over.  A  mere<br \/>\noffer to  pay  does  not constitute a valid tender.  The Law requires that the<br \/>\ntenderer has the money present and ready to produce the actual  offer  to  the<br \/>\nother party.  Tenderer means one who tenders his offer.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.      In   this   case,  tender  notice  was  invited  by  effecting<br \/>\npublication in newspaper.  The tender notice means only calling for quotations<br \/>\nand for other details from the tenderers to help in the selection of  tenderer<br \/>\nor tenderers to do the work.  Thus a tender notice does not amount to an offer<br \/>\nor a proposal.  It follows that the quotations of rates by tenderer&#8217;s will not<br \/>\namount  to an acceptance of the offer or proposal thereby creating any promise<br \/>\nor agreement.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.      The tenders received from various persons were opened  by  the<br \/>\nSuperintending  Engineer\/second  respondent herein on 05-11-2004 and forwarded<br \/>\nthe necessary items to the Chief Engineer.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.      In this case, the delegation of  power  given  to  the  second<br \/>\nrespondent  by  the  Chief Engineer has been explained in the counter filed by<br \/>\nthe second respondent and in respect of copper items,  the  second  respondent<br \/>\nwas  directed to receive the tender, open it and forward the same to the Chief<br \/>\nEngineer, who is the authority to decide it.    Hence,  the  averment  of  the<br \/>\npetitioner  that  the  second  respondent  is  not  competent to deal with the<br \/>\ntenders is unsustainable in Law and answered against the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.      Article  299  of  the  Constitution   of   India,   which   is<br \/>\ncorrespondent  to  Section  175  (3)  of  the  Government  of  India Act, 1925<br \/>\nprescribes any particular mode, by which the authority was to be  conferred  a<br \/>\nright at  a  person  to  execute  the  contract.  There is nothing in the said<br \/>\nsection itself to preclude authorisation being conferred adhoc on  any  person<br \/>\nand when that was established, the requirements of the Section must be held to<br \/>\nbe satisfied.   The Government or Government instrumentality can only bound by<br \/>\ncontract that are entered into in a particular way and which are signed  by  a<br \/>\nproper authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>        10.     Until  contract  is entered into in a particular way and which<br \/>\nare signed by the proper authority, it is not valid.    Followed  (  Thawardas<br \/>\nPherumal and  another Vs.  Union of India) AIR 1955 SC 468 wherein it was held<br \/>\nthat &#8216;it is well settled that the Governments can only be bound  by  contracts<br \/>\nthat  are  entered into in a particular way and which are signed by the proper<br \/>\nauthority&#8217;.  Hence, allowing an authority to open the tender no  way  vitiates<br \/>\nthe tender process.\n<\/p>\n<p>        11.     Interference  of the Court is possible only if the respondents<br \/>\nviolate Article 14 of the Constitution of India by excluding  the  persons  by<br \/>\ndiscrimination.   The  General  Rule  is  where  the  Government or Government<br \/>\ninstrumentality invites tender for a contract, it reserves the right to reject<br \/>\nany tender even of the highest amount because it has the liberty to choose any<br \/>\nperson for awarding contract; but if the Government choose to exclude  persons<br \/>\nby  discrimination or violates the terms and conditions or acts arbitrarily or<br \/>\nunreasonably or contrary to the  public  interest,  certainly  the  Court  can<br \/>\ninterfere.  Followed (M\/s.   Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy etc., Vs.  The State of<br \/>\nJammu &amp; Kashmir and another) AIR 1980 SC 1992 wherein in Para-11, it was  held<br \/>\nthus:-\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;11.    &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.Every  activity  of  the  Government  has  a  public<br \/>\nelement in it and it must therefore, be informed with  reason  and  guided  by<br \/>\npublic interest.    If  the  Government  awards  a  contract  or leases out or<br \/>\notherwise deals with its property or grants any other  largess,  it  would  be<br \/>\nliable  to  be tested for its validity on the touchstone of reasonableness and<br \/>\npublic interest  and  if  it  fails  to  satisfy  either  test,  it  would  be<br \/>\nunconstitutional and invalid.\n<\/p>\n<p>        12.     The power of the Court to interfere is very limited.  Followed<br \/>\n(TATA Cellular Vs.   Union of India) 1994 6 SCC Page No.  651, wherein in Para<br \/>\n73, 74, 82 and 152 it was held thus:-\n<\/p>\n<p>        73.  Observance  of  judicial  restraint  is  currently  the  mood  in<br \/>\nEngland.   The  judicial power of review is exercised to rein in any unbridled<br \/>\nexecutive functioning.  The restraint  has  two  contemporary  manifestations.<br \/>\nOne  is  the ambit of judicial intervention; the other covers the scope of the<br \/>\ncourts ability to quash an administrative decision  on  its  merits.    These<br \/>\nrestraints bear the hallmarks of judicial control over administrative action.\n<\/p>\n<p>        74.  Judicial review is concerned with reviewing not the merits of the<br \/>\ndecision  in support of which the application for judicial review is made, but<br \/>\nthe decision-making process itself.\n<\/p>\n<p>        82.     &#8230;&#8230;It  is  not  the  function  of  a  judge  to  act  as  a<br \/>\nsuperboard,  or  with  the  zeal  of  a pedantic schoolmaster substituting its<br \/>\njudgment for that of the administrator.\n<\/p>\n<p>        The result is a theory of review that limits the extent to  which  the<br \/>\ndiscretion of  the  expert  may  be  scrutinised by the non-expert judge.  The<br \/>\nalternative is for the court to overrule the agency on technical matters where<br \/>\nall the advantages of expertise lie with the agencies.  If  a  court  were  to<br \/>\nreview  fully  the decision of a body such as state board of medical examiners<br \/>\nit would find itself wandering amid the maze of therapeutics or  boggling  at<br \/>\nthe mysteries  of  the  pharmacopoeia.    Such  a  situation as a state court<br \/>\nexpressed it many years ago  is not a case of the blind leading the blind but<br \/>\nof one who has always been deaf and blind insisting that he can see  and  hear<br \/>\nbetter  than  one  who  has always had his eyesight and hearing and has always<br \/>\nused them to the utmost advantage in ascertaining the truth in regard  to  the<br \/>\nmatter in question.\n<\/p>\n<p>        The  second consideration leading to narrow review is that of calendar<br \/>\npressure.  In practical terms it may  be  the  more  important  consideration.<br \/>\nMore  than  any  theory  of  limited review it is the pressure of the judicial<\/p>\n<p>calendar combined with the elephantine bulk of the record in  so  many  review<br \/>\nproceedings  which  leads  to  perfunctory  affirmance of the vast majority of<br \/>\nagency decisions.<\/p>\n<p>        152.  We make it clear that we are not disturbing the other selections<br \/>\nsince the power of judicial review is not an appeal from  the  decision.    We<br \/>\ncannot substitute our decision since we do not have the necessary expertise to<br \/>\nreview.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        13.     In   this   case,   the   petitioner   has   not  averred  any<br \/>\ndiscrimination.  The only argument of Mr.  Subbiah, learned  counsel  for  the<br \/>\npetitioner  is  that the second respondent is not competent to invite tenders,<br \/>\nwhich was already answered negatively.  Hence, it is necessary to  be  decided<br \/>\nas  to whether the petitioner is entitled to canvass the said point of alleged<br \/>\nexcess of jurisdiction of the second  respondent  after  participation.    The<br \/>\npetitioner,   having   participated  in  the  tender  invited  by  the  second<br \/>\nrespondent, this Court is of the considered view that it is not open to him to<br \/>\nquestion the jurisdiction.  Even assuming for the  argument  sake  the  second<br \/>\nrespondent is not vested with the jurisdiction, when it was not opposed by the<br \/>\npetitioner  before  submitting  his tender, it is not open after participation<br \/>\nsince, he abandoned his right of questioning it as it amounts to acquiescence.<br \/>\nAcquiescence implies knowledge on their part and inaction in taking  effective<br \/>\nsteps for protection of their rights.  Acquiescence is not a question of fact,<br \/>\nbut by legal  inference  from  the  facts found.  In M\/s.  Pannalal Binraj and<br \/>\nothers Vs.  Union of India and others) AIR 1957 SC 397  the Honourable Supreme<br \/>\nCourt held in para-45 it thus:-\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;45.            &#8230;.If they acquiesced  in  the  jurisdiction  of  the<br \/>\nIncome-tax  Officers to whom their cases were transferred, they were certainly<br \/>\nnot entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32.  It is<br \/>\nwell settled that such conduct of the petitioners would disentitle them to any<br \/>\nrelief at the hands of this Court (Vide &#8216;Halsbury&#8217;s Laws of England&#8217;,  vol.II,<br \/>\n3rd Ed..  p.140,  para  265:  Rex v.  Tabrum; Ex parte Dash, (1997) 97 L T 551<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/357082\/\">(U) O.A.O.K.  Lakshmanan Chettiar v.  Corporation of Madras, ILR<\/a>  50  Mad  30:<br \/>\n(AIR 1927 Mad 130) (V)&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        14.     In  view  of the said facts, I do not find any valid reason to<br \/>\ninterfere.  The writ petition is devoid of merits, liable to be dismissed  and<br \/>\naccordingly it is  dismissed.    No  costs.    Consequently, connected WPMP is<br \/>\nclosed.\n<\/p>\n<p>rsh<\/p>\n<p>Index :  Yes<br \/>\nInternet :  Yes<br \/>\nTo\n<\/p>\n<p>1.  The Chairman<br \/>\nTamil Nadu Electricity Board<br \/>\nAnna Salai<br \/>\nChennai  600 002 <\/p>\n<p>2.  The Superintending Engineer<br \/>\nV.E.D.C.\n<\/p>\n<p>Tamil Nadu Electricity Board<br \/>\nVillupuram  605 602<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Guru Dev Enterprises vs The Chairman on 15 December, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 15\/12\/2004 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. KULASEKARAN W.P. No. 34312 of 2004 and W.M.P. No. 41444 of 2004 Guru Dev Enterprises rep. by its Partner M. Mohammed Rabi No.1, 10th Street Jothi [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-219403","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Guru Dev Enterprises vs The Chairman on 15 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/guru-dev-enterprises-vs-the-chairman-on-15-december-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Guru Dev Enterprises vs The Chairman on 15 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/guru-dev-enterprises-vs-the-chairman-on-15-december-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2004-12-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-05T20:32:44+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/guru-dev-enterprises-vs-the-chairman-on-15-december-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/guru-dev-enterprises-vs-the-chairman-on-15-december-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Guru Dev Enterprises vs The Chairman on 15 December, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-12-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-05T20:32:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/guru-dev-enterprises-vs-the-chairman-on-15-december-2004\"},\"wordCount\":1969,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/guru-dev-enterprises-vs-the-chairman-on-15-december-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/guru-dev-enterprises-vs-the-chairman-on-15-december-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/guru-dev-enterprises-vs-the-chairman-on-15-december-2004\",\"name\":\"Guru Dev Enterprises vs The Chairman on 15 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-12-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-05T20:32:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/guru-dev-enterprises-vs-the-chairman-on-15-december-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/guru-dev-enterprises-vs-the-chairman-on-15-december-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/guru-dev-enterprises-vs-the-chairman-on-15-december-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Guru Dev Enterprises vs The Chairman on 15 December, 2004\"}]},{\"@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":"Guru Dev Enterprises vs The Chairman on 15 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/guru-dev-enterprises-vs-the-chairman-on-15-december-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Guru Dev Enterprises vs The Chairman on 15 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/guru-dev-enterprises-vs-the-chairman-on-15-december-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-12-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-05T20:32:44+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/guru-dev-enterprises-vs-the-chairman-on-15-december-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/guru-dev-enterprises-vs-the-chairman-on-15-december-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Guru Dev Enterprises vs The Chairman on 15 December, 2004","datePublished":"2004-12-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-05T20:32:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/guru-dev-enterprises-vs-the-chairman-on-15-december-2004"},"wordCount":1969,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/guru-dev-enterprises-vs-the-chairman-on-15-december-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/guru-dev-enterprises-vs-the-chairman-on-15-december-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/guru-dev-enterprises-vs-the-chairman-on-15-december-2004","name":"Guru Dev Enterprises vs The Chairman on 15 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-12-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-05T20:32:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/guru-dev-enterprises-vs-the-chairman-on-15-december-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/guru-dev-enterprises-vs-the-chairman-on-15-december-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/guru-dev-enterprises-vs-the-chairman-on-15-december-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Guru Dev Enterprises vs The Chairman on 15 December, 2004"}]},{"@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\/219403","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=219403"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/219403\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=219403"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=219403"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=219403"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}