{"id":241751,"date":"2009-08-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uttari-haryana-bijli-vitran-nigam-vs-ms-modern-transformers-private-on-27-august-2009-2"},"modified":"2018-12-19T04:42:12","modified_gmt":"2018-12-18T23:12:12","slug":"uttari-haryana-bijli-vitran-nigam-vs-ms-modern-transformers-private-on-27-august-2009-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uttari-haryana-bijli-vitran-nigam-vs-ms-modern-transformers-private-on-27-august-2009-2","title":{"rendered":"Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam … vs M\/S Modern Transformers Private … on 27 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam … vs M\/S Modern Transformers Private … on 27 August, 2009<\/div>\n
FAO No. 3518 of 2009                                                              1\n\n\n\n           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\n                           CHANDIGARH\n                                        --\n\n                                 FAO No. 3518 of 2009 (O&M)\n                                 Date of decision: August 27, 2009\n\n\nUttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. And another          ........ Appellants\n\n             Versus\n\nM\/s Modern Transformers Private Limited                    .......Respondent(s)\n\n\nCoram:       Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur\n                       -.-\n\nPresent:     Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate\n             for the appellants\n\n             Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate\n             for the respondent\n\n                   -.-\n      1.     Whether Reporters of local papers may be\n             allowed to see the judgement?\n\n      2.     To be referred to the Reporter or not?\n\n      3.     Whether the judgement should be reported in\n             the Digest?\n\nNirmaljit Kaur, J.\n<\/pre>\n
             This is an appeal against the order dated 12.02.2009 passed by the<\/p>\n
Additional District Judge, Panchkula, whereby the application under Section 9 of<\/p>\n
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short ‘the 1996 Act’) filed by the<\/p>\n
respondents for grant of interim relief has been allowed. Vide the impugned<\/p>\n
order, the encashment of bank guarantee in question was blocked.<\/p>\n
             While challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellants submitted that the discretion under Section 9 of the 1996 Act for the<\/p>\n
purpose of grant of relief particularly relating to restraining the appellants from
\n FAO No. 3518 of 2009                                                           2<\/span><\/p>\n
encashing the bank guarantee and from black listing the firm can be used only<\/p>\n
sparingly.   In order to substantiate his arguments, learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellants has relied upon the judgements rendered by the Apex Court in the cases<\/p>\n
of ‘General Electric Technical Services Company Inc., v Punj Sons (P) Ltd. And<\/p>\n
another- AIR 1991 Supreme Court 1994, BSES Ltd. (Now Reliance Energy Ltd.)<\/p>\n
v. Fener India Ltd. And another- (2006) 2 Supreme Court Cases 728 and Vinitec<\/p>\n
Electronics Private Limited v. HCL Infosystems Limited<\/a> – 2008 (1) Civil Court<\/p>\n
Cases 377 (SC).\n<\/p>\n
             Learned counsel for the respondent while responding to the<\/p>\n
arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Additional<\/p>\n
District Judge, granted the interim relief to the respondent-firm by restraining the<\/p>\n
respondents from invoking the bank guarantee in question and from black listing<\/p>\n
the respondent-firm, subject to certain conditions, which are as follows:-<\/p>\n
             i)    The restraint orders shall remain in force till such time,<\/p>\n
                   Arbitrator is appointed and the parties appear before the<\/p>\n
                   Arbitrator. The interim relief shall automatically stand<\/p>\n
                   vacated after the appearance of the parties before the<\/p>\n
                   Arbitrator.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             ii)   In case, no Arbitrator is appointed, the interim relief would<\/p>\n
                   automatically stand vacated; and<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             iii) In case the parties do not go in arbitration proceedings<\/p>\n
                   within six months from the orders, the interim relief shall<\/p>\n
                   stand vacated.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             It was stated that in fact the same has caused prejudice to the interest<\/p>\n
of the respondent firm and rather, the order should be modified to the extent that
\n FAO No. 3518 of 2009                                                          3<\/span><\/p>\n
the encashment of the bank guarantee as well as black listing of the firm should be<\/p>\n
stayed for a period of three years till the adjudication of the dispute between the<\/p>\n
parties by an independent Arbitrator. It was further stated that the High Court is<\/p>\n
already seized of the matter with respect to the appointment of the Arbitrator.<\/p>\n
            Learned counsel for the parties have been heard.\n<\/p>\n
            Dispute in the present case was with regard to the three Purchase<\/p>\n
Orders dated 16.09.2004 for supply of 600 numbers of Transformers of 100 KVA,<\/p>\n
Purchase Order dated 01.09.2004 for supply of 600 numbers of Transformers of<\/p>\n
63 KVA and the third Purchase Order dated 06.12.2004 for supply of 1500<\/p>\n
numbers of 25 KVA Transformers.         As per the terms and conditions of the<\/p>\n
Purchase order, the respondent-firm furnished the bank guarantee of<\/p>\n
Rs.38,16,000\/- against the first Purchase Order and Rs.25,53,000\/- against the<\/p>\n
second Purchase Order. There was no bank guarantee furnished in respect of the<\/p>\n
third Purchase Order, but 10% of the purchase order amount was deducted from<\/p>\n
the running bill of the respondent-firm towards the Bank guarantee amount. The<\/p>\n
respondent firm could not supply the requisite number of Transformers, as per the<\/p>\n
Purchase Order dated 06.12.2004. Likewise, in respect of the supply relating to<\/p>\n
63 KVA and 100 KVA Transformers, a large quantity of Transformers supplied<\/p>\n
by the respondent firm did not conform to the specifications. Accordingly, a<\/p>\n
penalty of Rs.4.35 crores and another amount of penalty of Rs.3.56 crores relating<\/p>\n
to various recoveries of damaged Transformers etc. was imposed. It was stated<\/p>\n
that on failure of the respondent firm in furnishing an undertaking to the effect<\/p>\n
that the sub standard Transformers shall be replaced, a notice dated 31.12.2007<\/p>\n
was sent.\n<\/p>\n
            It is settled proposition of law that the bank guarantee is an<\/p>\n
independent contract between the bank and the beneficiaries. Learned counsel for
\n FAO No. 3518 of 2009                                                            4<\/span><\/p>\n
the respondents is also not able to dispute the settled proposition of law. Thus, it<\/p>\n
is evident that the bank must pay on demand without any further dispute. The<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Energy Limited (Supra) chalked<\/p>\n
out two exceptions to this rule, which are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
             “10. There are, however, two exceptions to this rule. The first<\/p>\n
             is when there is a clear fraud of which the bank has notice and a<\/p>\n
             fraud of the beneficiary from which it seeks to benefit. The<\/p>\n
             fraud must be of an egregious nature as to vitiate the entire<\/p>\n
             underlying transaction. The second exception to the general<\/p>\n
             rule of non-intervention is when there are “special equities” in<\/p>\n
             favour of injunction, such as when “irretrievable injury” or<\/p>\n
             “irretrievable injustice” would occur if such an injunction were<\/p>\n
             not granted. The general rule and its exceptions has been<\/p>\n
             reiterated in so many judgements of this Court, that in U.P.<\/p>\n
             State Sugar Corpn. v. Sumac International Ltd.<\/a> (hereinafter ”<\/p>\n
             U.P. State Sugar Corpn.”), this Court, correctly declared that<\/p>\n
             the law was settled.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             Admittedly, in the present case, no such allegation of fraud has been<\/p>\n
alleged. As such, the facts of the present case do not fall under the first exception.<\/p>\n
             As regards the second exception, no such circumstances are shown by<\/p>\n
the respondent-firm, which could justify for restraining the appellant from<\/p>\n
encashing the bank guarantee, except that the appellant has already moved the<\/p>\n
High Court for appointment of an independent arbitrator under Section 11(6) of<\/p>\n
the 1996 Act and the matter is pending adjudication before this Court. Thus, there<\/p>\n
is no plea of any special ‘equity’ by the respondent firm in their favour. No plea of<\/p>\n
irretrievable injustice is made out. Pendency of the petition under Section 11(6)
\n FAO No. 3518 of 2009                                                             5<\/span><\/p>\n
of the 1996 Act is not sufficient ground to fall under the second exception.<\/p>\n
             In a judgement rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of<\/p>\n
Vinitec Electronics (supra), as relied upon by the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellants, in some what similar circumstances, held:-<\/p>\n
             “28. There is no dispute that arbitral proceedings are pending.
\n             The appellant can always get the relief provided he makes his
\n             case before the Arbitral Tribunal. There is no allegation that it
\n             would be difficult to realise the amounts from the respondent
\n             in case the appellant succeeds before the Arbitral Tribunal.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             Thus, in these circumstances, no irretrievable injustice would be done<\/p>\n
to the respondent firm, if the bank guarantee furnishing by it, is encashed subject<\/p>\n
to the final outcome of the arbitration proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
             In ‘General Electric Technical Services Company’ (supra), the Hon’ble<\/p>\n
Supreme in para 10 of the judgement while observing that an injunction to restrain<\/p>\n
the encashment of the bank guarantee cannot be granted in absence of fraud or<\/p>\n
likelihood of irretrievable injustice between the parties, held:-<\/p>\n
             “10. ……………………….in the absence of fraud or special
\n             equities in the form of preventing irretrievable injustice between
\n             the parties. The High Court in the absence of prima facie case
\n             on such matters has committed an error in restraining the Bank
\n             from honouring its commitment under the Bank guarantee.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             Thus, the respondents can succeed only if a case was made out under<\/p>\n
the two exceptions to the general rule. In the present case, there is neither any<\/p>\n
fraud, nor will encashment of the bank guarantee prima facie create special<\/p>\n
“equities” or irretrievable injury.\n<\/p>\n
             Above being the position, the order dated 12.02.2009 passed by the<\/p>\n
Additional District Judge, Panchkula deserves to be set aside only to the extent<\/p>\n
vide which the appellant has been restrained from encashing the bank guarantee.
\n FAO No. 3518 of 2009                                                              6<\/span><\/p>\n
             Learned counsel for the appellant, however, has no objection if the<\/p>\n
order dated 12.02.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Panchkula, black<\/p>\n
listing the respondent firm, is stayed till the appearance of the respondent firm<\/p>\n
before the Arbitrator in the first instance.\n<\/p>\n
             In this view of the matter, the present appeal is partly allowed to the<\/p>\n
following terms:-\n<\/p>\n
             a)     The order dated 12.02.2009 passed by the Additional District
\n                    Judge, Panchkula is set aside only to the extent vide which the
\n                    appellant has been restraining from encashing the bank
\n                    guarantee.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             b)     There shall be no restrain on the appellant to encash the bank
\n                    guarantee furnished by the respondent firm;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             c)     The order dated 12.02.2009 passed by the Additional District
\n                    Judge, Panchkula, black listing the respondent firm shall remain
\n                    stayed till the appearance of the respondent firm before the
\n                    Arbitrator at the first instance with liberty to the respondent firm
\n                    to move the Arbitrator for staying the operation of the part of the
\n                    order, vide which it is blacklisted.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                                    (Nirmaljit Kaur)
\n                                                                         Judge
\nAugust 27, 2009
\nmohan\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam … vs M\/S Modern Transformers Private … on 27 August, 2009 FAO No. 3518 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH — FAO No. 3518 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: August 27, 2009 Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. And […]<\/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":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-241751","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nUttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam ... vs M\/S Modern Transformers Private ... on 27 August, 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\/uttari-haryana-bijli-vitran-nigam-vs-ms-modern-transformers-private-on-27-august-2009-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam ... vs M\/S Modern Transformers Private ... on 27 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uttari-haryana-bijli-vitran-nigam-vs-ms-modern-transformers-private-on-27-august-2009-2\" \/>\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=\"2009-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-18T23:12:12+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/uttari-haryana-bijli-vitran-nigam-vs-ms-modern-transformers-private-on-27-august-2009-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/uttari-haryana-bijli-vitran-nigam-vs-ms-modern-transformers-private-on-27-august-2009-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam … vs M\\\/S Modern Transformers Private … on 27 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-18T23:12:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/uttari-haryana-bijli-vitran-nigam-vs-ms-modern-transformers-private-on-27-august-2009-2\"},\"wordCount\":1440,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/uttari-haryana-bijli-vitran-nigam-vs-ms-modern-transformers-private-on-27-august-2009-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/uttari-haryana-bijli-vitran-nigam-vs-ms-modern-transformers-private-on-27-august-2009-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/uttari-haryana-bijli-vitran-nigam-vs-ms-modern-transformers-private-on-27-august-2009-2\",\"name\":\"Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam ... vs M\\\/S Modern Transformers Private ... on 27 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-18T23:12:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/uttari-haryana-bijli-vitran-nigam-vs-ms-modern-transformers-private-on-27-august-2009-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/uttari-haryana-bijli-vitran-nigam-vs-ms-modern-transformers-private-on-27-august-2009-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/uttari-haryana-bijli-vitran-nigam-vs-ms-modern-transformers-private-on-27-august-2009-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam … vs M\\\/S Modern Transformers Private … on 27 August, 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":"Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam ... vs M\/S Modern Transformers Private ... on 27 August, 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\/uttari-haryana-bijli-vitran-nigam-vs-ms-modern-transformers-private-on-27-august-2009-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam ... vs M\/S Modern Transformers Private ... on 27 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uttari-haryana-bijli-vitran-nigam-vs-ms-modern-transformers-private-on-27-august-2009-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-18T23:12:12+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uttari-haryana-bijli-vitran-nigam-vs-ms-modern-transformers-private-on-27-august-2009-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uttari-haryana-bijli-vitran-nigam-vs-ms-modern-transformers-private-on-27-august-2009-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam … vs M\/S Modern Transformers Private … on 27 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-18T23:12:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uttari-haryana-bijli-vitran-nigam-vs-ms-modern-transformers-private-on-27-august-2009-2"},"wordCount":1440,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uttari-haryana-bijli-vitran-nigam-vs-ms-modern-transformers-private-on-27-august-2009-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uttari-haryana-bijli-vitran-nigam-vs-ms-modern-transformers-private-on-27-august-2009-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uttari-haryana-bijli-vitran-nigam-vs-ms-modern-transformers-private-on-27-august-2009-2","name":"Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam ... vs M\/S Modern Transformers Private ... on 27 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-18T23:12:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uttari-haryana-bijli-vitran-nigam-vs-ms-modern-transformers-private-on-27-august-2009-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uttari-haryana-bijli-vitran-nigam-vs-ms-modern-transformers-private-on-27-august-2009-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uttari-haryana-bijli-vitran-nigam-vs-ms-modern-transformers-private-on-27-august-2009-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam … vs M\/S Modern Transformers Private … on 27 August, 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\/241751","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=241751"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/241751\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=241751"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=241751"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=241751"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}