{"id":260747,"date":"2008-11-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-zygox-infotech-p-ltd-vs-ms-n-soft-india-services-pvt-on-24-november-2008"},"modified":"2016-01-07T01:56:37","modified_gmt":"2016-01-06T20:26:37","slug":"ms-zygox-infotech-p-ltd-vs-ms-n-soft-india-services-pvt-on-24-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-zygox-infotech-p-ltd-vs-ms-n-soft-india-services-pvt-on-24-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"M\/S Zygox Infotech (P) Ltd vs M\/S N-Soft (India) Services Pvt … on 24 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S Zygox Infotech (P) Ltd vs M\/S N-Soft (India) Services Pvt … on 24 November, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: V.Gopalagowda & Swamy<\/div>\n
recorded his finding in favour of  V'\n\nrespcedexxt herein except referxing I  it\n\ncontentions urged by both the\".Aleereedii'~con\u00a7is;.g\u00bb;1:\u00a7~-.oig.i.\n\nbehalf of.' the appe11ant';_'<--..\u00a7eoonet"  -tend \u00bb '\n\nlearned Senior Counsel   first\nrespondent.  3 A <\/pre>\n
3. ‘.z’he{_”   ‘Swift 6 Gangireddy
\nappearing    ‘dzeiti V”\u00bb;=’a;\u00a7>1V>ellant contended
\nthat    has exceeded his
\njurisdiction’  judicial review power<\/p>\n
and qua.shi’i:g “A:;neJn.1;u:es’:- ‘A’ to ‘B’ , ‘G’ and ‘W’ .<\/p>\n
\u00ab=,_Iie  ieieo pi”aced.re1ianoe upon the decision of<\/p>\n
 reported in 2002(3) ILR 3033<\/p>\n
   Court has held that there is<\/p>\n
V — defiftitei\u00e9inenua sotxght to be achieved between. the<\/p>\n
 ecneiitivon emzmerated and the object sought to be<\/p>\n
   no monopoly is created by inposing sech<\/p>\n
  ceiaditicn as discussed, and on the more<\/p>\n
~~ ‘allegation of male fides in the petition in the<\/p>\n
absence of any substantive proof, mla fides
\nattributed to second respondent could not have<\/p>\n
presumed and interfered with the acwexd of<\/p>\n
\\N,\/<\/p>\n
similar service of the work for which  .<\/p>\n
were invited by second respon\ufb01ent. .E’here_\u00a7:’ore,’*.V he <\/p>\n
submits that the contention igrged A. <\/p>\n
counsels on behalf of the appaiant seoohd <\/p>\n
respondent that the mainteheh\u00a2eV work,  sort-were
\nas contained in An::f\u00a7x;;re~\u00a5\u00a7i3vc–:’i’t_ ,\ufb02m.4 teem that
\nsixrtilaac service provioeci   to the
\nsecond     correct, as
\nthe learned’   1_;:f,,;\u00a7F5′:ej._:gi\u00a7:htly examined the
\nrelevant**~e.   iitheewviv tender invitation
\nnotifieations to the documents<\/p>\n
produced “at”  & R14 and came to the<\/p>\n
 ri9’1?1i 1′ correc”:’t.,’: Vcohrzlusion and held that the<\/p>\n
   not possess eligibility criteria<\/p>\n
 of tenders to the works of second<\/p>\n
resoondente \u00abfend rightly he has granted the reliefs<\/p>\n
 T thzevvfwrit petition in favour of the first<\/p>\n
 ju”rAeepci1dent. Therefore he submits that the same<\/p>\n
 tie?-as not call for interference by this Coert in<\/p>\n
 exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and power<\/p>\n
as no substantial question of law would arise in<\/p>\n
this Appeal for consideration. V<\/p>\n
(The specification<\/p>\n
13<\/span><\/p>\n
as per Annexure—I (A;$px-\n<\/p>\n
appropriate nodes) J” V .\n<\/p>\n
(Vi)<\/p>\n
{vii}<\/p>\n
(xiii)<\/p>\n
‘ <\/p>\n
 ” virus-._ “~~-“software
\n ,.3orto1’.==., Symanteo) for 96.<\/p>\n
 it” v .. _divi.s{ons\/section
\n“o~._.c:ounter cozzputer shall be provided<\/p>\n
All the haxdwa\ufb01re :;’fs:z:;i:pi:ae\u00a2i_:”b;,\u00a5 :'”t1;\u00e9V[<\/p>\n
sp should be free from defect; ‘amt:
\nmaintained”  working ‘ ooadi.tion .<\/p>\n
Minimuzn two’-., ‘extra  ._sjpo.t.= billing
\nmachines (goo\u00a3:1, working. oonciition}<\/p>\n
shouldjae  in ‘each subdivision
\nfor :\u00a5.1*:;n\u00a7adiz1te1{~w.r\u00e9s;;ila\u00e9::9.aznent in case
\nof breakdown-p.V1″  _  ” –.\n<\/p>\n
me 5.9., aha.1l., ;’rovi:a\u00e9 qualified
\n‘ _  ‘ xseersons per
\no:;:}:>c1iv:isiot: inol\ufb01sive of section<\/p>\n
  :\u00a3*aj;:ot:3_ dash counter) for the
\ng ‘$.er\u00a2\u00a7.ce’s.’jV’a. required
\n ” i1:~,staJ.1:A.t;i.ox:…._”of OS,
\n” .. _ at%;eud.”\u00bb1;’a.mware problans and other
\n“Vvapplic:’ativona ~ etc . ,<\/p>\n
i . e . ,. to
\nantiviral ,<\/p>\n
. h’ 4 shall
\ninstallation of<\/p>\n
supply and
\nlicensed Anti
\n( like Mcmfee ,<\/p>\n
Th-a…oustmnized billing application
\nsoftware to be installed. in sub
\noffice\/cash.\n<\/p>\n
to the an by anscoaq.\n<\/p>\n
All the coasumables like printer<\/p>\n
cartridge, ribbon tape etc shall
\nbe provided. by the SIP.\n<\/p>\n
claims against damages\/loss to any
\nequipment\/ hardware , provided by
\nSP, due to auxgo, fire theft etc:
\nshall not be entertained.\n<\/p>\n
Any damages to the property of
\nBESCCM by the 3)? through their
\npersonnel or equipment will be
\nassessed and the some will be
\ndeducted from the payables to the
\nSP.\n<\/p>\n
any up gradat.1.on\/ replaoexnent to
\nany hardware supplied by the S?
\nhas to be borne by the Si’ only.\n<\/p>\n
\\~N\/<\/p>\n
14<\/span><\/p>\n
The above said Clauaes on’Wt’1ie:aVi;1et;’ugti\u00a7;na<\/p>\n
of the tender notification’   the
\nlearned single    order,
\nwhile examining’ the   -“le\u00a7;fa’l._if-‘contentions
\nas been urged”‘\u00ab;in   V.  eonsider and
\nrecord a  ehether the appellant
\nherein fnad  ‘eligibility criteria to
\nsubmit    contracts awarded in<\/p>\n
its favour?  learned Counsel Sri Gangireddy<\/p>\n
 and _l”I*3.VK ‘\u20ac\u00a7up.ta___”*;ehexrently sought to justify<\/p>\n
 the*–.award,% of’~–.eontracts covered in Annexures ‘A-‘<\/p>\n
to. vi’-.\u00a7__’  of the aypellant by accepting<\/p>\n
V its ‘bid-..’:app”lication contending that in the year<\/p>\n
\u00a309.53 sisaixax certificates exhibits R13 and R14<\/p>\n
   produced by it to the second respondent<\/p>\n
 which have been aczeepted by it.<\/p>\n
\u00abtherefore the said certificates accepted by the<\/p>\n
seeozzd respondent are rightly not aecepted by the
\nlearned single Judge for the s.1′.:@le reason that<\/p>\n
the scope of werk in respect of which bids were<\/p>\n
\\M\/<\/p>\n
18<\/span><\/p>\n
learned counsel appearing on Ioehalr<\/p>\n
appellant and the second respondent  :.T:trcng'<i  9 <\/p>\n
reliance opon the provision  \u00bb"S'e.~.c;:t_iox1 _  <\/p>\n
4(a) of the Karnataka _ rransporon <\/p>\n
Procureznents Act, 1999'   '(snort
\nreferred to as 'K2913' Act}. n_\ufb02:'c')u1"1'1'..1.o13.\u20aci.:"'.fig"A tnat the
\naward of contract    appellant in
\nrelation to  +;rn-.~.a___ sujbj   intolved in the
\nimpugned     and valid,
\nthexoforg    could not have
\nquash\u00e9ti  \u00bbjin_T"v.exercise of his judicial
\nreview no\ufb01\u00e9r   of first respondent.<\/p>\n
The ;:.pp;e11:\u00a7::1:_ being the service provmer to the<\/p>\n
.  ';3econ<i 7"re$"pondent iiii is examined by a committee of<\/p>\n
 "  consisting of one technical.<\/p>\n
reprosontntioe of procsuring entity, one technical<\/p>\n
<,,ropres4.4.=\u00a7.ntativo of the government organisation<\/p>\n
A'*:i_21oVaVliing with similar procurement and one<\/p>\n
'  r\u00e9presentative by a reputed acaci;em:i.c institution<\/p>\n
" cad opinion is piaceo before the Board of the<\/p>\n
second resgondent it has applied its mind with
\nreference to the recommendation made by the<\/p>\n
expert committee to award. contract in favour of<\/p>\n
\\m\/<\/p>\n
20<\/span><\/p>\n
this appeal. The above contention:;\u00a7’_:’.”‘o9\u00a3’~ _<\/p>\n
appellant and the second resjpondent\u00bb.   <\/p>\n
strongly rebutted by the   f<\/p>\n
placing strong reliance: of  <\/p>\n
Kf.!.”J.’P Act. He further   -it-3s1:21:’@insion
\ntrade on behalf of.   ‘the second
\nrespondent placing it  4 (1:1) and
\nMe) of t1:e:..:<:\u00a7\u00a2*;~.   attracted to
\nthe facts    reason that section
\n4 clause\u00bb.   .V.4{Io3t–::V're\u00a7arrliag exceptions with
\nregarchto  of the provisions of<\/p>\n
the Act, 'ato Va\ufb01rard,'  in respect of works<\/p>\n
 eachgoune. of tizeniv is independent<\/p>\n
 '  :%.ii.stinct clause by themselves Neither<\/p>\n
time 4' at: 4(a) is attracted to the facts of<\/p>\n
'V the  for one reason that BESCOM is unable to<\/p>\n
it this court that the appellant is a single<\/p>\n
.'  ai-reririce provider available in the Karnataka<\/p>\n
it ' " ~3tate , for not following the procedure<\/p>\n
V contenvplatecl under the provisions of the KTTP Act<\/p>\n
to award the contract to the appellant for a<\/p>\n
period of 3 years unaer Annexurew-G. Further in<\/p>\n
m\/<\/p>\n
21<\/span><\/p>\n
View of Section 5 of the Act the :f:i,V\u00e9s”<\/p>\n
applicable to the case on hand and actionv L”  V’ <\/p>\n
seoond respondent in awarding”A’oon.tr\u00e9;<:t\u00ab <\/p>\n
of the appellant amounts A"ico1ii'\u00a3'ss=,A;.':1rytarat"<\/p>\n
largesse, which is vio1a\u00a3i\u00a7e of \u00e9xgiai\u00e9 it of the '<\/p>\n
Constitution of India a;3d–\ufb02i:h\u00e9'~\u00bb..}AjtzciqraonitJiof the
\nSuprae Court rep\u00a7i\u00a3\u00e9a'rigi;$i\u00a7iD19?9 so 1628,
\ntherefore , he .~. \u00a71,mr;i.*ta… it\ufb01ag  _  V single
\nJudge '      aspects into
\nconsideratiorii.   law to the facts
\nsituationi 11$,-53V  _r\u00a7::Vj'fVocted the Award of
\ncontraot  by recording the<\/p>\n
reason, hoiuciigig' ..thaEt this is not a case either<\/p>\n
 \u00e9::-J..a.us;e  -Ho) the exwytion clause<\/p>\n
  awarding contract by dispensing<\/p>\n
tlie  as proceeded under the provisions<\/p>\n
Cof  K_5.'?.'P Act. therefore, he has urged that<\/p>\n
 "..j"tIieit'-game! does not call for interference by this<\/p>\n
—  Cogzrt .\n<\/p>\n
\\O As to whether qjuashing of the award of<\/p>\n
contract covered in Annoxure-G is legal and<\/p>\n
just\u00a7.\u00a3:\u00a3.ed in law . \\W\/<\/p>\n
23<\/span><\/p>\n
5. Procurement other than  ._
\nProhibited: on and froaettw the I datefgof
\nconmenoanent of this Aci; no E-‘rocuirement<\/p>\n
antity shall procure go’ods1′”or eer*a*:_i..oes~ <\/p>\n
exoept by inviting \ufb01enderefor sup;’>_lyL ‘<\/p>\n
_t3..It in an undispnteti\u00bb   of
\ncontract in favour roof  is with
\nregard to work of  and soft”\n<\/p>\n
ware in Koiar\u00e9 “_-   hand Bangalore
\nRural ….  of 65 paise per
\ninstal3.at.i_o”x}.~T  thev…..s’\u00a7uccess:Eul generated
\n131115   ‘exclusive of applicable
\ntax, the”   . Jwork is as specified in<\/p>\n
Anneqtnre-G :;u:q”Vt1:e}e approximate azmunt of Aim<\/p>\n
it  It   “payable for three years is<\/p>\n
A’:-‘~.’:s;.ttS,’#\u00a5!1′.;f1\u00a7\u00bbV,60 as per Annexurem-G for a period<\/p>\n
of.  genre’ from the \u00e9ate of nrplenmentation and<\/p>\n
3″”\u00ab\u00ab.__V”‘exten-\ufb01ehie for 2 more years on mtuaily agreed<\/p>\n
   and conditions by the parties. time said<\/p>\n
  clause is contrary to the provisions of the Act.<\/p>\n
 The learned Single Judge with regard’ to this<\/p>\n
aspect of the ease has elaborately referred to in
\nthe izvpzigned order from paragraph 14 onwards by<\/p>\n
referring to the proceedings of the expert<\/p>\n
NONX<\/p>\n
 betwe\u00e9env ‘the e\u00a7:3:;er_t_. comnittee memhezrs of second.<\/p>\n
AV__responc3eAxxtM  Mr.$adagopen, has held that the<\/p>\n
 _ seczticn of the KTPF Act cannot be construed.
\nest e  of experts cozzstituted under the
\n provisions of the KTPP Act, as it was a
\n  VA:.’coa:%xzxittee of four officials who were not experts<\/p>\n
\u00abland with reference to the letter it discloses<\/p>\n
24<\/span><\/p>\n
committee of second respondent consisting
\nJoint Secretary, Energy Bepartment,
\nDirector (Technical) , BESCOMJUV  {.’i_–.:{.\u00a7.)”
\nEngineer, Elect, (SPDRP, P 5
\ncw). 6.14 (Elect), BESCGM -y\u00a7ithV”Arefere.nc’e_:
\nletter addressed to  i\u00e9rofesgsor &
\nDirector, Internaticnegl. of Inrormation
\nTechnology , Bangalore’ H _i it   opinion
\nwas sought   can directly
\naward the’  and using of
\nscozzrz::;+’v”?’.\u00ab-1:13′   to the appellant.
\nThe leernetl    \ufb01rith reference to the<\/p>\n
corresponoience.  it letters made and written<\/p>\n
 _ _1  experts constituted under<\/p>\n
that it is only an opinion of an expert and if<\/p>\n
the second respondent has acteci on such opinion<\/p>\n
\\m\/<\/p>\n
25<\/span><\/p>\n
it is highly illegal. He has also <\/p>\n
recorded other valid reasons in support : ‘<\/p>\n
conclusions stating that the …cn_se  ‘.to4_’_=&bea:_ it<\/p>\n
justified by the assess does<\/p>\n
or? the grounds in the ‘\u00ab~..exccpt:icn icl\u00e9gjzvses  of <\/p>\n
Section.4 (3)-{h) of the  Act.   learned
\nSingle Judge has    the ixwugned
\norder that BESQOM  material
\ndocuments to”    is only a
\nsingle    available in
\nthe     has got exclzzsive
\n;riqhta’;,,,\u00a7’or  by it as there<\/p>\n
cannot be _V – adc\u00a7j,it;io11nl service so far as<\/p>\n
 work.___,_\u00a3or a. period of 3 years and<\/p>\n
 fn1rtherV_ *.e”.:.t\u00e9n_dable for 2 years, particularly<\/p>\n
wizere’ \u00a7t~o:”:R;  involves a sum of Rs. 6 crores,<\/p>\n
V. therefore,” the finding of the learned single<\/p>\n
V\ufb01udgge gisperfectly legal and valid as the same is<\/p>\n
 s._s2;j3ported with legal basis does not call for<\/p>\n
  interference with by this Court. The learned.<\/p>\n
 Senior Counsel on behalf of the first respondent<\/p>\n
is perfectly justified in placing strong reliance<\/p>\n
upon the finding and reasons recorded by the<\/p>\n
\\\\w\/<\/p>\n
26<\/span><\/p>\n
learned Single Judge in the ixrpugned order and<\/p>\n
rightly contended that that confennentA…VVi*-o;’;”<\/p>\n
contract in favour of the ax>:E>e3.la.:;t”””‘\u20acri<3_;e5 <\/p>\n
Amaexure-3 by the sesame: is c1ea:…..,\u00a7tageV.i.::: oft<\/p>\n
iargesse which is violative o:E  <\/p>\n
Constitution of xndia as held 1:43; the  "c.5ux<t"*<\/p>\n
in the case of zNTemmr:o\u00a7Aj}"i. Mercer' t\u00a7LU'iiii9'itiTY
\nVs.  A\u00a5ARAM snerrfg  Ar1i""19"'}9 so
\n1523. It is wortz;\u00a7h#i1'e"'  relevant
\nportion of parecgreph   V"  judgment,
\nwhich is as  it    it <\/p>\n
 '\\'-"z:.i._,_.'l,_.'l. 'eeen: from this
\njudgment" , that  restricting the
\ninvitation" Vito"  tenders to a\n<\/p>\n
3.:i.m.’1.ted= c1essV._of’15_ei*sons was held to be
\nviolative of  the-. equality alause,
\nbe_ca.use”‘~+.h’e. o’,1as;v_si’\u00a3’i1.e relation to the\n<\/p>\n
 -o1′:’.i~jecVt.__so1:ght————to be aohieved, namely,
\nA  eeliintg “e;E kzendu leaves in the interest
\n‘  “er then general public. The standard or
\nvinorm,  by the Government for
\n entering into contracts of sale of
\n::endu’_1i’eaves with third parties was
\ndisarixanatory and could not stand the
\n scrutiny of Article 1<\/a>,4<\/a> and hence the
\n ” ‘tsohetne was held to be invalid. The
\nx  rejected the contention of the\n<\/p>\n
– Government that by reason of section 10
\n it was entitled to dispose of Icendn
\nleaves in such manner as it thought fit
\nand there wee no limitation upon its
\npower to enter into contacts for sale
\nof Jcendu leaves with snob persons it<\/p>\n
\\w\/<\/p>\n
28<\/span><\/p>\n
\ufb02avour of the appellant, it has put–ujp <\/p>\n
infrastructure and large mmiber of woriqtien’  1- <\/p>\n
employed by the appellant, if, this cou1″–t.. <\/p>\n
stage, the order of the learned $…1′.n\u00a7”l4e    f<\/p>\n
upheld great financial hardehipiuwould  A .\u00a7;’a{zsea;1.”<\/p>\n
to the appellant, but lot
\nbe caused to the cons’ium_ersg’;i’W_’V”-toontention of
\nthe counsel for   second
\nrespondent cannot; ‘he a  Court for
\nthe reason     does not possess
\nthe  Q’?su_!:;gz1i.:Vtting tender–.’oids
\nin relation to —ooirered in Annexure– ‘A’<\/p>\n
to ‘D’  Hg}  the conferred with the<\/p>\n
_,oontre\u00a2it’V and the cannot plead equity as<\/p>\n
  Single Judge has recorded his<\/p>\n
   reasons with reference to the<\/p>\n
 rival oontentions urged by the learned<\/p>\n
” \u00a7”f:_:_o’uns,el z 5.6: the parties and rightly held that<\/p>\n
it  of coatract in favour of the Appellant<\/p>\n
  Annexures-‘A’ to ‘D’ in favour of the<\/p>\n
 is vitiated on account of illegality,<\/p>\n
Apart from the above reason the learned single<\/p>\n
judge has gives direction to the second<\/p>\n
‘m\/<\/p>\n
29<\/span><\/p>\n
respondent herein to redo the matter. In eo.._:f.a;r<\/p>\n
as award of contract as per Annexure-G_,;””weVV’~haired <\/p>\n
already held that it is lergesee upen”<\/p>\n
the appellant by the BESCOM  \u00a7.c<.v:c$:,;etA <\/p>\n
public interest will be_._a.dver.ee1Ly a\ufb01lfected V <\/p>\n
therefore no equity need; "a.ppl"ied.V_   "case
\nin favour of the Appellant}  the contention
\nurged and prayer   regfard by the
\nlearned cceneele   and
\nsecond   V  Interim order<\/p>\n
granted ….   dissolved. The
\nsubmisieion' _\u00bb counsel for the
\neppellantt' as "'–we_'LJ… it second respendent is<\/p>\n
rejegtedp.  is also rejected.\n<\/p>\n
 ~,r._'<He_re  this kind of contract by the<\/p>\n
  "not be awarded by the BESCGM in<\/p>\n
favoiir 'of  person without following the<\/p>\n
precedazte as provided under the provisions of the<\/p>\n
'V V '  fK'i'3?P- ,nc\u00a3.\n<\/p>\n
“After dictating the judgment, learned<\/p>\n
 heounsel for the appellant sought an interim<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court M\/S Zygox Infotech (P) Ltd vs M\/S N-Soft (India) Services Pvt … on 24 November, 2008 Author: V.Gopalagowda & Swamy recorded his finding in favour of V’ respcedexxt herein except referxing I it contentions urged by both the”.Aleereedii’~con\u00a7is;.g\u00bb;1:\u00a7~-.oig.i. behalf of.’ the appe11ant’;_'<–..\u00a7eoonet" -tend \u00bb ' learned Senior Counsel first respondent. 3 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-260747","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S Zygox Infotech (P) Ltd vs M\/S N-Soft (India) Services Pvt ... on 24 November, 2008 - 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-zygox-infotech-p-ltd-vs-ms-n-soft-india-services-pvt-on-24-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S Zygox Infotech (P) Ltd vs M\/S N-Soft (India) Services Pvt ... on 24 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-zygox-infotech-p-ltd-vs-ms-n-soft-india-services-pvt-on-24-november-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-11-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-06T20:26:37+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=\"12 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-zygox-infotech-p-ltd-vs-ms-n-soft-india-services-pvt-on-24-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-zygox-infotech-p-ltd-vs-ms-n-soft-india-services-pvt-on-24-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S Zygox Infotech (P) Ltd vs M\\\/S N-Soft (India) Services Pvt … on 24 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-06T20:26:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-zygox-infotech-p-ltd-vs-ms-n-soft-india-services-pvt-on-24-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2304,\"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-zygox-infotech-p-ltd-vs-ms-n-soft-india-services-pvt-on-24-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-zygox-infotech-p-ltd-vs-ms-n-soft-india-services-pvt-on-24-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-zygox-infotech-p-ltd-vs-ms-n-soft-india-services-pvt-on-24-november-2008\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S Zygox Infotech (P) Ltd vs M\\\/S N-Soft (India) Services Pvt ... on 24 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-06T20:26:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-zygox-infotech-p-ltd-vs-ms-n-soft-india-services-pvt-on-24-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-zygox-infotech-p-ltd-vs-ms-n-soft-india-services-pvt-on-24-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-zygox-infotech-p-ltd-vs-ms-n-soft-india-services-pvt-on-24-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S Zygox Infotech (P) Ltd vs M\\\/S N-Soft (India) Services Pvt … on 24 November, 2008\"}]},{\"@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 Zygox Infotech (P) Ltd vs M\/S N-Soft (India) Services Pvt ... on 24 November, 2008 - 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-zygox-infotech-p-ltd-vs-ms-n-soft-india-services-pvt-on-24-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S Zygox Infotech (P) Ltd vs M\/S N-Soft (India) Services Pvt ... on 24 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-zygox-infotech-p-ltd-vs-ms-n-soft-india-services-pvt-on-24-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-06T20:26:37+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-zygox-infotech-p-ltd-vs-ms-n-soft-india-services-pvt-on-24-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-zygox-infotech-p-ltd-vs-ms-n-soft-india-services-pvt-on-24-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S Zygox Infotech (P) Ltd vs M\/S N-Soft (India) Services Pvt … on 24 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-06T20:26:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-zygox-infotech-p-ltd-vs-ms-n-soft-india-services-pvt-on-24-november-2008"},"wordCount":2304,"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-zygox-infotech-p-ltd-vs-ms-n-soft-india-services-pvt-on-24-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-zygox-infotech-p-ltd-vs-ms-n-soft-india-services-pvt-on-24-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-zygox-infotech-p-ltd-vs-ms-n-soft-india-services-pvt-on-24-november-2008","name":"M\/S Zygox Infotech (P) Ltd vs M\/S N-Soft (India) Services Pvt ... on 24 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-06T20:26:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-zygox-infotech-p-ltd-vs-ms-n-soft-india-services-pvt-on-24-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-zygox-infotech-p-ltd-vs-ms-n-soft-india-services-pvt-on-24-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-zygox-infotech-p-ltd-vs-ms-n-soft-india-services-pvt-on-24-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S Zygox Infotech (P) Ltd vs M\/S N-Soft (India) Services Pvt … on 24 November, 2008"}]},{"@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\/260747","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=260747"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/260747\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=260747"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=260747"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=260747"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}