{"id":233478,"date":"2002-08-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-08-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/globetech-engineers-vs-ajay-chadha-and-anr-on-7-august-2002"},"modified":"2016-09-01T05:12:54","modified_gmt":"2016-08-31T23:42:54","slug":"globetech-engineers-vs-ajay-chadha-and-anr-on-7-august-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/globetech-engineers-vs-ajay-chadha-and-anr-on-7-august-2002","title":{"rendered":"Globetech Engineers vs Ajay Chadha And Anr. on 7 August, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Globetech Engineers vs Ajay Chadha And Anr. on 7 August, 2002<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 2002 (64) DRJ 525<\/div>\n
Author: U Mehra<\/div>\n
Bench: U Mehra, C Mahajan<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
 Usha Mehra, J.<\/p>\n
1. The short point involved in this appeal is
\nwhether the Rent Controller can pass a composite order
\nshort the Act) as well as eviction order under Section
\n14(1)(a) of the said Act.\n<\/p>\n
2. Briefly stated the facts are the Ajay
\nChadha and others sought eviction of M\/s Globetech
\nEngineers, appellants herein on the ground of non-payment
\nof rent. The appellants are in occupation of premises
\nNo. 208, Pragati House, 47-48, Nehru Place, New Delhi on a
\nmonthly rent of Rs. 2,100\/-. When despite service of
\nnotice the appellants did not pay the arrears of rent,
\npetition for eviction was filed. Appellants despite
\nservice did not put in appearance, therefore, proceeded
\nex-parte. Ex-parte order was passed under Section 15(1)
\nof the Act on 15th September, 1984 with a direction to
\npay the entire arrears at the agreed rate of rent payable
\nfrom 1st June, 1983 within one month from the date of the
\norder, failing which it was Further ordered that there
\nwill be deemed eviction of the appellant from the
\npremises in question. Application filed by the appellant
\nunder Order 9 Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure (in short
\nCPC) was dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
3. It is against the order of dismissal that
\nthe present appeal was preferred inter alia, on the
\nground that composite order is bad in law. Since there
\nwere conflicting decisions of our own High Court as well
\nas other High Courts, therefore, one of us (Usha Mehra,
\nJ.) in order to get the matter resolved, referred this
\nmatter to be placed before a larger bench vide order
\ndated 21st March, 1997. Now, the matter has come before
\nthis division bench.\n<\/p>\n
4. Mr. Vijay Kishan jaitely to support his
\ncontention that the composite order passed by the Rent
\nController Under Section 15(1) and Under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act is
\ninvalid and illegal placed heavy reliance on the decision
\nof Supreme Court in the case of  Chinnamarkathian alias
\nMuthu Gounder and another (in C.A. No. 2197 of 1969),
\nChinna Gounder and Anr. (in C.A. No. 2198 of 1969) and
\nRaja Gounder and Anr. (in C.A. No. 2199 of 1969)
\nv. Ayyavoo alias Periana Gounder and Ors., . In that case the Apex Court was
\ndealing with the provisions of Tamil Nadu Cultivating
\nTenants Protection Act (25 of 1955), and provisions of
\nSub-section 4(b) of Section 3 of the said Act. The Apex
\nCourt came to the conclusion that the provisions of the
\nAct do not contemplate passing of a composite order and
\nobserved as under:-\n<\/p>\n
“that the language employed in that sub-section
\nwas self-evident. After the application is
\nreceived and parties are summoned and
\nrepresentations are head, the court must
\ndetermine whether the cultivating tenant is in
\narrears of rent. If the answer is in the
\naffirmative, it has to determine the arrears in
\nterms of its money value. Thereafter, the
\nRevenue Divisional Officer must ascertain
\nrelative circumstances must be
\nrelatable to the need of the landlord for
\nprompt payment and the present prevalent
\ncircumstances of the tenant relatable to the
\npaying capacity.”\n<\/p>\n
5. Reliance was also placed on the decision
\nof our own High Court in the case of  H.P. Vaid v.
\nS.K.R. Bhandari (Delhi), S.A.O. No. 228 of 1977 where the
\ncomposite order for deposit of rent as well as eviction
\non the failure to deposit of rent as well as eviction
\non the failure to deposit was held to be illegal and not
\nsustainable. The learned Single Judge of this court
\nwhile coming to this conclusion relied the decision of
\nSupreme Court in the cases of  Chinnamarkathian alias
\nMuthu Nath and another etc. (Supra) and  Ram Murti v. Bhola Nath and<\/a> another, . Another
\nSingle Judge of this court in the case of  Mohinder Singh
\nv. Lajwanti,<\/a> 1976 Rajdhani Law Reporter (Note) 66 at page
\n62 held that Rent Controller had no power to order
\neviction on anticipatory default. IN that case the
\nTribunal passed a composite order subject to condition
\nthat eviction would stand cancelled on deposit of money.
\nThe Court held that such an order was not legal.
\nSimilarly in the case of  Debi Ram v. Devi Chand, 46 (1992)
\nDelhi Law Times 705, this court held that composite
\nnotice is neither legal nor maintainable. Another bench
\nof this court in the case of  Prime Industries v. Rafeeq
\nAhmed, 1997 III AD (Delhi) 898 Look the same view. In
\nthe case of  B.R. Mehta v. Atam Devi, 1989(1) Delhi
\nLawyer 58, the court while dealing with a similar
\nproposition as to whether composite order under Section
\n15 and of eviction could be passed by the Rent
\ncontroller thereby directing the eviction of the tenant
\nif arrears are not paid within the stipulated period.
\nAfter analysing the various provisions of the Act, the
\ncourt concluded as under:-\n<\/p>\n
  “that the Controller cannot invoke the
\nprovisions of Section 15(7) at the time when an
\norder under Section 15(1) is being passed.”\n<\/p>\n
6. While coming to this conclusion the
\nlearned Single Judge placed reliance on the decision of
\nthe Supreme Court in  Chinanamar kathian’s case (Supra).\n<\/p>\n
7. Countering these arguments Mr. Vijay Kishan
\nMakhija, Sr. Advocate contended that no fault can be found
\nin a composite order. It is a valid order. He, however,
\ncontended that Supreme Court’s decision in
\n Chinanamarkathian’s case (Supra) is distinguishable
\nbecause in that case Apex Court was dealing with Tamil
\nNadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act (25 of 1955)
\nwhereby Section 3 of the said Act placed an embargo on
\nthe eviction of a cultivating tenant and the protection
\nextended to rendering a decree or order of a court for
\neviction nugatory. It was only because of the enabling
\nprovisions of Section 4 of Section 3 that enables the
\nlandlord to seek eviction of a cultivating tenant on the
\ngrounds which are available to him under the Act. Clause\n<\/p>\n
(b) of Sub-section (4) of Section 3 lays down the
\nprocedures to be followed by the Revenue Divisional
\nOfficer at the time of granting the order. Hence the
\nRevenue Divisional Officer in view of the specific
\nprovision provided under the Act could not pass composite
\norder. But such provisions are missing under the Delhi
\nRent Control Act, therefore, the judgment in
\n Chinanamarkathian’s case (Supra) is distinguishable on
\nfacts as well as in law.\n<\/p>\n
8. Mr. Vijay Kishan Makhija, in aid of his
\narguments that a composite order is valid, placed
\nreliance on the following decisions of this court namely
\n(1)  Mebrose Ice Cream v. Jaswant Rai, 1979 (2) RCR page
\n95; (2)  Chatter Singh v. Banarsi Lal, 1976 RCR 61; (3)
\n Bhoj Dutta v. Brin Narain Bagai, 1972 FCR page 142; (4)
\n Dharam Pal & Sons v. Shri Parmeshwari Dass, 1981 (2)
\nAll India Rent Control Journal 408; and (5)  Kulwant Kaur
\nv. Jeewan Singh vide SAO No. 91\/71 decided on 25th
\nOctober, 1971.\n<\/p>\n
9. In order to appreciate the contentions
\nraised by the counsel for the parties, let us understand
\nthe provisions of the Rent Control Act and in particular
\nSections 15(1), 15(7), 14 and (1)(a) which are
\nreproduced as under:-\n<\/p>\n
” Section 15(1) <\/p>\n
In every proceedings of the recovery of
\npossession of any premises on the ground
\nspecified in Clause (a) of the proviso to
\nSub-section (1) of Section 14, the Controller
\nshall, after giving the parties an opportunity
\nof being heard, make an order directing the
\ntenant to pay to the landlord or deposit with
\nthe Controller within one month of the date of
\nthe order, an amount calculated at the rate of
\nrent at which it was last paid for the period
\nfor which the arrears of the rent were legally
\nrecoverable from the tenant including the
\nperiod subsequent thereto up to the end of the
\nmonth previous to that in which payment or
\ndeposit is made and to continue to pay or
\ndeposit, month by month, by the fifteenth of
\neach succeeding month, a sum equivalent to the
\nrent at the rate.”\n<\/p>\n
” Section 15(7) <\/p>\n
If a tenant fails to make payment or deposit as
\nrequired by this section, the Controller may
\norder the defense against eviction to the struck
\nout and proceed with the hearing of the
\napplication.”\n<\/p>\n
” Section 14 Protection of tenant against
\neviction. – (1) <\/p>\n
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary
\ncontained in any other law or contract, no
\norder or decree for the recovery of possession
\nof any premises shall be made by any court or
\nController in favor of the landlord against a
\ntenant:\n<\/p>\n
Provided that the Controller may, on an
\napplication made to him in the prescribed
\nmanner, make an order for the recovery of
\npossession of the premises on the ground
\nnamely:-\n<\/p>\n
 Section 14(1)(a) <\/p>\n
(a) that the tenant has neither paid nor
\ntendered the whole of the arrears of the rent
\nlegally recoverable from him within two months
\nof the date on which a notice of demand for the
\narrears of rent has been served of him by the
\nlandlord in the manner provided in Section 106
\nof the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of
\n1882);\n<\/p>\n
10. The cumulative effect of the reading of
\nthe above provisions of the D.R.C. Act would reveal that
\nthe Controller can invoke the provisions of Section 15(7)
\nonly after he has passed an order under Section 15(1)
\nmeaning thereby that the Controller has first at point of
\ntime come to a conclusion that the party i.e. the tenant
\nhas not paid the rent as claimed by the landlord, and
\nafter hearing the parties give direction to the tenant to
\npay to the landlord or deposit in the court the amount
\ndue at the agreed rate of rent with further direction
\nthat he will go on paying month by month the sum
\nequivalent to the rent at the rate. After having passed
\nsuch an order, the Controller has to give reasonable time
\nand that time is also stipulated under Section 15(1) of
\nthe Act i.e., one month from the date of the order for
\nthe compliance of that order. It is only after the
\nexpiry of one month when the order is not complied with,
\nthe Controller can pass order under Section 15(7) of the
\nAct. Therefore, reading of these two provisions makes it
\nclear that the decree of eviction on account of
\nnon-payment of arrears of rent is to take effect is the
\nfuture on the happening or non-compliance of the
\ndirection given by the Controller under Section 15(1) of
\nthe Act. Therefore, the composite notice directing to
\npay the arrears of rent within one month failing which
\neviction will take automatically effect on a default to
\noccur in future is neither envisaged nor stipulated by
\nthe Act itself. We find that observation of the learned
\nSingle Judge in the case of B.R. Mehta (Supra) is based
\non sound reasoning. The Controller cannot invoke the
\nprovisions of Section 15(7) of the Act simultaneously
\nwhile passing the order under Section 15(1) of the Act
\nbecause the occasion for the Controller to exercise his
\njurisdiction under Section 15(7) of the Act is to arise
\nonly on the happening when the tenant fails to make
\npayment or deposit as required under Section 15(1) of the
\nAct. The jurisdiction of the Controller to strike off
\ndefense of the tenant under Section 15(7) of the Act will
\ntake place only after the eventuality of non-compliance
\nof the order under Section 15(1) of the Act arises, which
\nis a future event. In this view of the matter if the
\ncomposite order is passed, in that case the Controller
\nwill be depriving the tenant of his right to contest his
\neviction under Section 14(1)(e). By passing a composite
\norder the Controller becomes functus officio because of
\nnon-payment by the tenant eviction will automatically
\nfollow and that is not the import of the Act. the
\nlegislature in its wisdom never envisaged that the
\neviction is to follow automatically. On each
\napplication, the Controller has to apply his mind on the
\nbasis of the facts available on record. Moreover, if the
\norder under Section 15(1) and 15(7) of the Act are passed
\nsimultaneously, the Controller will be deprived to extent
\nthe time beyond one month which otherwise in view of the
\nsettled position of law the Controller has power keeping
\nin view the facts and circumstances of a case to extent
\nthe time for making payment of rent beyond one month. It
\nis so held by the Apex Court in the case of  Jain
\nMotor Car Co., Delhi v. Smt. Swamy Prabha Jain and Anr.,<\/a> . But if the composite order is passed
\nthen the tenant will be deprived completely of asking of
\nthe extension even in a case where he can justify the
\nnon-payment within one month. Under Section 15(7) of the
\nthe court and satisfy it as to why his defense should not
\nbe struck off. If the court is satisfied with the
\nexplanation given by the tenant, it can extend the time
\nfor paying or depositing the arrears of rent as ordered
\nby the Court. In that case court need not strike off his
\ndefense. This exercise the court will carry out only
\nafter the default has been committed and not earlier.
\nTherefore, if the composite order is held to the valid
\nthen the right of the tenant in this regard will be
\ncompletely taken away. the effect of the composite order
\nis that it takes away the discretionary powers of the
\nController.\n<\/p>\n
11. Admittedly the learned Single Judges of
\nthis court prior to H.P. Vaid’s case (Supra) were
\nfollowing the view that the composite order is
\npermissible. In mebrose Ice Cream’s case (Supra), the
\nlearned Single Judge expressed the view that by the
\nstrict letter of law, after making an order under Section
\n15(1) of the Act, the Controller must wait for a month to
\nsee whether that order is complied with or not. It is
\nonly then that it can be known whether the bar in Section
\n14(2) is to prevail. He, therefore, observed that the
\njoint effect of those two Sections is to afford relief to
\nthe tenant where otherwise he is exposed to an order for
\nrecovery of possession. It appears the learned Single
\nJudge overlooked the provisions of Section 15(7) of the
\nAct while dealing with that case. Section 15(7) gives a
\ntenant an opportunity to require the Controller to apply
\nhis mind and to decide whether to order the striking off
\nof the defense or not. If the tenant justifies and
\nsatisfy the court as to why he could not make payment
\nwithin a period prescribed under Section 15(1) of the
\nAct, the Controller can extend the time and this he is
\npermissible to do under Section 15(7) of the Act. But on
\naccount of the composite order, the right of the tenant
\nto contest his eviction under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act
\nis taken away. Thus, the Controller deprives him of his
\nvaluable right. This is the prejudice which would be
\ncaused if the composite order is passed. No doubt
\n Chinanamarkathian’s case (Supra) was not under the Delhi
\nRent Control Act but we cannot lose sight of the fact
\nthat the provisions of Section 3(4)(b) of the Tamil Nadu
\nCultivating Protection Act are pari-materia the same as
\nSection 15(1) and Section 15(7) of the act. In
\n Chinanmarkathian’s case (Supra) the Supreme Court held
\nthat the composite order was not legal even though under
\nSection 3(4)(b) there was no express provision requiring
\nthe Revenue Divisional Officer to once again apply his
\nmind, after default had been committed whereas Section
\n15(7) of the Act requires the Controller to apply his
\nmind while deciding whether to strike off the defense of
\nthe tenant for the default committed by him or to extent
\nthe time for making the payment. Therefore, composite
\norder which is to take place in future if passed
\nsimultaneously would contravene the provision of the Act,
\nand therefore, without jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
12. Applying the principles of law as laid
\ndown by the Supreme Court in  Chinanamarkathian’s case
\n(Supra), we have no hesitation to hold that the
\nController after having passed the order under Section
\n15(1) of the Act has to wait for the stipulated period to
\nexpire before he passes the order under Section 15(7) of
\nthe Act because the order under Section 15(7) of the Act
\nis to take effect on a default to occur in future.\n<\/p>\n
13. In the present case Ajay Kumar Chadha and
\nothers filed eviction petition on the ground of
\nnon-payment of rent with effect from 1st June, 1983. The
\nrespondents\/tenants were proceeded ex-parte and Mr. P.C.
\nChadha appearing as his own witness (AW-1), proved the
\nservice of demand of notice upon the tenant and also the
\nrate of rent as Rs. 2,100\/- per month. Since the rent had
\nnot been paid with effect from 1st June, 1983, hence the
\nnotice. This statement of Mr. P.C. Chadha remained
\nunchallenged and unassailed on record. It is in this
\nbackground that the learned Additional Rent Controller
\nordered to pay the entire arrears @ 2,100\/- p.m. with
\neffect from 1st June, 1983 within one month failing which
\norder of eviction shall be deemed to have been passed
\nagainst the respondents with respect to the premises in
\nquestion.\n<\/p>\n
14. In view of the law settled, proposition
\nof Law as discussed above it can safely be concluded that
\nthe impugned order being a composite order cannot be
\nsustained. The impugned order is accordingly set aside.
\nCase is remanded back to the Controller to decide the
\nsame in accordance with Law. Parties are directed to
\nappear before the Controller on 12.6.2002.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Globetech Engineers vs Ajay Chadha And Anr. on 7 August, 2002 Equivalent citations: 2002 (64) DRJ 525 Author: U Mehra Bench: U Mehra, C Mahajan JUDGMENT Usha Mehra, J. 1. The short point involved in this appeal is whether the Rent Controller can pass a composite order short the Act) as well […]<\/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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-233478","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nGlobetech Engineers vs Ajay Chadha And Anr. on 7 August, 2002 - 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\/globetech-engineers-vs-ajay-chadha-and-anr-on-7-august-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Globetech Engineers vs Ajay Chadha And Anr. on 7 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/globetech-engineers-vs-ajay-chadha-and-anr-on-7-august-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-08-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-31T23:42:54+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/globetech-engineers-vs-ajay-chadha-and-anr-on-7-august-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/globetech-engineers-vs-ajay-chadha-and-anr-on-7-august-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Globetech Engineers vs Ajay Chadha And Anr. on 7 August, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-08-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-31T23:42:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/globetech-engineers-vs-ajay-chadha-and-anr-on-7-august-2002\"},\"wordCount\":2864,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/globetech-engineers-vs-ajay-chadha-and-anr-on-7-august-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/globetech-engineers-vs-ajay-chadha-and-anr-on-7-august-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/globetech-engineers-vs-ajay-chadha-and-anr-on-7-august-2002\",\"name\":\"Globetech Engineers vs Ajay Chadha And Anr. on 7 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-08-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-31T23:42:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/globetech-engineers-vs-ajay-chadha-and-anr-on-7-august-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/globetech-engineers-vs-ajay-chadha-and-anr-on-7-august-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/globetech-engineers-vs-ajay-chadha-and-anr-on-7-august-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Globetech Engineers vs Ajay Chadha And Anr. on 7 August, 2002\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Globetech Engineers vs Ajay Chadha And Anr. on 7 August, 2002 - 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\/globetech-engineers-vs-ajay-chadha-and-anr-on-7-august-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Globetech Engineers vs Ajay Chadha And Anr. on 7 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/globetech-engineers-vs-ajay-chadha-and-anr-on-7-august-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-08-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-31T23:42:54+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/globetech-engineers-vs-ajay-chadha-and-anr-on-7-august-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/globetech-engineers-vs-ajay-chadha-and-anr-on-7-august-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Globetech Engineers vs Ajay Chadha And Anr. on 7 August, 2002","datePublished":"2002-08-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-31T23:42:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/globetech-engineers-vs-ajay-chadha-and-anr-on-7-august-2002"},"wordCount":2864,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/globetech-engineers-vs-ajay-chadha-and-anr-on-7-august-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/globetech-engineers-vs-ajay-chadha-and-anr-on-7-august-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/globetech-engineers-vs-ajay-chadha-and-anr-on-7-august-2002","name":"Globetech Engineers vs Ajay Chadha And Anr. on 7 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-08-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-31T23:42:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/globetech-engineers-vs-ajay-chadha-and-anr-on-7-august-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/globetech-engineers-vs-ajay-chadha-and-anr-on-7-august-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/globetech-engineers-vs-ajay-chadha-and-anr-on-7-august-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Globetech Engineers vs Ajay Chadha And Anr. on 7 August, 2002"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/233478","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=233478"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/233478\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=233478"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=233478"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=233478"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}