{"id":219793,"date":"2009-04-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mspl-limited-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-and-others-on-1-april-2009"},"modified":"2015-09-29T18:36:55","modified_gmt":"2015-09-29T13:06:55","slug":"ms-mspl-limited-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-and-others-on-1-april-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mspl-limited-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-and-others-on-1-april-2009","title":{"rendered":"M\/S Mspl Limited vs The State Of Karnataka And Others on 1 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S Mspl Limited vs The State Of Karnataka And Others on 1 April, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: P.D.Dinakaran(Cj) & V.G.Sabhahit<\/div>\n
Rep. by its' Secrvetagg\/;'T:=\n'De'p'artment__of Forest, Ecology and\n\ni.A1nb*ed1:ar F~Z.oad,Banga}0re 560 001\n\n  Principal Chief Conservator of Forests\n I Aranj-*a\u00bbvBhavan, 181\" cross, Malleswaram\n i\ufb01angualore 560 003\n\"=_3\".\u00ab,T'h'e Conservator of Forests \n\nIN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\nDATED THIS THE 1st DAY or APRIL, 2009 \nPRESENT\nTHE HON'BLE MR. P.D. DINAI{ARA1\\}.';,mQIfIIE}'\u00a5\"J\ufb01Sf}'\ufb01\u00a7:iE\u00a7'~_ 3 ,1 u  \nAND   4' \"  4' \nTHE I~ION'BLE MR.JUSTIC'E'   %\nWrit Petition No. 60023  \nBetween: A    \n\nM\/s MSPL Limited,    \nBaldota Enclave, 1   -T\nAbheraj Baldota Road\"  '\n\nHospet    \u00bb   \nRep. by its Vice..Pre\u00e9iden1'-.g_{  L)\"  \nSriK.R. MRec}dy, \"     \nAged about Slfvearse    ' ' : Petitioner\n\n(By Sri Krishnan'vYenLigooa1,\"~: .eni0r Advocate for Sri M M\nSwarny, Advocate) V  V\"\n\nAnci':._ \n\n1 . The see Vof\u00e9iarnataiia\n\nEnvironment, z MAVS Building\n\n  \n\ne 5\n. \"5\n:75; \n\n\n\n__10.  \"\n\n''1.XXx\n2. xxx\n\n3.XXx\n\n4. Fencing, protection and regeneration of the Saf\u20ac'\u20ac}'.i;'.'_i'i'  \n\nzone area (7.5 metres strip all along the oiitei\ufb02*a..:iii' \n\nboundary of the mining lease area) shallmbe\u00e9done  \n\nproject cost. Besides this, afforestationgonflclegradedi'V'*~\n\nforest land, to be selected elseyzvhere, imAeasuringf'.;one i'\n\nand a half times the area under satiety zone,  \n\nbe done at the project cost_._\n\n5. xxx A ii\n\n6.x.xx H\n\n7'XXX ; .. . _ . . . _\n\n8. T he User  up blanting work on\nthe static aicilviance mining\noperations.    'M   H \n\n9. No darnag\u00abe to  fauna of the area\n\nshall be cauise_d.- V  A\n\n The  area shall be demarcated on\n\ngronadi at  Aiproject cost, using four feet high\n\n'RCC billarstiwith each pillar inscribed with the\n\n...,'\"5egrials..'nufnber, forward and backward bearings\n\n af\u00a7.\u00a71J[hs'tance between two adjacent pillars.\n\n \n\n\n\nending on 31.3.2012 and the same shall not be extended\n\nduring the rest of the periods.\n\n2.1) When the petitioner was mining thus,\"   1\nResp0ndentnDeputy Conservator of \nby proceedings dated 29.12.2008, jwhicir'v1s:i2rriipugn_\u00a7d%'tir1 \npresent writ petition, referring to  \nConservator of Forests dated the letteriof the\nRange Forest Officer, Hospet,e'\\(_e_n:  that:\n\n\"1. The user  M1\/s   Private '_\nLimited, Ho\u00e9apfe-:\u00a2i\"rt'i:\u00bbot \"'1:$i':f-obe1\u00a51yV\"\ufb01mairiceci their\nleased mii1'1'ingT:a5rea)*;,:u._  tiercier mark fixed\narea r1ot':_insta11e\"d.'the  concrete poles\n\nfor every 201 met'ers'\u00abVA1c1i\u00bb_s'tane.e and not marked\n\n}'1L11T1b\u20ac}'.,O1'1  po1'es,7 mentioned Forward\n\"and  beariv'--~--g\u00ab,\"as it is safety zone area,\n to identify 7.5 meters\n\n  and border gunta, it is\n\n1  _vioiati\u00abor1v._of.eonditi0n N0 4 and No 12 of the\n\n - 2 _ agreem e'r1t;3\n\n The 'user agency in Vyasanakere forest area\n-adoring its mining activities to dump the waste\n\n2\"\"\u00ab\"}5roduce of mining materials shown 24.75\n\n\n\npending between them at various stages,' including the\n\none which is seized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as\"o_n\n\ndate, on the ground that neighbouring 0p\u20acI\"atQ,IT\u00a7l\"x\nencroached into the area leased out to the__pe:titionerl,i'\nthe petitioner as well as the neilighhouriliqg ~i'o--ple1*at_o\"rsVVV \n\ncould not demarcate the mining area--leased o,Li?t.to the:m\"'i\n\nnor erect poles; and therefore,llVi'colndigtion'_Nlosh.?l  12\nof the Agreement  notlibel given\neffect to by the petitioner..as_tvellllas ER',\/fvltilevgvrlgighbouring\nmining    N0s.4\nand 12 cotild   after surveying the\n\nmining a-rea._ leased.--~o_t1it bgtlthe Government.\n\nWith regardgto ohsei\"lv.atioi_;= 4Nos.2 and 3 referred to in\n\n,_the Vipi{oee'edingls\"\u00abdated 29.12.2008, relating to the\n\nl\"vio1.ation.._of\"eondition Nos.8, 9, 13 and 18 of the\n\nAgreernienvt' 19\"\" April, 2007, Mr Krishnan\n\n ' 'Venugopal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner,\n\n   that unless and until the area leased out to the\n\nl\"=.._,l.il5eti%tioner, viz. 347.22 hectares is clearly demarcated,\n\n .._l;'the respondents could not come to<\/pre>\n
an unilateral<\/p>\n
conclusion that the petitioner had encroached outside<\/p>\n
the leased out area for dumping overburden waste. The<\/p>\n
learned Senior Counsel also brought to our notice <\/p>\n
the Controller of Mines, Indian Bureau of Mine$’;’*by’~.ljiis  <\/p>\n
proceedings dated 30th April 2007 had perm.i.t,te=d_  All<\/p>\n
hectares for dumping overburden <\/p>\n
petitioner strictly adhered to.s’ Mr. Kllrishnani.VenugoplalAll<\/p>\n
submits that the petitioners: are .”p\u00abr.epare}::1 to
\nsubstantiate that they  {:11 croac:he_d outside the<\/p>\n
leased out area, ifan opp’ortu:nity.yi’s_givieijftvolthem.<\/p>\n
5.1) Per learned Advocate
\nGeneral,   fairly submits that
\ncondition \u00a7\\los.l1l\u00a2’Vai1dl  dated 19* April
\n2007 could not p+i)ell’\u00a3:i: \u00a2\u00a7AcVi\u00e9tgalin\u00e9ili the petitioner in View of the<\/p>\n
penldencyqoif thEefcivi~lp_litigation between the petitioner and the<\/p>\n
;.Vneighbourir_igll rn4i’i1ingt’operators, more particularly, when the<\/p>\n
rr;1atte_r is sei–zed__”before the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n
 ,_’Wit’hl respect to observation Nos.2 and 3, the<\/p>\n
 “Aldvolcate General, on instruction from the Assistant<\/p>\n
\/”1<\/p>\n
Conservator of Forests, I-Iospet and Range Forest Officer,<\/p>\n
i-iospet, submits that respondents’ are prepared to<\/p>\n
substantiate that the petitioner has encroached <\/p>\n
leased out area, after giving an opportunity to thepetit’ioner..,_l <\/p>\n
The learned Advocate General further <\/p>\n
interim suspension of the min’in_vg–~.,..Vlealse for
\nviolation of the condition Nos. 8,  ldli’s.perA1j.r1issible
\nin View of condition No.23  logfio\u00a7::o’oooi,’Voa:eo 19th Apm
\n2007. However, the learnediz’ that in
\nthe facts and the-llpiitesenltiiicase, where the
\npetitioner  mining operators
\nhave encroach-ed’  leased out area, both on
\nnorthern and eastern  petitioner is dumping the
\noveribttrdenhvtjaisteA.within——–h’is leased out area but not into<\/p>\n
survey  Forest Area, without surveying the<\/p>\n
i7.:Fi~e’l.d in tiled presence of the petitioner and the Controller of<\/p>\n
‘lVllji\u00bbri\u00abes;. lndian___l3Bureau of Mines, Bangaiore, it may not be<\/p>\n
A ‘”rl.:’-1,_lproper,t’o.._iri–‘vol<e condition No.23 of the Agreement dated 19"?<\/p>\n
 Atom 2057 for the alleged violation of the condition Nos.8, 9,<\/p>\n
 18, as a serious doubt is raised by the petitioner with<\/p>\n
\/'5
\n2 u\u00bb M<\/p>\n
regard to the alleged encroachment and the petitioner<\/p>\n
seriously denies encroachment out side the leased out <\/p>\n
In any event, the learned Advocate General also <\/p>\n
while deciding the extent of encroachment after_giviriginoti_ceii <\/p>\n
to the petitioner, an inspection would Zbegj<\/p>\n
presence of the Controller of Mines, Indian.V_B'tireau"i'iQVflylineis,ii<\/p>\n
for which proposal Mr Aravind Kumar,'xlearned.,_As,sistant
\nSolicitor General, appearing for"t–he–Grovernrnent has<\/p>\n
also agreed.\n<\/p>\n
5.3) In anv   ‘Advocate General
\nstrongly contends   quashed merely on
\nthe avermentiiiii’~”?ii\u20ac3;–de  that he had not
\nencroached  ‘leased  area, as such an allegation<\/p>\n
has’ito”=be”‘stib3stantiated  proved by the respondents in<\/p>\n
 appropr.iat.e piioceeidings before the competent criminal court.<\/p>\n
 6) We haivevllgiven our careful consideration to the<\/p>\n
suibmissiions ofiboth sides.\n<\/p>\n
“‘f.r\u00a711o.w.\u00a3ng questions arise for our consideration:<\/p>\n
  In View of rival contentions referred to above, the<\/p>\n
\/”T7’?\u00a7'”””‘-\\,<\/p>\n
 -Inforrriiatiori Report dated 14m December, 2008?<\/p>\n
 Cohfstit1,1tion of India is akin to the inherent power conferred<\/p>\n
(I) Whether it is proper for this Court to
\nexercise the power of judicial review under Article <\/p>\n
226 of the Constitution of India to quash the  <\/p>\n
Information Report dated 14*} Decerrrbper,   ‘<\/p>\n
(11) Whether the fourth
\nempowered to suspend  .\n<\/p>\n
invoking condition No.23. of
\naiieged violation of  .13 and
\n18 of the  <\/p>\n
(1:1)  entitled<\/p>\n
to?  “”” – V’<\/p>\n
7.2. Issue No.1.’  it
\n“{.I_\u00a7)i “Whether. isiiproper for this Court ‘to
\n _v.iiith e.:4:.’po’wer under Articie 226 of the<\/p>\n
  India to quash the First<\/p>\n
 5i’}2,\u20ac”~poi7w’er of judiciai review under Article 226 of the<\/p>\n
where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so, when
\nthe evidence has not been collected and produced beforeth’e_<\/p>\n
Court.\n<\/p>\n
7.4) In the instant case, the learned
\ncomes forward to substantiate the complaintilrniadeagainst
\npetitioner as to the violation of
\ndated 19th April 2007. Therefore, isljyet to
\nbe collected and produced   and the
\nrespondents are    vioiation of
\nconditions by the  be proper for this
\nCourt to   l…to”llstii’ie the legitimate
\nprosecution norilto “giifel  decision hastily. Hence,
\nwe are convinced   be proper for this Court to
\n i    <\/p>\n
Issue’__N.o;’iv i’sv.,an.”s’vcv”ered accordingly.<\/p>\n
  (ll) Wh’;3ther the fourth respondent is empowered<\/p>\n
  to suspend the mining licence invoking condition<\/p>\n
 No.23 of the agreement for the alleged violation of<\/p>\n
7.6) After the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 came_._into<\/p>\n
force, no mining lease \/licence can be granted in th.el”fore.stA’<\/p>\n
area Without the prior approval of the Central  C’<\/p>\n
which is a condition precedent, becau’se_Se-ctioln”‘i off.\/_t’heT.,<\/p>\n
Forest (Conservation) Act starts with non”-o_b”stante’l’clai,ise
\n“Notwithstanding anything contained in an’y._ot1:1erlfg1aw for
\nthe time being in force  a ‘$ta_te.’;~–‘?fTherefore, no non-<\/p>\n
forest activity can be (carriedc-np  thAeV,pforestl”area, except with<\/p>\n
the prior approV?:11?._.:of   Governtnent, which means, 7<\/p>\n
even the State   on any such non~
\nforest activity in  ‘ar\u00e9’a__vJithout the prior approval of<\/p>\n
the Central (i}overnInenlt.:’ Tlierrilfact that the mining activity<\/p>\n
arnounts “neon–fores.tllpurpose is beyond doubt.<\/p>\n
   _T’i2.e:”re’r::eWa1 of a lease is really the grant of a fresh<\/p>\n
-y,_,.1ease as,p)lihe1d_i(bi5%gpthe Apex Court in DELHI DEVELOPMENT<\/p>\n
.[Cairii)~A.UTHoR1Trif’vs. DURGA CHAND KAUSISH-AIR 1973 so<\/p>\n
  therefore such prior approval of the Central<\/p>\n
‘lirl\ufb01overriment in terms of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation)<\/p>\n
  1980 would be required when mining lease granted before<\/p>\n
2!<\/p>\n
during the lease period. It is under such circumstancesguwe<\/p>\n
are of the considered opinion that it would not  <\/p>\n
suspend the mining operation without  to  i <\/p>\n
substantiate the violation of condition Nos;  <\/p>\n
Otherwise, it will amount to an.r’ar_bitraryl”and urireiasolilgilalile <\/p>\n
exercise of power conferred   of the
\nagreement dated 19th   _alsouialrir1ount to
\nviolation of the principles  Article
\n14 of the      it <\/p>\n
Issue\n<\/p>\n
8) Issue Nd.i._(IIr)ii V l i i<\/p>\n
To what-relief  is entitled to?\n<\/p>\n
 ”  __  result,’  pass the following:\n<\/p>\n
0 R D E R\n<\/p>\n
(i) l’   to quash the First Information
\n dated 14.12.2008 is rejected, giving
\n”  to the respondents to proceed in<\/p>\n
V”-a’ccordance with law subject to the orders<\/p>\n
hereunder;\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
(iii)<\/p>\n
22<\/span><\/p>\n
the impugned order dated 29.12.2008 of thef\u00bb,
\nfourth respondent ~ Deputy Conservato.r__”–Of’–u,W.
\nForests, Bellary Division, Bellary directing  ‘<\/p>\n
stopping of mining activities\ufb02and suspending  ii <\/p>\n
the impugned licence, stands}:qua_shed’;._   4′ ‘<\/p>\n
Deputy Conservator of Fo_re.sts,   <\/p>\n
Be11ary–fourth Respondentglpshall inspiecjt
\nsurvey the impugned area”  outvto “the
\npetitioner, in his presence,v’the.,presence
\nof Controlle:’~of Mi11’e”s*,–  of Mines,
\nBangalore   a  reference to
\nthe  otherxg relevant material
\navaii_a”b–le,:  V’ docuznents  produced by the
\npetitioner  _t’lie””‘ai1eged violation of the<\/p>\n
condition.  18 of the agreement<\/p>\n
dated :9th,,’Aprii, 2,007; ,<\/p>\n
toned to the \ufb01nding arrived at by the fourth<\/p>\n
  Conservator of Forests,<\/p>\n
C’ ,_.’Be11arytiI.’;ivision, and the Controller of Mines,<\/p>\n
4lndian.iBureau of Mines, Bangalore; petitioner<\/p>\n
 it .,ehe11i rectify the violation by removing the<\/p>\n
V’  overburden waste whatsoever Within two weeks<\/p>\n
from the date of such order passed by the
\nfourth respondent and the Controller of Mines,<\/p>\n
Indian Bureau of Mines, Bangalore; and<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court M\/S Mspl Limited vs The State Of Karnataka And Others on 1 April, 2009 Author: P.D.Dinakaran(Cj) & V.G.Sabhahit Rep. by its’ Secrvetagg\/;’T:= ‘De’p’artment__of Forest, Ecology and i.A1nb*ed1:ar F~Z.oad,Banga}0re 560 001 Principal Chief Conservator of Forests I Aranj-*a\u00bbvBhavan, 181″ cross, Malleswaram i\ufb01angualore 560 003 “=_3”.\u00ab,T’h’e Conservator of Forests IN THE HIGH COURT or […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-219793","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S Mspl Limited vs The State Of Karnataka And Others on 1 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mspl-limited-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-and-others-on-1-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S Mspl Limited vs The State Of Karnataka And Others on 1 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mspl-limited-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-and-others-on-1-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=\"2009-03-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-29T13:06:55+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\\\/ms-mspl-limited-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-and-others-on-1-april-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-mspl-limited-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-and-others-on-1-april-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S Mspl Limited vs The State Of Karnataka And Others on 1 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-29T13:06:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-mspl-limited-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-and-others-on-1-april-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1206,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-mspl-limited-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-and-others-on-1-april-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-mspl-limited-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-and-others-on-1-april-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-mspl-limited-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-and-others-on-1-april-2009\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S Mspl Limited vs The State Of Karnataka And Others on 1 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-29T13:06:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-mspl-limited-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-and-others-on-1-april-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-mspl-limited-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-and-others-on-1-april-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-mspl-limited-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-and-others-on-1-april-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S Mspl Limited vs The State Of Karnataka And Others on 1 April, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M\/S Mspl Limited vs The State Of Karnataka And Others on 1 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mspl-limited-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-and-others-on-1-april-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S Mspl Limited vs The State Of Karnataka And Others on 1 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mspl-limited-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-and-others-on-1-april-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-29T13:06:55+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\/ms-mspl-limited-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-and-others-on-1-april-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mspl-limited-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-and-others-on-1-april-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S Mspl Limited vs The State Of Karnataka And Others on 1 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-29T13:06:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mspl-limited-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-and-others-on-1-april-2009"},"wordCount":1206,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mspl-limited-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-and-others-on-1-april-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mspl-limited-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-and-others-on-1-april-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mspl-limited-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-and-others-on-1-april-2009","name":"M\/S Mspl Limited vs The State Of Karnataka And Others on 1 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-29T13:06:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mspl-limited-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-and-others-on-1-april-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mspl-limited-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-and-others-on-1-april-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mspl-limited-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-and-others-on-1-april-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S Mspl Limited vs The State Of Karnataka And Others on 1 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\/219793","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=219793"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/219793\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=219793"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=219793"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=219793"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}