{"id":255229,"date":"2009-07-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-06-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-bharat-sanchar-nigam-limited-on-1-july-2009"},"modified":"2017-12-10T09:34:47","modified_gmt":"2017-12-10T04:04:47","slug":"unknown-vs-bharat-sanchar-nigam-limited-on-1-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-bharat-sanchar-nigam-limited-on-1-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"Unknown vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 1 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Unknown vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 1 July, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud<\/div>\n
                           -1-\n\n        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                           \n           ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION\n              CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.510 OF 2009\n\n\n\n\n                                   \n                              IN\n               CHAMBER ORDER NO.1620 OF 2008\n                              IN\n           EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.158 OF 2006\n\n\n\n\n                                  \n                              IN\n          ARBITRATION AWARD DATED 7TH JULY, 2005\n                            WITH\n              CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.597 OF 2009\n                              IN\n\n\n\n\n                         \n               CHAMBER ORDER NO.1619 OF 2008\n                 ig           IN\n           EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.158 OF 2006\n                              IN\n          ARBITRATION AWARD DATED 7TH JULY, 2005\n               \n                             AND\n              CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.771 OF 2009\n                              IN\n           EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.158 OF 2006\n      \n\n\n                              IN\n          ARBITRATION AWARD DATED 7TH JULY, 2005\n   \n\n\n\n     M\/s. Eskay Engineers,\n\n\n\n\n\n     322, Vardhaman Market,\n     Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 705.   ....         Claimant\n\n         - Versus -\n\n\n\n\n\n     Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,\n     Office of the General Manager,\n     Raigad Telecom Division,\n     Wireless Compound,\n     Linking Road, Santacruz (W),\n     Mumbai-400 054.               ....         Respondent\n\n\n     Mr. Devvrat Dhankar i\/b Mr. S.S. Phadke\n     for the Claimant.\n\n\n\n                                   ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:43:54 :::\n                               -2-\n\n\n\n\n                                                                  \n     Mr. Viral D. Shukla with Mr. Sumit D.\n     Shukla i\/b M\/s. Shukla & Associates\n\n\n\n\n                                          \n     for the Respondent.\n\n\n                     CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                     DATED: 30TH JUNE, 2009 AND
\n                            1ST JULY, 2009<\/p>\n
     ORAL JUDGMENT:\n<\/p>\n
     1.   This Judgment would govern three chamber
\n     summons; one taken out by the decree holder and
\n     the other two by the judgment debtor.                           Since<\/p>\n
     all the three chamber summons arise out of an<\/p>\n
     arbitral   award    under      the      Arbitration                 and
\n     Conciliation     Act<\/a>,   1996     and        the        execution
\n     proceedings initiated consequent upon the award<\/p>\n
     having attained finality, arguments have been
\n     heard   together   in   all    the       three         cases          by
\n     consent.\n<\/p>\n
     2.   Disputes    and    differences             between             the
\n     decree holder and the judgment debtor came to
\n     be referred to arbitration under the provisions
\n     of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act<\/a>, 1996.
\n     The arbitral award was made on 7th July, 2005
\n     and in the operative part of the award, the<\/p>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:43:54 :::<\/span>
\n                                      -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
     sole         arbitrator         issued       the           following<\/p>\n
     directions:\n<\/p>\n
              1. The cases where 100% payment has
\n             already been made are not to be
\n             reopened.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             2. The cases where recovery has
\n             been resorted to based on surprise
\n             checks will be not opened.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             3. The cases where 60% payment or<\/p>\n
             no payment has been made, complete
\n             payment should be made by September
\n             2005.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             4.    No cost to the parties.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     3.     A     petition     was     instituted             by       Bharat<\/p>\n
     Sanchar Nigam Limited in order to challenge the<\/p>\n
     arbitral award under Section 34<\/a>.                     The petition
\n     came to be dismissed by a learned single Judge
\n     of this Court on 9th January, 2006.                      A Division<\/p>\n
     Bench of this Court dismissed the Appeal on
\n     26th June, 2006.          The Supreme Court dismissed
\n     the    Special    Leave     Petition       on      1st     December,<\/p>\n
     2006.      The arbitral award has attained finality
\n     and is capable of being enforced under the Code
\n     of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the same manner as
\n     if it were a decree of the Court. This would be
\n     in terms of the provisions of Section 36<\/a> of the
\n     Arbitration      and    Conciliation         Act<\/a>,        1996.            On<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:43:54 :::<\/span>
\n                                               -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
     18th March, 2006 an Execution Application1 was<\/p>\n
     filed by the original claimant-decree holder<\/p>\n
     before this Court in which a claim was made for
\n     the total sum of Rs.97,58,084\/- comprising of a
\n     principal           amount          of   Rs.83.34         lakhs          and       the<\/p>\n
     security deposit of Rs.14.23 lakhs.                                   A warrant
\n     of attachment came to be issued under Order
\n     XXI, Rule 46 in respect of a current account of<\/p>\n
     the      judgment          debtor        with    the       State         Bank        of
\n     India,          after
\n                            ig     which      a
\n     attachment came to be levied in respect of the
\n                                                     further          warrant             of<\/p>\n
     movable and immovable properties.                               An amount of
\n     Rs.97,58,084\/- was deposited by the judgment
\n     debtor with the Sheriff of Mumbai which came to<\/p>\n
     be withdrawn by the decree holder.\n<\/p>\n
     4.      On 4th July, 2006 the judgment debtor moved
\n     Chamber          Summons          No.818       of     2006        principally<\/p>\n
     contending that the calculations of the decree
\n     holder were not correct and that an amount in
\n     excess         of      what       was    lawfully           due       had        been<\/p>\n
     claimed.              The       following        prayer          came        to      be
\n     incorporated in the chamber summons:\n<\/p>\n
               (b.i.) The Claimants are entitled
\n              to   recover   an   amount   of   Rs.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              76,26,569.00   as   per   Arbitration
\n              Award dated 07.07.2005 plus Rs.60.00
\n              being   the   costs   of   Execution,<\/p>\n
     1 Execution Application No.158 of 2006<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:43:54 :::<\/span>
\n                                            -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
            aggregating to Rs.76,26,629.00. The<\/p>\n
            Claimants may be directed to refund
\n            sum   of   Rs.21,31,515.00    to the<\/p>\n
            Respondents \/ Judgment Debtor, being
\n            the   excess   amount   claimed  and
\n            withdrawn by the Claimants from the
\n            amount      deposited      by    the<\/p>\n
            Respondents \/ Judgment Debtor with
\n            Sheriff of Mumbai in the Execution
\n            Application No.158 of 2006 as per
\n            Arbitration Award dated 07.07.2005.\n<\/p>\n
     The    contentionig         of         the        judgment              debtor,
\n     therefore, was that as against an amount of Rs.
\n     97.58 lakhs, that had been deposited with the<\/p>\n
     Sheriff, the decree holder was entitled to an
\n     amount of Rs.76.26 lakhs, as a result of which
\n     the judgment debtor was entitled to a refund of<\/p>\n
     Rs.21.31     lakhs.              The        chamber          summons            was<\/p>\n
     disposed of by a Judgment dated 30th September,
\n     2008    of      the        Hon ble           Mr.          Justice             S.C.
\n     Dharmadhikari.                  The     Learned            Single            Judge<\/p>\n
     negatived the contention of the judgment debtor
\n     that   the   arbitral            award       did        not       include            a
\n     direction       in     regard         to     the       refund           of      the<\/p>\n
     security deposit.               The Learned Single Judge was
\n     also of the view that under the arbitral award,
\n     the    decree        holder       was       entitled            to      recover
\n     interest     from         the    date        of     the       award          until
\n     payment.     The Learned Single Judge held thus:\n<\/p>\n
             There        is    much        substance             in       the<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:43:54 :::<\/span>
\n                                        -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
            contention of Shri Kamdar that Claim<\/p>\n
            No.2 and Claim No.3 before the
\n            learned Arbitrator would include the<\/p>\n
            payment    as   directed   under  the
\n            operative part of the award.       In
\n            other words, the direction was to
\n            make payment in cases where part<\/p>\n
            payment is made or no payment is
\n            made    would    include  return   of
\n            security deposit in full.     It also
\n            means that the claim for interest
\n            has been adjudicated upon and the<\/p>\n
            claimants    would   be  entitled  to
\n            recover the said sum.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In     so   far      as    the        question      of       interest,<\/p>\n
     however, was concerned, the contention of the
\n     decree      holder       was    that    though      there         was      no<\/p>\n
     specific direction in regard to the payment of
\n     interest      in    the        arbitral   award,         the       amount<\/p>\n
     could be claimed and executed under Section
\n     31(7)<\/a> of the Act.                The Learned Single Judge<\/p>\n
     held that it was not necessary to enter into
\n     that issue since the decree holder was yet to
\n     make    a   claim     in       that    respect     under         Section
\n     31(7)<\/a>.      In so far as the issue of calculation<\/p>\n
     error was concerned, a concession was made on
\n     behalf      of     the     decree       holder      that         certain
\n     amounts      had    been       claimed    twice       over        in     the
\n     execution application in which a recalculation
\n     would be necessary.               The Learned Single Judge
\n     observed that even if recalculation was to be
\n     done, it would not mean that the claimant was<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:43:54 :::<\/span>
\n                                         -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
     required   to     refund       any        amount         straightaway,<\/p>\n
     particularly      since       an     opportunity               was       being<\/p>\n
     granted    to    the    claimant            to       apply         for       the
\n     payment     of     interest               on       the         award           by
\n     instituting       appropriate              proceedings.                      The<\/p>\n
     Court observed that as and when a claim is
\n     lodged, it would be open for the claimant to
\n     point out the calculation errors, and at that<\/p>\n
     stage     the     Court        would             consider              making<\/p>\n
     appropriate orders and directions and if need
\n     be, for the payment by the judgment debtor of<\/p>\n
     any sum. The chamber                summons was dismissed,
\n     keeping    open     all       the         contentions               of       the
\n     parties.\n<\/p>\n
     5.   An Appeal was filed before the Division
\n     Bench   against        the    Judgment             of      the       Learned
\n     Single Judge.       In paragraph 13 in the Memo of<\/p>\n
     Appeal before the Division Bench, one of the
\n     grounds    of    challenge          was        that      the       arbitral
\n     award was passed at Khamgaon (wrongly referred<\/p>\n
     to as Jalgaon) in the District of Buldana and
\n     that consequently the award ought to have been
\n     executed    before           the         Civil        Judge,           Senior
\n     Division in the District of Buldana and not
\n     before this Court.             When the Appeal came up
\n     before the Division Bench, this contention, as
\n     the order of the Division Bench shows, was not<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:43:54 :::<\/span>
\n                                            -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
     canvassed.             The Division Bench dismissed the<\/p>\n
     Appeal        holding         that    both        in    regard          to      the<\/p>\n
     question of interest and the recalculations of
\n     the amounts due, the Learned Single Judge had
\n     granted liberty to the parties to apply for<\/p>\n
     appropriate            orders        and    all        contentions              had
\n     been kept open.                   The Appeal was accordingly
\n     dismissed.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                         \n     6.     After\n                         \n                         the     dismissal\n<\/pre>\n
     decree holder took out a Chamber Order1 for
\n                                                  of     the       Appeal,           the<\/p>\n
     amendment of the execution application. By the
\n     proposed amendment, the amount shown as due in
\n     the     execution           application           was     sought           to     be<\/p>\n
     corrected by giving credit of an amount of Rs.\n<\/p>\n
     4,33,979\/-            claimed      in      excess       by      the       decree
\n     holder and deposited by the judgment debtor.
\n     The application for amendment was allowed by<\/p>\n
     the Master & Assistant Prothonotary (ADM) on
\n     27th February, 2009.                 The Order of the Master &
\n     Assistant             Prothonotary            (ADM)              has          been<\/p>\n
     challenged in Chamber Summons No.597 of 2009
\n     by the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
     7.     On      15th      October,          2008        another          Chamber
\n     Order2 was initiated by the decree holder for
\n     extension of the warrant of attachment.                                         The<\/p>\n
     1 Chamber Order No.1619 of 2008<\/span>
\n     2 Chamber Order No.1620 of 2008<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:43:54 :::<\/span>
\n                                           -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
     Chamber       Order      came       to     be       dismissed             by      the<\/p>\n
     Registrar (Finance & Budget) on 21st January,<\/p>\n
     2009.         The        order       of       dismissal              has        been
\n     challenged in Chamber Summons No.510 of 2009
\n     by    the     decree         holder.            The         third         chamber<\/p>\n
     summons before the Court (Chamber Summons No.
\n     771     of    2009)          has    been        taken          out        by      the
\n     judgment          debtor      in     order           to      question             the<\/p>\n
     jurisdiction            of    this    Court           as      an      executing
\n     Court.\n<\/p>\n
     CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.771 OF 2009<\/p>\n
     8.    For convenience of exposition, it would be<\/p>\n
     appropriate to deal with Chamber Summons No.<\/p>\n
     771 of 2009, taken out by the judgment debtor
\n     in order to question the jurisdiction of this
\n     Court. The submission that has been urged on<\/p>\n
     behalf       of    the       judgment         debtor          is      that        the
\n     award in the present case was made at Khamgaon
\n     in the District of Buldana.                           Section 31(4)<\/a> of<\/p>\n
     the Act requires the award to state the place
\n     where it was made.                   Section 2(1)(e)<\/a> defines
\n     the   Court        as    the       principal            Civil         Court         of
\n     original          jurisdiction           in     a      District             having
\n     jurisdiction to decide the questions forming
\n     the subject-matter of the arbitration if the
\n     same had been the subject-matter of a suit.\n<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:43:54 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                         – 10 –\n<\/p>\n
     The submission is that under Section 36<\/a>, an<\/p>\n
     award    is    to    be     enforced            under       the       Code       of<\/p>\n
     Civil Procedure, 1908 in the same manner as if
\n     it was a decree of the Court.                           The expression
\n      Court     can in the present case only mean the<\/p>\n
     principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction
\n     to decide the questions forming the subject-
\n     matter    of       arbitration,             which        would         be      the<\/p>\n
     District Court at Buldana.                       On the other hand,<\/p>\n
     it has been submitted on behalf of the decree
\n     holder that the judgment debtor had addressed<\/p>\n
     a     challenge       to     the       arbitral             award           under
\n     Section 34<\/a> before this Court.                              It was urged
\n     that it was not the contention of the judgment<\/p>\n
     debtor        that     this         Court            did         not         have<\/p>\n
     jurisdiction to entertain the challenge to the
\n     arbitral       award        initiated             by      the        judgment
\n     debtor and as a matter of fact the Judgment of<\/p>\n
     this     Court        was     carried             to       its         logical
\n     conclusion in appeal before the Division Bench
\n     and     eventually          before          the        Supreme           Court.\n<\/p>\n
     Secondly, it was submitted that the expression
\n      Court     for the purposes of Section 34<\/a> cannot
\n     be read in a manner which would be different
\n     from    the    meaning       of     the         same     expression              in
\n     Section       36<\/a>     and    since           a    challenge             to      the
\n     arbitral       award        was      preferred              before           this
\n     Court, an application for enforcement of the<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:43:55 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                         – 11 –\n<\/p>\n
     award       or    the     decree      could       legitimately                be<\/p>\n
     entertained before this Court.                            Thirdly, it<\/p>\n
     was submitted that Section 42<\/a> provides that
\n     once an application under Part-I has been made
\n     in     a    Court,       that   Court         alone        would          have<\/p>\n
     jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings and
\n     all    subsequent          applications           arising           out       of
\n     that agreement and the arbitral proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
     9.<\/p>\n
\n     Court\n            Section\n                 against\n                       \n                         34     provides\n                                an   arbitral\n                                                 for     recourse\n                                                         award,           by\n                                                                             to\n                                                                                   an\n                                                                                      a\n                      \n     application         for    setting          aside     the       award         in\n<\/pre>\n
     accordance with the provisions of sub-section
\n     (2) and sub-section (3).                     Sub-section (2) of<\/p>\n
     Section 34<\/a> specifies the grounds on which an<\/p>\n
     arbitral award may be set aside by the Court.
\n     Section 36<\/a> provides that where the time for
\n     making such an application to set aside the<\/p>\n
     arbitral award under Section 34<\/a> has expired or
\n     such an application having been made, it is
\n     refused, the award shall be enforced under the<\/p>\n
     Code       of    Civil    Procedure,         1908       in      the       same
\n     manner as if it were a decree of the Court.
\n     Section 36<\/a> creates a legal fiction under which
\n     an award is capable of being enforced as if it
\n     were a decree of the Court. The enforceability
\n     of the award comes into being either when no
\n     application challenging the award is preferred<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:43:55 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                           – 12 –\n<\/p>\n
     under Section 34<\/a> within the time stipulated or<\/p>\n
     upon    an     application           being        refused.           What        is<\/p>\n
     enforceable under Section 36<\/a> is the arbitral
\n     award.        The manner of enforcement is provided
\n     in    the     Code   of     Civil             Procedure,         1908.         The<\/p>\n
     legal fiction that is created is for treating
\n     an arbitral award for all intents and purposes
\n     as a decree of the Court.                        Order XXI, Rule 10<\/p>\n
     of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides<\/p>\n
     that where the holder of a decree desires to
\n     execute it, he shall apply to the Court which<\/p>\n
     passed the decree, or if the decree has been
\n     sent    to     another      Court,             then    to      such        other
\n     Court for execution.\n<\/p>\n
     10. In the present case, the judgment debtor
\n     moved    an     application            for       setting         aside         the
\n     arbitral award before this Court under Section<\/p>\n
     34.     Neither in the pleadings nor, for that
\n     matter, in the course of the submissions is it
\n     the    contention         of    the           judgment       debtor          that<\/p>\n
     this     Court       did       not       have         jurisdiction               to
\n     entertain the challenge to the arbitral award
\n     under Section 34<\/a>.                Indeed, as already noted
\n     earlier, the          validity of the arbitral award
\n     was decided all the way upto the Supreme Court
\n     and     the     award       attained             finality             by       the
\n     rejection       of    the      challenge.                Thereupon             the<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:43:55 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                        – 13 –\n<\/p>\n
     arbitral award becomes                  enforceable as if it<\/p>\n
     were a decree of the Court under Section 36<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n
     The    expression          the        Court          cannot          for       the
\n     purposes       of   Section       36<\/a>       be     read       at      variance
\n     with     the      meaning        of    the        expression               under<\/p>\n
     Section 34<\/a>.         To do so would do violence to the
\n     use of the same expression, namely, the Court,
\n     in     sub-section         (2)    of        Section           34<\/a>       and       in<\/p>\n
     Section      36<\/a>     of    the    Act.       That        would         also       do<\/p>\n
     of     the<\/p>\n
     violence to the underlying legislative object
\n                    enactment         of        the      Arbitration                and<\/p>\n
     Conciliation Act<\/a>, 1996.                     The main object of
\n     the    Bill       which    was        based       on       the       uncitral
\n     model law was to provide for a procedure which<\/p>\n
     is fair, efficient and capable of meeting the<\/p>\n
     needs     of      the     specific          arbitration                and       to
\n     minimise the supervisory role of Courts in the
\n     arbitral       process.           Section            42<\/a>      of      the       Act<\/p>\n
     provides as follows:\n<\/p>\n
             42. Jurisdiction    Notwithstanding
\n            anything contained elsewhere in this<\/p>\n
            Part or in any other law for the
\n            time being in force, where with
\n            respect to an arbitration agreement
\n            any application under this Part has
\n            been made in a Court, that Court
\n            alone shall have jurisdiction over
\n            the arbitral proceedings and all
\n            subsequent applications arising out
\n            of that agreement and the arbitral
\n            proceedings shall be made in that<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:43:55 :::<\/span>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                         – 14 –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           Court and in no other Court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The   effect      of    Section         42<\/a>       is     that       where         an
\n     application under Part-I has been made in a
\n     Court      with        respect              to        an        arbitration<\/p>\n
     agreement,        that        Court          alone           shall           have
\n     jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings and
\n     all   subsequent         applications                 arising          out       of<\/p>\n
     that agreement and the arbitral proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
     The Legislature has affirmatively stated that
\n     such a Court alone would have jurisdiction and<\/p>\n
     has     placed       the      matter             beyond           doubt          by
\n     stipulating       that       no    other         Court          would        have
\n     jurisdiction.          The    expression               all       subsequent<\/p>\n
     applications         arising          out        of        the       arbitral<\/p>\n
     proceedings          must be read in a comprehensive
\n     manner     to     include           recourse               to      execution
\n     proceedings.           The submission which was urged<\/p>\n
     on behalf of the judgment debtor is that the
\n     application            of         the            Arbitration                   and
\n     Conciliation         Act<\/a>,      1996         concludes              with        the<\/p>\n
     delivery of the arbitral award and the forum
\n     for     initiating           proceedings               for         execution
\n     cannot be traced to any provision of the Act.
\n     That would not be an accurate reading of the
\n     language     and       the        provisions               of     the        Act.
\n     Section         36<\/a>           specifically                   speaks               of
\n     enforceability and Section 42<\/a> of jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:43:55 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                              – 15 –\n<\/p>\n
     The       expression              all    subsequent               applications<\/p>\n
     arising          out       arbitral        proceedings                  has       been<\/p>\n
     used        in       a      comprehensive                  sense          by        the
\n     Legislature and must be given full width in
\n     interpretation.                   The judgment debtor sought a<\/p>\n
     recourse to its remedies before this Court in
\n     order to challenge the arbitral award.                                            Once
\n     that      was     done,          this    Court         alone        would         have<\/p>\n
     jurisdiction                to     entertain               all        subsequent
\n     applications
\n     proceedings
\n                          ig    arising
\n                                including
\n                                                out        of
\n                                                  applications
\n                                                                    the        arbitral
\n                                                                                in       the<\/p>\n
     execution          of       the    award         as    a     decree          of     the
\n     Court to the exclusion of any other Court.\n<\/p>\n
     11. The view which I have taken as a matter of<\/p>\n
     first principle is consistent with a judgment
\n     of    a    Learned          Single       Judge         of     the       Karnataka
\n     High Court in the matter of I.C.D.S. Ltd. v.\n<\/p>\n
     Mangala Builders Pvt. Ltd. And others 1 where
\n     the Learned Single Judge held thus:\n<\/p>\n
                A right to enforce the award arises
\n               only after the period for setting
\n               aside   the  arbitral  award   under
\n               Section 34<\/a> has expired or such an
\n               application having been made is
\n               rejected. That is to say, the Court
\n               executing the decree has to satisfy
\n               itself,   before  entertaining   the
\n               application for execution that, the
\n               period for setting aside the award
\n     1 AIR 2001 Karnataka 364<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:43:55 :::<\/span>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                       – 16 –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             has expired or such an application<\/p>\n
             having been made has been refused.
\n             If that be so, inferentially, the<\/p>\n
             Court that can exercise the power
\n             under Section 34<\/a> of the Act can
\n             alone entertain the steps to enforce
\n             the arbitral award.    It means the<\/p>\n
              Court as understood in Section 34<\/a>
\n             has   alone   the  jurisdiction   to
\n             entertain the enforcement of the
\n             arbitral award.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                       ig                          1st July, 2009\n\n\n     Chamber         Summons     No.771            of        2009           shall\n                     \n<\/pre>\n
     accordingly stand dismissed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.597 OF 2009
\n             AND<\/p>\n
     CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.510 OF 2009<\/p>\n
     12. By his Judgment dated 30th September, 2009,<\/p>\n
     the    Hon ble     Mr.     Justice          S.C.        Dharmadhikari
\n     permitted        the     decree           holder        to      make         an
\n     application for the payment of interest on the<\/p>\n
     award     under        Section       31(7)<\/a>         by      instituting
\n     appropriate        proceedings.                The        Court          also
\n     permitted the decree holder to point out the
\n     error in the calculations that had occurred in
\n     the amount as computed in the application for
\n     execution.        The Learned Single Judge observed
\n     that      the      Court     would            consider               making<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:43:55 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                   – 17 –\n<\/p>\n
     appropriate     orders     and        directions.              Liberty<\/p>\n
     was expressly reserved and all the contentions<\/p>\n
     of both the sides were kept open.                         The order
\n     of the Learned Single Judge was confirmed by
\n     the Division Bench on 31st March, 2009.\n<\/p>\n
     13. The decree holder took out a Chamber Order
\n     for    amending      the   execution          application                in<\/p>\n
     order to correct the error of calculations and<\/p>\n
     to claim interest under Section 31(7)<\/a> of the
\n     Arbitration and Conciliation Act<\/a>, 1996.                                The<\/p>\n
     amended schedule reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
                                SCHEDULE<\/p>\n
     1.    Replace the amount shown in figure
\n           in Column G with the following:\n<\/p>\n
     Rs.   83,34,939.00    Principal amount.
\n     Rs.   14,23,145.00    Security Deposit.
\n     Rs.          60.00    Cost of Execution Application.\n<\/p>\n
     —————–\n<\/p>\n
     Rs.   97,58,144.00    Total claim made by Claimant.
\n     Rs.    4,33,979.00    Less excess claim made by the
\n                           Claimant\n<\/p>\n
     —————–\n<\/p>\n
     Rs.   93,24,165.00    Claim under the award of the
\n                           Claimant as on 07.07.2005.\n<\/p>\n
     Rs.   14,48,429.00    Interest @ 18% p.a. from 07.07.2005
\n                           (date of award) till 18.05.2006
\n                           (date of deposit by respondents.)<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:43:55 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                    – 18 –\n<\/p>\n
     —————–\n<\/p>\n
     Rs.1,07,72,594.00
\n     Rs.   97,58,144.00     Less amount deposited by<\/p>\n
                            respondents on 18.05.2006.\n<\/p>\n
     Rs.   10,14,450.00     Claim of the claimant as on
\n                            18.05.2006.\n<\/p>\n
     Rs.     4,27,236.31    Interest @ 18% p.a. from 18.05.2006<\/p>\n
                            till 14.10.2008.\n<\/p>\n
     —————–\n<\/p>\n
     Rs. 14,41,686.30       With further interest @ 18% p.a.
\n     =================<\/p>\n
                            from 15.10.2008 till payment and\/or
\n                            realization.\n<\/p>\n
     Now in so far as the question of interest is
\n     concerned,     Clause    (b)     of    sub-section             (7)      of<\/p>\n
     Section 31<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation
\n     Act<\/a>, 1996 provides that the sum directed to be<\/p>\n
     paid by an arbitral award shall, unless the
\n     award otherwise directs, carry interest at the
\n     rate of eighteen per centum per annum from the
\n     date of the award to the date of payment.                               In<\/p>\n
     the   present    case,     admittedly,          the       award         is
\n     silent in regard to the payment of interest.
\n     The contention of the judgment debtor is that
\n     what the award does not grant must be deemed
\n     to have been rejected by the Arbitral Tribunal
\n     since    the   claim    for    interest        had      been        made
\n     before the arbitrator.\n<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:43:55 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                – 19 –\n<\/p>\n
     14. In        Smt.       Santa       Sila          Devi       and      another           v.\n<\/p>\n
     Dhirendra Nath Sen and others1,                                       the Supreme
\n     Court        applied         the         principle             set       out       in      a
\n     Judgment of Parke, B. in Harrison v. Creswick2<\/p>\n
     that the silence of the arbitrator upon the
\n     subject          placed            before          him      means          that        the
\n     arbitrator has negatived such plea.                                        The award<\/p>\n
     before the Supreme Court expressly stated that<\/p>\n
     it was made of and concerning all the matters
\n     in dispute referred to the arbitrator.                                             Hence<\/p>\n
     the     principle            of      construction                enunciated              in
\n     the English Judgment would cover the case of
\n     the silence of the award, as regards the claim<\/p>\n
     for accounting and was, therefore, taken to be<\/p>\n
     intended as a decision rejecting the claim to
\n     that relief.\n<\/p>\n
     15. What must be noted is that the                                         principle
\n     which has been expounded in Harrison (supra)
\n     is a principle of construction.                                       A principle<\/p>\n
     of    construction                 may    be       displaced           when        there
\n     are      clear          words       in     a       statute           which         would
\n     indicate to the contrary.                            Clause (b) of sub-
\n     section (7) of Section 31<\/a> contains an express
\n     provision that unless an award has otherwise
\n     directed,           a    sum       directed          to       be      paid        by     an<\/p>\n
     1 AIR 1963 SC 1677
\n     2 (1853) 138 ER 1254 : 13 CB 399<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:43:55 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                         – 20 –\n<\/p>\n
     arbitral      award        shall     carry      interest            at      the<\/p>\n
     rate of 18% per annum from the date of the<\/p>\n
     award to the date of payment.                       In view of the
\n     clear    statutory         stipulation,            the       payment          of
\n     interest from the date of the award to the<\/p>\n
     date of payment is mandated, unless there is a
\n     direction      to      the    contrary         in       the       arbitral
\n     award.       The arbitral award not having made any<\/p>\n
     specific      stipulation           in      regard      to      interest,
\n     the    statutory
\n                      ig    prescription
\n     sub-section (7) of Section 31<\/a> would apply.\n<\/p>\n
                                                   in     Clause          (b)      of<\/p>\n
     16. In so far as the question of calculations
\n     is concerned, the decree holder stated before<\/p>\n
     the Learned Single Judge during the course of<\/p>\n
     the hearing of Chamber Summons No.818 of 2006
\n     that     there        were     certain             errors          in       the
\n     computation which had to be rectified.                                    Such<\/p>\n
     an    exercise       was     permissibly           carried          out       in
\n     view    of    the     liberty       granted        by     the       Learned
\n     Single       Judge      for        amending          the        execution<\/p>\n
     application.          The Advocate appearing on behalf
\n     of     the     judgment            debtor          submitted              that
\n     according to the judgment debtor, an amount of
\n     Rs.8,02,564\/- is due and payable and not an
\n     amount of Rs.14,41,686.30, as claimed in the
\n     execution           application,              as        amended.                 A
\n     comparison       of    the    statement            which        has       been<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:43:55 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                        – 21 –\n<\/p>\n
     submitted      on    behalf       of       the     judgment           debtor<\/p>\n
     during     the      course     of      the        hearing         and       the<\/p>\n
     statement which has been submitted on behalf
\n     of   the      decree      holder       would        show        that        the
\n     parties       are    in     agreement         on      the       following<\/p>\n
     figures:\n<\/p>\n
     (i) An     amount      of    Rs.97,58,144\/-                as     per       the<\/p>\n
     warrant of attachment; and<\/p>\n
     (ii) An excess amount therein of Rs.4,33,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
     17. In other words, the claim under the award
\n     as on 7th July, 2005, which is the date of the<\/p>\n
     award, was Rs.93,24,165\/-.                        The claimant was<\/p>\n
     entitled       to    interest         at      the      rate         of      18%
\n     thereon from the date of the award until the
\n     date     of    deposit       by     the       respondent.                   The<\/p>\n
     interest         liability           works          out          to         Rs.
\n     14,48,429\/-.           The    total         amount        due       to      the
\n     claimant-decree           holder           was,     therefore,              Rs.\n<\/p>\n
     1,07,72,594\/-.            Deducting the amount that was
\n     actually deposited by the judgment debtor, the
\n     balance amount due and payable as on 18th May,
\n     2006   was     Rs.10,14,450\/-              on which         the       decree
\n     holder would be entitled to interest at the
\n     rate of 18% per annum until 14th October, 2008
\n     and thereafter until payment.                          The error in<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:43:55 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                  – 22 –\n<\/p>\n
     computation        has,    therefore,               been           duly<\/p>\n
     corrected by the decree holder.\n<\/p>\n
     18. The application filed by the decree holder
\n     for amendment of the execution application was<\/p>\n
     hence in order and was correctly allowed by
\n     the   Master   &    Assistant        Prothonotary              (ADM).
\n     Chamber Summons No.597 of 2009 shall have to<\/p>\n
     be rejected and is accordingly rejected.                             The<\/p>\n
     chamber summons taken out by the decree holder
\n     for extension of the warrant of attachment was<\/p>\n
     consequently liable to be allowed.                           Chamber
\n     Summons No.510 of 2009 taken out by the decree
\n     holder is accordingly made absolute in terms<\/p>\n
     of prayer Clauses (a), (b) and (c). Chamber<\/p>\n
     Summons No.771 of 2009 filed by the Judgment
\n     Debtor is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                               ——\n<\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:43:55 :::<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Unknown vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 1 July, 2009 Bench: Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.510 OF 2009 IN CHAMBER ORDER NO.1620 OF 2008 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.158 OF 2006 IN ARBITRATION AWARD DATED 7TH JULY, 2005 WITH […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-255229","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nUnknown vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 1 July, 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\/unknown-vs-bharat-sanchar-nigam-limited-on-1-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Unknown vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 1 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-bharat-sanchar-nigam-limited-on-1-july-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=\"2009-06-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-10T04:04:47+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=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/unknown-vs-bharat-sanchar-nigam-limited-on-1-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/unknown-vs-bharat-sanchar-nigam-limited-on-1-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Unknown vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 1 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-10T04:04:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/unknown-vs-bharat-sanchar-nigam-limited-on-1-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3811,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/unknown-vs-bharat-sanchar-nigam-limited-on-1-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/unknown-vs-bharat-sanchar-nigam-limited-on-1-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/unknown-vs-bharat-sanchar-nigam-limited-on-1-july-2009\",\"name\":\"Unknown vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 1 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-10T04:04:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/unknown-vs-bharat-sanchar-nigam-limited-on-1-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/unknown-vs-bharat-sanchar-nigam-limited-on-1-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/unknown-vs-bharat-sanchar-nigam-limited-on-1-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Unknown vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 1 July, 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":"Unknown vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 1 July, 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\/unknown-vs-bharat-sanchar-nigam-limited-on-1-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Unknown vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 1 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-bharat-sanchar-nigam-limited-on-1-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-06-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-10T04:04:47+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":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-bharat-sanchar-nigam-limited-on-1-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-bharat-sanchar-nigam-limited-on-1-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Unknown vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 1 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-06-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-10T04:04:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-bharat-sanchar-nigam-limited-on-1-july-2009"},"wordCount":3811,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-bharat-sanchar-nigam-limited-on-1-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-bharat-sanchar-nigam-limited-on-1-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-bharat-sanchar-nigam-limited-on-1-july-2009","name":"Unknown vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 1 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-06-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-10T04:04:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-bharat-sanchar-nigam-limited-on-1-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-bharat-sanchar-nigam-limited-on-1-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-bharat-sanchar-nigam-limited-on-1-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Unknown vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 1 July, 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\/255229","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=255229"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/255229\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=255229"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=255229"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=255229"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}