{"id":250953,"date":"2010-10-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-carpenters-classic-exim-p-vs-the-assistant-executive-engineer-on-18-october-2010"},"modified":"2015-01-23T04:54:50","modified_gmt":"2015-01-22T23:24:50","slug":"ms-carpenters-classic-exim-p-vs-the-assistant-executive-engineer-on-18-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-carpenters-classic-exim-p-vs-the-assistant-executive-engineer-on-18-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"M\/S.Carpenters Classic Exim (P) … vs The Assistant Executive Engineer on 18 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S.Carpenters Classic Exim (P) … vs The Assistant Executive Engineer on 18 October, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: S.Abdul Nazeer<\/div>\n
1 W.P.181-44\/2010\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE;-<.o'j%e~~.oVv\n\nDATED THIS THE 18?" DAY ore' OCTOBER 2Qro  if    \n\nBEFORE\n\nTHE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE s..4BD\u00a3iL ..m21$'ER e x f' * T\n\nWRIT PETITION N0.I83}14;f2010 _'(G1|V'\/I-KEr':'V)"A  A    \nBETWEEN:\n\nM\/s.Carpenters Classic Exim (P')'Ltde., *   Z\nA Company incorporated under the"  vv A\nCompanies Act<\/a>, 1956 haVi._ngitf~;A   _  - \nRegistered office at?SIo.\u00abi;2.T1'4, 1'?' Freer,  _  \n\nBangaiore    \nRepresented by its ' _ V  _   \nDirector Sri.Ra ej Kamm.biahA\u00a7' _  \" V ...Petitioner\n\n100 Feet   i\ufb01Vdiranagar~,VVV-- \n\n:_.~(By_Sri..S_}i?.Srrank_ar, sr\u00a7'Ad--~.e, for Sri.K.S.Harish, Adv.,)\n\nAssogf\u00bb   * '\n\n V1. \"The'AsSisfant:Executive Engineer,\n\n((:..__0 &.'M.),}E-6, Sub--Division,\n.V BESCOM, Indiranagar,\n AA Bangaiore -- 560 038.\n\n\n\n2 W.P.l8'f44\/2010\n\n2. Mrs.Padmarnal.ini G.Rao,\nW\/o Mr.G.Venl<atesh Rae,\nMajor, R\/a No. 1214,\n\n1" Floor, .100 Feet Road,\nHAL ll Stage, Endiranagar,\n\nBangalore --~ 560 008. ...Responden,ts'   i\n\n(By Sri.N.K.Gupta, AdV., for R1;\nR2 ---- Served, unrepresented)\n\nThis Writ Petition is filed under_..jiV\\irti_clesV 220'  the\nConstitution of India praying toquash the endorsement issued by the\n\nrespondent dated 04.05.2010 per"A1in.exitre\u00a74}'E"';   <\/pre>\n
This petition coming: on for’preii.inina,ry_ ‘B’ Group,<\/p>\n
this day, the Court made’t:he’ ‘fo11’owi:_1i_;;:~\u00a3  AV  <\/p>\n
The secio1idiirespo’ndent’ ‘owner of immovable property
\nbearing l\\to.’i”2l’4, .,V_l3e’et  HAL 2″” Stage, Indiranagar,
\n  fwd\/iiiitienements. The petitioner is a tenant in<\/p>\n
respect,_o’f__one*the,ppreiniises in the said property. The petitioner has<\/p>\n
iV’,;–piVpiro_duced acopayiof lease deed executed by the 2″” respondent in<\/p>\n
,ihi.s”‘faviouir_ at\u00b0’Annexure ‘A’. The second respondent is also in<\/p>\n
‘0 ‘-.V_iioccpu.pat.ion of one of the premises in the said building. The electricity<\/p>\n
 gnetefih respect of the premises in occupation of the petitioner is<\/p>\n
3 w.P.ls144\/2010<\/p>\n
located within the premises in occupation of the second respondent.<\/p>\n
The meter box is locked and the keys are kept with <\/p>\n
respondent. For the purpose of noting the meter reaidings*-.:arld <\/p>\n
preparing the monthly bill, the metering staff of the  <\/p>\n
go over to the rear side of the building, which is.Vexclusiyfe1y-within”. if<\/p>\n
the control and possession of the secon’dvs.respondent..it of
\nthe petitioner that the differences   Directorifof the
\npetitionencornpany and the second resulted in
\nfiling of a suit for  V..o__fiflthe premises in<\/p>\n
occupation of theiipetitronerfiin\u00bb  on the file of the<\/p>\n
City Civil Judge,_ Mayohallvi’\u00abBan.gaiore.. Can account of the differences
\nas above, the second responde’n,tuprevented access to the meter board<\/p>\n
located w:2;thin,herihouse.f’ It is further contended that the second<\/p>\n
respondent nranagedto get the electricity supply disconnected to the<\/p>\n
petitiionerfs. preinisesll’r;”JVheneVer the staff of the petitioner-company<\/p>\n
 rvent to the  in occupation of the second respondent to check<\/p>\n
.\u00bbelectrrcit3t_p_supply or for inspection of the connection, she started<\/p>\n
  of criminal trespass on to her property. She has filed<\/p>\n
 ‘  c’rin\ufb01na1 complaints against the Directors of the petitionerwcotnpany<\/p>\n
is<\/p>\n
9′<\/p>\n
4 W.F’.f814-M2010<\/p>\n
on frivolous grounds. It is further contended that the second<\/p>\n
respondent went to the extent of approaching the Passport Ql7fi_cer: ” .<\/p>\n
to renew the passport of its Director Sri Ravi Karurnhaiah  his 3<\/p>\n
travel outside India. The Director of the petitionergciompanyhi 1~.aaito’__ <\/p>\n
approach this Court in W.P.No.224,4_6\/200i9~.Aan.d got,i.–‘V.a.iA.wtit  V<\/p>\n
tnandarnus issued to the Passport Officer’s\u00bbtio’r\u00bb renewal.i_o\ufb01f’
\nThe criminal cases filed   thevvipetiitionen
\ncompany are still pending beforev”the The said
\nproceedings have be’en”‘Asgtayed:3._ Court. The
\nrelationship between  respondent has
\nbecome so ‘vj1,_hatV_.i::\u20acthe  respondent having illegally
\ndisconnected tlieyeliectricity  premises of the petitioner, is<\/p>\n
not allowjrfg igtispplyiof electricity to be restored. On 2.2.2010, the first<\/p>\n
i’respo’rid.ent sentia _l_etter at Annexure ‘C’ to the petitioner expressing<\/p>\n
theiri”ina’e’i_lity”‘to’restore”power supply  the owner has prevented the<\/p>\n
staff of ithe v–BES\u00a3’lOM to restore power supply. Therefore, the<\/p>\n
“petitione.r__is cornpelled to arrange for supply of electricity through<\/p>\n
‘2  generatoras an alternative mode. On 28.4.2010, the petitioner sought<\/p>\n
 0 teniporary\/alternative power supply with the BESCOM since<\/p>\n
iii
\nE,
\n2<\/span><\/p>\n
5 W.P.18144\/2019<\/p>\n
supply of electricity through generator .is very expensive. The<\/p>\n
petitioner is facing a piquant situation of having been denied the<\/p>\n
supply of electricity by the owner and mounting cost of altemagtive<\/p>\n
supply of eiectricity. The BESCOM has sent a letter as per ” <\/p>\n
‘E’ dated 4.5.2010 informing that temporary power supp1y_’cannot  Z<\/p>\n
arranged to the premises in its occupation\u00bb as pperithe F{egu:lations.ii.__gi’<\/p>\n
Therefore, the petitioner has .\u00bbfiled tiiis writdpetition 1 the <\/p>\n
following reliefs:\n<\/p>\n
“(a) Quash by a writ of ciertivorari. or any’.othe1\u00a5io–r”der or<\/p>\n
directjllonwin   theuendorsement issued
\nby th\u00e9”r\ufb01\u00e9ponde\ufb01t:’.?58%1fiI1g’–No,AEE\/E6SC\/AECTS\/F\u00bb
\n9\/91 dated 4_4.5.?,0lVO_as’.per.i\u00a7.11nexure ‘E’.<\/p>\n
‘i V.  – lssizee a “writ of inandyamus directing the respondent
\n   grant.:_an.ialtera.ative and direct electricity supply to
\n‘the\u00bbexclnsiyfewfnise of the petitioner by installing a
\nseparate: ‘meter in the premises in occupation of<\/p>\n
 petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
 To pass any other appropriate relief. And<\/p>\n
it<\/p>\n
a’<\/p>\n
5 W.P.18t44\/2010<\/p>\n
(d) Award the costs of this writ petition.”<\/p>\n
2. Though the second respondent is served, she has;\u00a7i_’reni’ai’rf1’ed  _<\/p>\n
unrepresented.\n<\/p>\n
3. Sri.S.P.Shankar, learned Senior Ady’o_cate.appear’i’ng”for  it<\/p>\n
petitioner would contend that since themrizeter of”  is
\nsituated within the premises in ‘jo<':.(;upati'oin-second' respondent,
\nthe first respondent is not in a posiition  supply to
\nthe petitioner's  is  account of non-\n<\/p>\n
supply of electricity, the’peitiitionerisputto great hardship and loss. It<\/p>\n
is further argue-:1″ thatvh-ayingi”rehgard “to the amendment to the<\/p>\n
‘Conditions of Siupplyot’  of the Distribution Licensees in<\/p>\n
the State Kar’nataka'”,”-wh_ic_hhas come into force with effect from<\/p>\n
2G..3.2Q(}8,Vti1eVpetitioner is entitled for aw separate connection and<\/p>\n
  vinstallationwtof aiseparagte meter in its premises.<\/p>\n
 4. Learned Advocate appearing for the first respondent submits<\/p>\n
5._i_'”that\u00abtheVt’irs~t. respondent is ready to provide electricity to the premises<\/p>\n
‘  petitioner, if it is permissible in law.\n<\/p>\n
it<\/p>\n
.\/<\/p>\n
7 W.P.18144\/2010<\/p>\n
5. it is clear from the materials on record. that the peititeii{)nej<\u00ab is a<\/p>\n
tenant of the aforesaid premises under the sec'ondTfg:sponid~e1i't._ lt is <\/p>\n
in dispute that the meter of the petitioneris…preniises_ is sVitiaatAed'witl':'l;n
\nthe premises in occupation of the second–reisp0nd~ent. ."iFh'ati_S  the
\nfirst respondent has issued an   as per
\nAnnexure 'E' dated.v4._5:;2.__0lO  power supply
\ncannot be arrange\u20acd\u00ab'td"i.ts   A i <\/p>\n
6.   ofiiiSHuipply of Electricity Supply
\nof DistributionLicensesVlfoeshor’t_:iEiSupply Regulations’) in the State<\/p>\n
of Karnat.algav provides. for the general procedure for arranging power<\/p>\n
  of  4.02 of the Supply Regulations states<\/p>\n
that power from” only one source should be provided to the<\/p>\n
li”ipremises”‘o_f the ‘applicant. The said Regulation has been amended by<\/p>\n
.._l.i’i.:rioti:fieati0n ..l\\Eo’.KERC\/COS\/D\/07\/08 dated 14.3.2008, which has<\/p>\n
  force on 20.3.2008. The amended Regulation is as under:<\/p>\n
3<\/span>
\n2<\/span>
\n3<\/span><\/p>\n
‘mi<\/p>\n
5.<\/p>\n
8 W.P.18144\/2010<\/p>\n
Sl.No. Clause No. As amended<\/p>\n
1 402(4) Power supply to building\/premises.  * V<\/p>\n
HT or Land Tribunal or combipn’atioi;._i.of
\nHT & Land Tribu_nal.__t’hrough “separate
\ndistinct service mains _can he ‘1a1’ra_nge=:1_;”<\/p>\n
a common isolation point. The. service 1
\nmain cables sha,_ll”‘have distincst ‘idevntityand
\nseparation. Meteriirig arrangements shall
\nbe at the ground–floor only. Power supply
\nto diff’c.1je’n.t types of “eo._nsu’rn_ers in building!
\npremises’ can be_a:rrangeti_ through separate
\nV\\\/Ls having’ c.omr_nc:n isolvatio’n–.p’oint.<\/p>\n
4.:Wh_ile ;_doing”‘so,_the*Licen’:;ee shall obtain
\n_  pupnidertakingil .from*——the Consumer!
\n ~ VCvon’;;umers_ for ensuring’ safety arising out
\n of provitiing., inipply to that premises<\/p>\n
 “””   I thi:5O’\/”git-diffe1″ent’rse-rvices.\n<\/p>\n
7. It is evident’ tl1at._ _before_tlie__ amendment of the above clause,<\/p>\n
power should bepsuipplierl t”e.iA’th.e.’p_re’mises of an applicant from only<\/p>\n
one souprc:\u00a7\u00a7e.i’ The aiiiendmenit states that power supply to the<\/p>\n
buildinglprerniises.y\u00e9through separate distinct mains can be arranged<\/p>\n
from”  s’in_gle”souvrce~,vvith the provision of a common isolation point.<\/p>\n
Thus, after the amendment, there is no bar for supply of electricity<\/p>\n
 througl1*d.i_stinct service mains.\n<\/p>\n
from a single source\ufb01vvith the pitovision  :7.’<\/p>\n
9 W.P.18144\/2010<\/p>\n
8. Clause No.5 of the lease deed at Annexure ‘A’ states<\/p>\n
petitioner is entitled for supply of electricity and that he has :toi[‘t’lae  .<\/p>\n
charges as per the meter reading raised by__the._cornpetent<\/p>\n
Clause No.6 of the lease deed imposes a condition’ the”pe’tition:ie–r{i7]A<\/p>\n
company to maintain the electrical,
\nfittings in the leased premises in good peer-nli’tion;~..1\u00a7lo material been
\nproduced to show that the secionid. petitioner has
\nfailed to maintain electrical   On the other<\/p>\n
hand, second re5:poriden’t”liasV prey.e’ntedi_ s’u_pp_ly of electricity to the<\/p>\n
premises under the iocenpatiion’\u00abof”th_e petitioner. After the amendment,<\/p>\n
there is no irnpediiment t’orfthe*\u00ab–._first respondent to give a separate<\/p>\n
connection tothe premises under the occupation of the petitioner. It is<\/p>\n
in Vtrue trhatiif tlielexijisting meter bearing No.AEI-1.37452 of the premises<\/p>\n
in  bearing No. .1214 (front portion) .100 Feet<\/p>\n
Road, HAL 2″ (Stage, Indiranagar, Bangalore, is not disconnected, the<\/p>\n
u”‘Aip’etitiAoner may be saddled with fixed charges unnecessarily.<\/p>\n
._’l”;hei=efiore, it is just and proper for the first respondent to disconnect<\/p>\n
” the’ existing installation.\n<\/p>\n
M,,..,u._._.,,,,<\/p>\n
10 W.P.18144\/2010<\/p>\n
9. Supply of electricity is an essential amenity <\/p>\n
enjoyment of the tenanted premises. The 2′” respondentphas illega\u00e9llyii <\/p>\n
“st<\/p>\n
prevented the supply of electricity to the  <\/p>\n
respondent has informed the petirtioner in i’Annex1.1re…v\u00b0C”, <\/p>\n
helplessness to restore power supplyiu””l=lowe_yer,Ctlaisui is not
\nhelpless to direct restoration  open for
\nthis Court to pass suchorder  and equity
\nprojects. Article    ofi’Vl’ndia’iibeing couched in
\ncomprehensive  wide powers on this
\nCourt to reach  is found. Power to do complete
\njustice inheres   speak of a Court of plenary<\/p>\n
jurisdiction like a High _(:oLm:. V’
\n.. 4,  _ lv.Q_.”i~In;p_trlA1e light of tlieabove discussions, I pass the following:<\/p>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
i(i)CThe_firstp_ respondent is directed to disconnect the existing<\/p>\n
.. \u20ac}ec.tricity meter No.AEl~l 37452 of the petitioner’s premises subject<\/p>\n
 to Vipaymehl of fixed charges till the date of disconnection.<\/p>\n
{<\/p>\n
11 W.P.18144!201O<\/p>\n
(ii) The first respondent is further directed to provide sep:irate<\/p>\n
eiectricity connection to the premises in occupation of the..~petiptio_dneI’ <\/p>\n
subject to payment of the prescribed fee and making an  it <\/p>\n
accordance with iaw.\n<\/p>\n
(iii) The first respondent is directed to giye”connectionVivwithdutid”<\/p>\n
reference to the iandiord within a period’ four weeknditrom the date
\nof receipt of a copy of this order;\n<\/p>\n
(iv) Writ Petitionestands Adiqpihosed of eccordingi;3″.” No costs.<\/p>\n
dh\/B MM\/–<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court M\/S.Carpenters Classic Exim (P) … vs The Assistant Executive Engineer on 18 October, 2010 Author: S.Abdul Nazeer 1 W.P.181-44\/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE;-<.o'j%e~~.oVv DATED THIS THE 18?" DAY ore' OCTOBER 2Qro if BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE s..4BD\u00a3iL ..m21$'ER e x f' * T WRIT PETITION N0.I83}14;f2010 _'(G1|V'\/I-KEr':'V)"A A […]<\/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-250953","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S.Carpenters Classic Exim (P) ... vs The Assistant Executive Engineer on 18 October, 2010 - 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-carpenters-classic-exim-p-vs-the-assistant-executive-engineer-on-18-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S.Carpenters Classic Exim (P) ... vs The Assistant Executive Engineer on 18 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-carpenters-classic-exim-p-vs-the-assistant-executive-engineer-on-18-october-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-10-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-01-22T23:24:50+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-carpenters-classic-exim-p-vs-the-assistant-executive-engineer-on-18-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-carpenters-classic-exim-p-vs-the-assistant-executive-engineer-on-18-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S.Carpenters Classic Exim (P) … vs The Assistant Executive Engineer on 18 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-22T23:24:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-carpenters-classic-exim-p-vs-the-assistant-executive-engineer-on-18-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1648,\"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-carpenters-classic-exim-p-vs-the-assistant-executive-engineer-on-18-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-carpenters-classic-exim-p-vs-the-assistant-executive-engineer-on-18-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-carpenters-classic-exim-p-vs-the-assistant-executive-engineer-on-18-october-2010\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S.Carpenters Classic Exim (P) ... vs The Assistant Executive Engineer on 18 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-22T23:24:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-carpenters-classic-exim-p-vs-the-assistant-executive-engineer-on-18-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-carpenters-classic-exim-p-vs-the-assistant-executive-engineer-on-18-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-carpenters-classic-exim-p-vs-the-assistant-executive-engineer-on-18-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S.Carpenters Classic Exim (P) … vs The Assistant Executive Engineer on 18 October, 2010\"}]},{\"@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.Carpenters Classic Exim (P) ... vs The Assistant Executive Engineer on 18 October, 2010 - 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-carpenters-classic-exim-p-vs-the-assistant-executive-engineer-on-18-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S.Carpenters Classic Exim (P) ... vs The Assistant Executive Engineer on 18 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-carpenters-classic-exim-p-vs-the-assistant-executive-engineer-on-18-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-01-22T23:24:50+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-carpenters-classic-exim-p-vs-the-assistant-executive-engineer-on-18-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-carpenters-classic-exim-p-vs-the-assistant-executive-engineer-on-18-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S.Carpenters Classic Exim (P) … vs The Assistant Executive Engineer on 18 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-22T23:24:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-carpenters-classic-exim-p-vs-the-assistant-executive-engineer-on-18-october-2010"},"wordCount":1648,"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-carpenters-classic-exim-p-vs-the-assistant-executive-engineer-on-18-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-carpenters-classic-exim-p-vs-the-assistant-executive-engineer-on-18-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-carpenters-classic-exim-p-vs-the-assistant-executive-engineer-on-18-october-2010","name":"M\/S.Carpenters Classic Exim (P) ... vs The Assistant Executive Engineer on 18 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-22T23:24:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-carpenters-classic-exim-p-vs-the-assistant-executive-engineer-on-18-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-carpenters-classic-exim-p-vs-the-assistant-executive-engineer-on-18-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-carpenters-classic-exim-p-vs-the-assistant-executive-engineer-on-18-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S.Carpenters Classic Exim (P) … vs The Assistant Executive Engineer on 18 October, 2010"}]},{"@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\/250953","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=250953"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/250953\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=250953"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=250953"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=250953"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}