{"id":253293,"date":"2009-06-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-06-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dsipl-cepl-joint-venture-vs-belgaum-urban-development-on-29-june-2009"},"modified":"2016-05-01T01:12:32","modified_gmt":"2016-04-30T19:42:32","slug":"dsipl-cepl-joint-venture-vs-belgaum-urban-development-on-29-june-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dsipl-cepl-joint-venture-vs-belgaum-urban-development-on-29-june-2009","title":{"rendered":"Dsipl Cepl Joint Venture vs Belgaum Urban Development … on 29 June, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Dsipl Cepl Joint Venture vs Belgaum Urban Development … on 29 June, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri<\/div>\n
 \n\nIN THE HIGH coum' or KARNA'CAKA_.\\_{.\" i    u\n\ncxacurr BENCH AT DHA3WAD--' \"  & 51- V  \nDATED was THE 29*\" my 0,? Jiiise\u00e9, 'zsbsia  \nTHE momma MR. Jusmze  H.iN-CHl;G_E RI\n    \n\n9sIPL- CEPL       A\ncrs no 386\/D, nsa-raa.:L:rk  ~  \nopp: LELE' csam::~.n;:\u00bb;   \nTILAKWADI*BEGALUM_=_6p    %\n\nREP BY ITS LE-_AD_ MANAGER   \nSRIVIVEK A. AM6EKAR  %  %\n\ns\/<3 AMANTH Y. AMBvE'.i(AR,'._V \nAGED Ascmr 35 YE:A.!\u00a7S;.' ' ...P\ufb01TITIONER.\n\n_ _ %  {\u00a5:s':(sRI MAQHUSUDAN R. mix, ADV.)\n\n sax:-AUH %uaaA~ DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\n\nL ' sE1.E;>Lm commssxowes.\n   FOR BELGAUM DIST\n semaum 590015\n\n  GQVERNMENT or KARNATAKA\n\nBY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY\n\n\n\nDEPT OF URBAN uEvEi.oPr~\u00a7EH'I\n\nVIDHANA SOUDHA\nBANGALORE 1.  RESPONDENTS<\/pre>\n
(BY SR1 MA. HALIYAL, ADV. FOR R1;\n<\/p>\n
SR1 R.K. HATTI, H.C.CE.P. FOR R2 & R3)<\/p>\n
THIS PETITION Is FILED UNDER ARTICLES 2_Z$”.\u00a7;l\u00a7’I’CJ.j: _
\nor-‘ THE coNsm’uTIoN or-‘ INDIA PRAYING TO=.QUA$_H” THE
\nIMPUGNED omen AS pea ANNEXURE-S DATED-‘}’~.\u00bb?..\u00a7}23>;”‘~E}IRE\u20ac;T”=<\/p>\n
THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER .\u00e9.’NE”‘GRANTg N’ECES$.?3\\RY.<\/p>\n
APPROVAL FOR CONTINUATION AND i-‘jXE\u00a3UTION OF’ 9HA$E~I<\/p>\n
AND PHASE-II or coNsTRucIIoH_woRKII.E1’I;.   I *<\/p>\n
THIS PETITION comma oHIHII5GIII.tI%\u00bb:~I<;:   <\/p>\n
The pe t:1:_iL\u00e9rIar'   the chailenga to the \ufb01rst
\nrespandenfs ;IrdI.1=4I.Vr,'-:V<.1l_aiHi:I.4=.'-'<3 t.1)'7.'t3.7'.08 (Annexure\u00e9s) cancemne the
\n\u00a2VII_IIffa4;tV:"3'~.:\u00e9raE'I9\u00a3ieIi: 'I9 th\u00e9W;\u00a7\u00e9I:itioner fer constructing the ring road<\/p>\n
aroIjr:\u00a2x B_eVIVg'aI{I*:IV,'V_ W –\n<\/p>\n
2; Th.e.”HI\u00a53_r3a’ef facts of the case are that the first<\/p>\n
_1j”_’~..r’_e\u00a7’p,9ndeIIt .. iv\u00e9su\u00e9d the neti\ufb01cation calling for the bids far the<\/p>\n
4_’_’cI;I_rI’strII\u00a2tie_rI ‘of the ring road araund Beiaaurn City. The<\/p>\n
A”‘4″.’j~r_e_s;\u00a7e:Ir1erIIs on \ufb01nding the petitioner’s bid to be acceptable,<\/p>\n
‘V  grI’taI\u00e9d inta the concession agreement and subsequently issued<\/p>\n
33125,<\/p>\n
the work order for the censtruction of the ring road. <\/p>\n
for, the petitioner also furnished the “contract  <\/p>\n
guarantee”. when things stood thue,–“‘tne.SteteV’.”\u00a7\u00a7e’i;ern.rnent V<\/p>\n
declined to grant sanction for the constriicti_on o1f’t1ij’e.’.rieg”<\/p>\n
This resutted in the first respondent\u00bbreeoisrinaetvo the”?<\/p>\n
original performance guarantee by—se.n1dirigA_the\ufb01ceremvdnication,
\ndated 25.02.08. The petitioner’ respondent to
\nrecenstder the matter..__ “fire: .reep.endeVnxt;” vide impugned<\/p>\n
order dated   ‘petitioner that it is<\/p>\n
mandatory io”di\u00a7te:av?;f;_v  the provisions of the
\nKarnataka ti’rben Authorities Act<\/a>, 1987. The
\ncommunication fi3rti_frer..etat’esV’titat the petitioner is supposed to
\nix:’jnesr-r._ th’e;’:preeis:–ens of”i’eXir before entering inte any contract<\/p>\n
eitnetr   ~er\u00e9Sif’a;te individual, Government Authorities er<\/p>\n
iiteemi C\u00a7’o%rernmentf~…Afuthorities. It proceeds to state that in the<\/p>\n
…i_d4i’_ei:seeece ef”sei:ction frem the Government of Karnateka, the<\/p>\n
 ‘..’_}ag_reernent”A_\u00abentered into between the petitioner and the first<\/p>\n
 V\u00ab’ii’eep}ondent is mi! and void in the eye of iaw. The original<\/p>\n
perforrners’ guarantee resubmitted by the petitioner came to be<\/p>\n
 rereturned with the said letter.\n<\/p>\n
493%<\/p>\n
5<\/span><\/p>\n
in Section 15 of the Karnataka Urban Deveiopment Atittimt~\u00a5tgs<\/p>\n
Act, 1937 (for shcrt, “the said Act”). The said p\u00a2r%avisi;$\u00a7:is..”gfi:~\u00e9\u00a7’<\/p>\n
extracted hereinbeiew:  ._ W   _
\n” 15. Power at Autimrity toitimiertaket Am:-ksiit <\/p>\n
and incur expenditure forjtdeveiapment eig\u00e9gg-‘v *
\n(1) The authority may; K it it it<\/p>\n
(a) draw up detaiied  (n\u00e9reina\ufb01er
\nreferred to as “tieifdaidpii\u00e9eieiitqtiiVs\u00e9iigme”) for the
\ndeveiopment ofttha._tirbanA’a_r\u00e9\u00e9; V\u00e9ii\ufb01 <\/p>\n
(ta) with   pteviau\u00e9  i\u00e9bbrov\u00e9i \u20ac>f the<\/p>\n
  time to time any<\/p>\n
1″woiri_;3ment of the urban area<\/p>\n
an;k;;*t’1’ii2t.f;ii*’ eitgientiiture therefor and also for<\/p>\n
 ‘ “the  and executicin of development
\n”   H  ….. .. 7<\/p>\n
     may also from time to time make
\naiiti’ take it any new er additimai deveiopment<\/p>\n
 \u00a2  schemes;-\u00ab<\/p>\n
~ :  (i) on its own initiative, if satis\ufb01ed of the
\nA sufficiency at’ its reseurces; or<\/p>\n
(ii) on the ractimmendatians of the local
\nauthority, if the focal aaitlmrity pieces at<\/p>\n
the disposal of the Autharity, the<\/p>\n
am<\/p>\n
necessary funds for framing and u<\/p>\n
out any scheme; or
\n(if?) otherwise. ”\n<\/p>\n
5. Sri Haiiyai further’ subm\u00e9ts t’hat:1′.Ao;1t!eE’\ufb01nctl\u00e9non <\/p>\n
of the said Act, if the value ot’–.tjb~o,>prob\u00bb::_sed_Vvsgoftfex\u00e9eedst”V<\/p>\n
Rs.25,00,00\u20ac)\/-, the iarior \u00a32eznnisf;!o:t.'”%_of”‘the (\u00a7ovorn.rf:ent is a
\nmandatory requirement. \\P\u00a7}*ht!_a\u00a7:- contention, he
\nhas brought to my 4njot.i?_:e,  ‘oto’Qision_s.vv’co’nt’oined in Section
\n1o(2)<\/a> of the saint  agoemguta net\u00e9inbetow:<\/p>\n
** 10.  pqw\u00a7;.a;::% e:;tre{ient.aotaor:nes.-
\n(1) ‘xxx.   tk
\n _7’he.V authority rnay sanction any estimate,
\n :ca!.{ for t\u00e9iird\u00e9rs or enter into any contract or
\nV. _ *’..,4:3;g;*oA\u00a7:e’ment, the value of which does not
\n  rupees (we-nty–\ufb01ve Iakhs. ”\n<\/p>\n
 7′.  .S}*\u00a7.:_ Hatti, the Seamed Government Header for<\/p>\n
\u00ab:._=z;os?;;jt;n2a\u00e9n–ts Ito. 2 and 3 submits that if the first respondent can<\/p>\n
 the project of ring road construction on its own and<\/p>\n
 ‘  hitn own funds, the Government has no objection to its going<\/p>\n
 wnhead with the project. However, if the \ufb01rst raspondent is not in<\/p>\n
51%<\/p>\n
a position to implement the project on its <\/p>\n
requires financial assistance from thglrr\ufb01goverrirneni;.fh:enths” <\/p>\n
prior approval of the Government becorr;es:;’nsl~a~oess.3V’7:””   ‘<\/p>\n
8. The submission of the l\u00e9arrnsd coimsel .!:1a\\}g received<\/p>\n
my anxious consideration. V Tns pro”\\rlsiorg$’V\u00bb.\u00bbcontain\u00e9d in Sections
\n1o(2)<\/a> and 15(1)<\/a> and 15(2)<\/a> mm An: are extracted
\nhereinabove, do not’i’n;:l:loat\u00e9._thasihes the prior approval<\/p>\n
of the G-overnn’r’eni;’;””wl\u00bb;\u00a7” 1%. rnalndl\u00e9toryVlretxolrement. The word<\/p>\n
‘ “maY”  and 10(2) of the said<\/p>\n
Act cannot o\u00e9roolnstrofov “shall”. A: the most, taking
\nthe prior _a;3pro;\\:al_” of}.  R\u00e9overnment is only 3 directory
\nrf\u00e9otllrern\u00e9ht;’\u00ab.o.:’r-logy’ o\u00e9nnot be construed to he ‘must; if it leads<\/p>\n
 word ‘may’ connotes an enabling or<\/p>\n
7’s..\/.__”.permlssifr’\u00e9 meg: Fm\u00bb duty. Therefore, the cancellation of the<\/p>\n
_L’1:\u00ab.;a.gr’sgment ~ on;. the ground that the respondent No.1 had not<\/p>\n
“*’c~l_1e prior approval of the Government is not sustainable<\/p>\n
    em<\/p>\n
8<\/span><\/p>\n
9. The impugned orcier is thouchtiess, ta say _th:e”-iiazist.<\/p>\n
It gives unwanted and unwarranted advice and ting’ <\/p>\n
petitioner in the feiiowina words:—\n<\/p>\n
” Your company is supposed to :k._\u00a5i0’\u00e9ii” rtfieii’proxiisin’i1\u00a7,,,..A
\nof law before entering intoany co’ntrar.t either. iivithi ”
\nthe private individual, Geve–r;i’i\u00a5ient Agtiivariti\u00e9s; bi’
\nsemi Government Auttzpritieslf if  ” 3<\/p>\n
19. 3;: the same b\ufb01izg, its-a\u00e9’irm%:i::i\u00a2?iirz:.\u00a7 ei~:_t No.1 is aiso<\/p>\n
supposed te knaw_.vt.hi:a: v_prn\\g’:AiniVi:;~’nf,_-3:: of:VAini\u20aca_Vbvef;3r’\u00e9 entering into a<\/p>\n
contract wiizhigneri is subject to the iaw as
\nfuily and  and the State and its
\ninstrumen.t.=3.ii\u00a3Aie\u00abS”””  V\u00e9i-ineption. The first respondent
\n#3riiti;.;3riti,:,vr\u00a7t:a’i”id$’ an ?:xi’i\u00e9”\u00a7\u00e9’rne foeting as a private individuai a$
\nfar     iaw is ccencerned. I<\/p>\n
1A1-,-…__V i\\i\u00a2;\u00a7eii*zi:r’z}gAis forthcaming in the statement cf objacticms<\/p>\n
“*’i.–1’1f\u00a3’i’\ufb016″‘\u00bb\u00a3:gnT beiwaiii cf respandent Nest as to what action has been<\/p>\n
V   against the afficials responsibie for and instrumentai in the<\/p>\n
 of the agreement between the petitiemer and the<\/p>\n
 ‘re\u00e9pandent Ntm. Presumably no actinn is initiated against any<\/p>\n
H\ufb01ii<\/p>\n
of the efficiais, because the entering into the agreement’<\/p>\n
petitioner was not improper. That apart, the petiti’o.nerf_jbeind  <\/p>\n
third party can not be invariabiy expieeted”t_o’*\u00ab.knoir\u00e9_’:<\/p>\n
transpired between the respondent No.ai..e’s2\u00a3i r\ufb01ftitiitticiverttyi<\/p>\n
whether-the respondent No.1 has  the pr!or’vta\u00a5e=pr”cnreiV of the it<\/p>\n
respendent No.3 or whether” the reer\u00e9onlcierit-._i$ie.I’ ‘\u00a2’e’n”Venter into
\nan agreement with the petitioner approval of
\nthe Government  te the irrdeer
\nmanagement of   <\/p>\n
12. it is not thetthe respendents that anything is
\nwanting on thetzertvvof”th.eV.’peti:tiener or it has vioiated the terms
\nofvVeareem%ent;. The”‘Stea;te and its instrumehtaiity cannot retract<\/p>\n
frem.Aite.,protntse_Vo’rv assurance, uniess the assurance is against<\/p>\n
 any lt’ew;’Tgebii$:”‘_o.oiiV\u00a2y”‘.or nubiic Good or against the equity iteeif.<\/p>\n
 this re’t;earc\u00a7.; itie profitable to refer to same of the decisions of<\/p>\n
i i  $20 on]<\/p>\n
V’   The issue is no mere res inteera. The Horfble<\/p>\n
Stiioreme Ceurt in its decision in the case ef SIJNIL PAHNALAL<\/p>\n
 .V\u00a73AHT!\u00a7IA AND OTHERS V. CITY AHB INDUSTRIAL<\/p>\n
833%.\n<\/p>\n
\n
10<\/span><\/p>\n
coxpomnou as MAHARASHTRA rm. (cmco rarjiiishort)
\nAN!) ANOT\ufb01\u00a3R, reported in 2907 Am sew <\/p>\n
that if the ailettea ef the sites have acte\u00e9 an a3s\ufb01f’\u00e9’t1c\u00e9.\u00a7s_\u00ab””<\/p>\n
held Gut by the CIDCG, which caused thi\u00e9 a’i*i9ttaes4t\u00a7\ufb01:_”\u00e9.i;\u00e9jr”t’h\u00e9i’r<\/p>\n
positien ta their prejudice, it is not opien  <\/p>\n
uniiateral decision ta cancel the ailitzttf\ufb01-sents Em the jq’;3.r<VV:}V't2v;:4'i\u00a7"ti1at it it<\/p>\n
(CIDCG) had acted without._juris\ufb01i'cti\u00a7ri"and\/ciit'in Excess of
\njurisdiction and violation of its Jm'ie\u00a7i- r_}\u00a7:gvtIvi\u00a7ti':;_ns.<\/p>\n
14. ‘fag.  ‘Cmrt in the case of H15.\n<\/p>\n
I-io11LAL PAbA\u00a7ipAt iiILLs co. no. v. STATE or
\nufrtan piigaizasri ie;$\u00a7f2edi in (197502 sec 409 has held that
\n{tie itdio’-::i:Vj;?’iV::.+:-.~_1i:’t>1f:tifarrgissary estoppei, which has been variously<\/p>\n
tailed .?r-2-\u00a7%uiSit”ej~v_..gstp\ufb01pei’, ‘quasi estoppef, ‘new estoppel’ is a<\/p>\n
V”.–\u00abAA’.Vf\u00a7ri;1cipie\u00e9uroivzf\u00e9dvt\u00e9 satisfy’ the equity. The petitioner has acted<\/p>\n
‘ _.\ufb01rsi:’*’:;espnndent’s promise, which has manifested itself<\/p>\n
 af the cancession agreement and further in the<\/p>\n
 iitisr\ufb01irancie ef the watk-erder. It is inequitabie ta aliow the<\/p>\n
 tax as back upen his premise or ta act differently from<\/p>\n
\ufb01i\ufb01\ufb01.\n<\/p>\n
\n
11<\/span><\/p>\n
his premise. This is an the mere se, which the _p.ifer’:1ise}~e__ji.h-e\u00e9’ <\/p>\n
altered his pesiticm in reliance an the premise.  <\/p>\n
15. Further the Herfbie Supreme”iCeL:ft”ivn fiheecalse <\/p>\n
LIi~lIT\u00a3I> v. ASSISTANT<\/a> cdaiiexssieneg:i.%r\u00e9pi\u00a2rted in”<\/p>\n
(zetma sec 792 has reiterategii-tiie’i;\u00ab.th~e_ priinasie einderiyina
\nthe iegitimate expectation is” the ruie ef
\nfairness. It is obseivea iii”  QRHARI A1-mm
\nSUGARS LTD.  AND omens
\nraise-riled iii    a person’s ieeitimate
\nexpectaticm was hat a particuiar decisien, then
\nthe decisiqe-meiterV_sh.eL;.\u00a7d the deniai of such expectation<\/p>\n
?.fnI’~eiiow.i’ii\u00a7 se\u00a7~ee Aavei*i’ic%\u00abi~=*:–a’ public interim.<\/p>\n
I a.Eie.iirariness, fairnesss in actien and due<\/p>\n
JV’ey\u00e9onside\u00a3a!!:ien._j’ofiriie legitimate expectation ef affected party are<\/p>\n
‘ ”4”1’:’e\u00e9$ef\u00bbhtiaVi reeei\u00e9ements fer a vaiid state action. In a case sf this<\/p>\n
‘ie\u00a7~itimate expectatien of a citizen may not by itself be a<\/p>\n
‘”i\u00a3if_si:in.d\u00a7 enforceable right but every legitimate expectation is a<\/p>\n
iii’*\u00ab\u00abV.AVi”eiei;arxt fecteriequirina due consideration of a fair decisien<\/p>\n
‘making process. In taking this view, I am fertified by the<\/p>\n
355%.\n<\/p>\n
\n
13<\/span><\/p>\n
19. The petition is aliowed in the above  4_<\/p>\n
as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
sac*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Dsipl Cepl Joint Venture vs Belgaum Urban Development … on 29 June, 2009 Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri IN THE HIGH coum’ or KARNA’CAKA_.\\_{.” i u cxacurr BENCH AT DHA3WAD–‘ ” & 51- V DATED was THE 29*” my 0,? Jiiise\u00e9, ‘zsbsia THE momma MR. Jusmze H.iN-CHl;G_E RI 9sIPL- CEPL A crs no 386\/D, […]<\/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-253293","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDsipl Cepl Joint Venture vs Belgaum Urban Development ... on 29 June, 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\/dsipl-cepl-joint-venture-vs-belgaum-urban-development-on-29-june-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dsipl Cepl Joint Venture vs Belgaum Urban Development ... on 29 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dsipl-cepl-joint-venture-vs-belgaum-urban-development-on-29-june-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-06-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-30T19:42:32+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\\\/dsipl-cepl-joint-venture-vs-belgaum-urban-development-on-29-june-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dsipl-cepl-joint-venture-vs-belgaum-urban-development-on-29-june-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dsipl Cepl Joint Venture vs Belgaum Urban Development … on 29 June, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-30T19:42:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dsipl-cepl-joint-venture-vs-belgaum-urban-development-on-29-june-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1749,\"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\\\/dsipl-cepl-joint-venture-vs-belgaum-urban-development-on-29-june-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dsipl-cepl-joint-venture-vs-belgaum-urban-development-on-29-june-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dsipl-cepl-joint-venture-vs-belgaum-urban-development-on-29-june-2009\",\"name\":\"Dsipl Cepl Joint Venture vs Belgaum Urban Development ... on 29 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-30T19:42:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dsipl-cepl-joint-venture-vs-belgaum-urban-development-on-29-june-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dsipl-cepl-joint-venture-vs-belgaum-urban-development-on-29-june-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dsipl-cepl-joint-venture-vs-belgaum-urban-development-on-29-june-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dsipl Cepl Joint Venture vs Belgaum Urban Development … on 29 June, 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":"Dsipl Cepl Joint Venture vs Belgaum Urban Development ... on 29 June, 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\/dsipl-cepl-joint-venture-vs-belgaum-urban-development-on-29-june-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dsipl Cepl Joint Venture vs Belgaum Urban Development ... on 29 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dsipl-cepl-joint-venture-vs-belgaum-urban-development-on-29-june-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-06-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-30T19:42:32+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\/dsipl-cepl-joint-venture-vs-belgaum-urban-development-on-29-june-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dsipl-cepl-joint-venture-vs-belgaum-urban-development-on-29-june-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dsipl Cepl Joint Venture vs Belgaum Urban Development … on 29 June, 2009","datePublished":"2009-06-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-30T19:42:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dsipl-cepl-joint-venture-vs-belgaum-urban-development-on-29-june-2009"},"wordCount":1749,"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\/dsipl-cepl-joint-venture-vs-belgaum-urban-development-on-29-june-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dsipl-cepl-joint-venture-vs-belgaum-urban-development-on-29-june-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dsipl-cepl-joint-venture-vs-belgaum-urban-development-on-29-june-2009","name":"Dsipl Cepl Joint Venture vs Belgaum Urban Development ... on 29 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-06-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-30T19:42:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dsipl-cepl-joint-venture-vs-belgaum-urban-development-on-29-june-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dsipl-cepl-joint-venture-vs-belgaum-urban-development-on-29-june-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dsipl-cepl-joint-venture-vs-belgaum-urban-development-on-29-june-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dsipl Cepl Joint Venture vs Belgaum Urban Development … on 29 June, 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\/253293","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=253293"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/253293\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=253293"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=253293"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=253293"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}