{"id":54240,"date":"2010-11-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010"},"modified":"2015-10-22T00:40:58","modified_gmt":"2015-10-21T19:10:58","slug":"ms-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"M\/S Duo Properties Pvt Ltd vs Mr P Dayananda Pai on 30 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S Duo Properties Pvt Ltd vs Mr P Dayananda Pai on 30 November, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: C.R.Kumaraswamy<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE\n\nDATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2010\n\"32.\nBEFORE\n\nTHE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE C R ;<uMARASwAM\\.rj"V-A.'fQf\u00bb_\nCRIMINAL PETITION NO.4709\/2010_i= 4' %\n\nBETWEEN:   \n\n1 M\/S DUO PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.\nA COMPANY REGISTERE UNOE\nCOMPANIES ACT, .\u00bb   ' . ,\nHAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFI.\u00a7fE~._AT No.28',  \nULSOOR ROAD, BANGALORE 42*, ' ,  \nREP. BY ITS DIRECTORS \nMR. TPHANI MAHESH _  .   A\nMR. A.M.SHARATH CHA"NOR.A.'\u00ab._  1\n\n2 SR:  PHANIjMAHr:S'I:_   .\nS\/O SRI -T C, AS:-'i"'JVARTF!NA*RAYAN\nAGEDABOUT 45'YEARS_,_  \nDERCTOR, .   . \n\nM\/S DUO F'.RO'PERTIES (P) LTD.,\nNQ .253,' ULSOOR ROA D,\nE3A'NG4'-.\\LO..RE 42."  _____ .. \u00ab\n\n'<3 I  MR A,M~.. SHARATH CHANDRA\n' S\/'0'A_C..MUNE,VENKATE GOWOA\n= AGED ABOUT: 49 YEARS,\nD.IRCTD~R_ S'  '\nM\/S DUO PROPERTIES (P) LTD.,\n No.23, 'IULSOOR ROAD,\nA SANGALORE 42.  PETITIONERS\n\n 1(:3,x?"'.SRI;*" RAVI B. NAIK, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR M\/S. A K S\n ..._\/\\SSOCIATES, ADVOCATES)\n\n\n\n10\n\nAND :\n\nMR P. DAYANANDA PAI\n\nS\/O LATE P NARASIMHA PAI\nNO.10\/1, LAKSHMINARAYANA\nCOMPLEX, GROUND FLOOR\nPALACE ROAD,\n\nBANGALORE 52.   REs'PONiOENT  it  2\n\n(av NUS. 5 MAHESH & COMPANY, AOVOOATEISI} \n\nCRLP FILED U\/8.482 OF CR,F\u00ab'..C ev THE'ITAOVOCOATE:'_r3ORj';THE \nPETITIONERS PRAYING THAT THIS"-.lj+ON'BLE +::Oe_RT, 'MAY BE '\n\nPLEASED TO QUASH THE EN.T1PE PROCEEDINGS IN\nC.C.NO.2"7105\/O9 PENDING ON THE _'F-.ILE~\u00bb..eOF THE, xv ACMM,\nBANGALORE. ."a ~' Ea4.',\n\nTHIS CRL.P IS r:OMING~O.N}EOR_Ao:\u00a74Issi'ONTHIS DAY, THE\n\nCOURT MADE THE l=_..O-.~..L_O~_wINi:3: Z, \n\nThisvT"Crimi;n;al  \ufb01'le'd"V:under Section 482 of\nCr.P.C. _for the petitioners praying to\n\nquash the entire.p'I'OVeeed'I~nsgs~O"'in C.C. No. 27105\/2009 pending\n\n    Bangalore.\n\n _  "'vi7\u00abhOe\u00bb?evllieard learned Counsel for the petitioners\n\nV as wellas lea'ri-"zed Counsel for the respondent.<\/pre>\n
  The primary facts of the case is as under:<\/p>\n
O;One Mr.P Dayananda Pai has presented a complaint<\/p>\n
 Oefore the XV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.<\/p>\n
5} V \/
\nsvr<\/p>\n
3<\/span>
\nThe accused has issued a cheque bearing No.197996 dated<\/p>\n
26.03.2009, drawn on The Dhanaiakshmi Bank Ltd.,<\/p>\n
M.G.Road Branch, M.G.Road, Bangaiore, for a of<\/p>\n
Rs.2,00,00,000\/- (Rupees Two Crore Only). The <\/p>\n
was presented for encashment and the__V”‘sarn[e’~I\u00e9was\ufb01 <\/p>\n
dishonoured on the ground of “insufficient:’fund\u00abs”;i’A <\/p>\n
legai notice was issued on 29\u00bb.p_8.2oo–9;si. In spitejsr’Iie*g’aIVy<\/p>\n
notice, the accused failed to pay theramounwt  ftiheiirveby they
\nhave alleged to have comr:n~~i.ttedi’Aba’nto’tfee’c”e_punishable under
\nSections 138 and 141 of I\\tegotiA.ai:\u00a7ieV>:fnst’ru’reeh_t.s Act, 1881.<\/p>\n
4. It isgthe;;:ontienteLo~~i{ or B Naik, learned<\/p>\n
Senior Counsel’  of the petitioners that the<\/p>\n
order sheet  has not been signed by the<\/p>\n
_.-vlearnevd-J,\/Sdid!.V Ci;\u00a7\u00a5Vi’;\u00ab…53@hga|ore. He further submits that<\/p>\n
“cogr;\u00e9Vi’z’a.,nce_V”tai<Veii._ by the learned Magistrate is without<\/p>\n
app|'ica'tioh.V The cheque has not been presented<\/p>\n
 ' within  rhonbt\u00e9hs from the date of handing over of the cheque<\/p>\n
 coympiainant. The attention of this Court was invited to<\/p>\n
 __j'$ec't'ion'A138(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act.<\/p>\n
;"'i 5'
\neff<\/p>\n
5. Learned Counsel for the respondent reiies on the<\/p>\n
ruiing in the case of Surendra Singh and Others Vs Staise of<\/p>\n
Uttar Pradesh reported in AIR 1954 sc 194, <\/p>\n
para 14 of the said ruling reads as under:<\/p>\n
“14. As soon as Huejudgfoenfis’denye\u00a3ed,g”hAT
\nthat becomes the operative prontoguncernent_.of’~t,he ”
\nCourt. The iaw then pro\\tid’esVforA’the
\nwhich it is to be authenticated.1:an.d macieilcertavign. i
\nThe ruies regarding: this   not
\nform the essence ofaithe nwattier_:’\u00e9aihd..:vif~.__there is
\nirregularity ins. \u00a7arryin’g”  ‘ curable.<\/p>\n
Thus, if a 4ji;i;c;|4gi;%i\u00bbie_nt.vhappens:_4not”‘to”be signed and<\/p>\n
is inadvit-a_rtent_gi’3V’\/V.  onjrainvd  executed, the<\/p>\n
  wouid be valid
\nbecause’ the  can be shown to have
\nbeen vaiiclihtyv  stand good despite
\ndej’e’ct.s  .. mode of its subsequent<\/p>\n
o  A autheh.tiCia.tion.”‘”‘ iiii <\/p>\n
 ._ F-4!_e%.1a”i’sb”~.,re\u00a7\u00bbiies”on another ruling in the case of Ashok<\/p>\n
 iifeshwant v’\u00ab.’B.a’dave Vs Surendra Madhavrao Nighojakar<\/p>\n
 anpnthe”r reported in (2001) 3 scc 726, in Head Notes<\/p>\n
 A.iaoi:i ‘>i.’55,”Ait is held that:\n<\/p>\n
“A. Six months’ period has to be<\/p>\n
caicuiated for purpose of proviso (a) from the<\/p>\n
I<\/p>\n
if<\/p>\n
5<\/span>
\ndate mentioned on the face of cheque and not<\/p>\n
from any earlier date when drawer actually gave<\/p>\n
cheque to drawee — High Court rightly dismissed <\/p>\n
appel|ant–drawer’s appeal against issue of proces.s’ri._:”r._<\/p>\n
against him \u00ab~ Words and Phrases – “post  <\/p>\n
cheque”.\n<\/p>\n
B. Post dated cheque;remainsi_ga-i”bi.|:l:<\/p>\n
exchange till the date written o’n__theA’face’  .- ” <\/p>\n
on that date it becomes acheque.\n<\/p>\n
And it is furthe’r_he|dg..t’li’ati_f <\/p>\n
“For prosecuting  offence
\nunder Secti.o.:3::’j.\u00bb.38 oi”th’e~}i’\\:egojtiable”instruments
\nAct it is in.e\\Jita’\u00a7if5:|e that the c_hejo.ue iilslllpresented to<\/p>\n
the   of six months from the
\ndate or} which.V.it-dis d’r–a_wn’\u00b0or within the period of
\nitsV_validli”t\\,IV’vihit:_hever…-19 earlier. When a post<\/p>\n
dated__l”chveque”-is,written or drawn, it is only a bill<\/p>\n
A zof exic.ha.n”g–e and so long the same remains a bill<\/p>\n
  it of’e;<:ci–1angVe.,'.the provisions of Section 138 are not<\/p>\n
"a_p%p|ica.b'i:e_to the said instrument. The post dated<\/p>\n
cheqiie becomes a cheque within the meaning of<\/p>\n
 * Scectiyon 138 of the Act on the date which is
\n'' –..V''-w_ritten thereon and the 6 months' period has to<\/p>\n
 be reckoned for the purposes of proviso (a) to<\/p>\n
Section 138 of the Act fromthe said date."<\/p>\n
\u00a7:':f\u00a3__:'<\/p>\n
6<\/span><\/p>\n
6. The learned counsel for respondent relies on<\/p>\n
Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act — Presum,oti\u00bbons<\/p>\n
as to negotiable instruments sub clause (b) reads as~~unjc’.e__r:’wl’  <\/p>\n
(b) as to date ~ that every nego:ti\u00bbab:liAe:’ _
\ninstrument bearing a date was -made \u00abo_r’-‘drawn’on_v’*~7’<\/p>\n
such date.”\n<\/p>\n
7. It is the contention ofu\u00b0th_e’ learned. lygeniorgcounsel
\nthat since the ordersheet’da”t\u00abed  notsigned, the<\/p>\n
proceedings has to be quas_l1_eVd’.w._  A<\/p>\n
8. Sec’tio’n__45\u00bb.-5;’–_Vof t,h.e__;’\u20acr,Pi_C\u00a7’,_’rea’ds as follows:<\/p>\n
,—-“–4.6S’;~ViFindi;ng ‘or’–.s’ente~n.c-=5 when reversible<\/p>\n
by reason of “erro4r,i o’rn_i:ssi_on -or irregularity.<\/p>\n
 Subj.ect._Vt’o.:the provisions hereinbefore
\ncgontlaiened, nofinding, sentence or order passed
\n 5=T”fCol’urt ofv\ufb02competent jurisdiction shall be
\n‘ “altered by a Court of appeal,
\n“.confirma’ti_oriVor revision on account of any error,
\nornissyiionvh or irregularity in the complaint,<\/p>\n
 , sggmrnons, warrant, proclamation, order,
\n i.jud_gment or other proceedings before or during
\n‘gtrial or in any_inquiry or other proceedings under
\n“this Code, or any error, or irregularity in any
\nsanction for the prosecution, unless in the opinion<\/p>\n
. \/~’<\/p>\n
\u20ac8,-\n<\/p>\n
7<\/span>
\nof that Court, a failure of justice has in fact been<\/p>\n
occasioned thereby.\n<\/p>\n
(2) In determining whether any err0r,.g”.”*–,g<\/p>\n
omission or irregularity in any proceeding und’er*i..”‘-..”‘v<\/p>\n
this Code, or any error, or irregularity irt <\/p>\n
sanction for the prosecution has occasi-o,nedV”a: .<\/p>\n
failure of justice, the Court shah haveVregard” <\/p>\n
the fact whether the objection\u00b0COul.C’Vand”S’h0uid ”<\/p>\n
have been raised at anl__’e-ar|ieri”v-stage
\n3,r0Ce\u00a7(rj1’Et1l9g’case of  M l”I53_l’f’li$vi\/i! “:15 K ,4″a’1l,t)’!fa;fi\u00a7am and<\/p>\n
Others in Crl.A.No.701\/i’9A’\u00a3\u00a78,’– Vs Padam<\/p>\n
Sambhai\/,_ Jain”   inf Crl. A. No. 84 9\/2002, Hari<\/p>\n
Nara.-‘n   Bihar and Others in<\/p>\n
__.Crl.A.Ala,84.8\/20U2V_,Vreported in (2002) 5 scc 570 at para<\/p>\n
A”2__1 \u00bbre’a-d_Vs  u n  ~r.: __<\/p>\n
A  a grave iliegality is committed,
\nthe s__uper’ior courts should “not interfere. They
\n should’ allow the Court which is seized of the
\n A,VVrn”a.tter to go on with it. There is always an
\n ‘appellate Court to correct the errors. One should
\n keep in mind the principle behind Section 465<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C. Any and every irregularity or infraction<\/p>\n
cf<\/p>\n
8<\/span><\/p>\n
of a procedural provision cannot constitute a
\nground for interference by a superior Court
\nunless such irregularity or infraction has caused .
\nirreparable prejudice to the party and requires to  V
\nbe correct at that stage tends to defeat the
\nof justice instead of serving those endsj\ufb01’  <\/p>\n
should not be that a man with _enough _r’faea’nS’;V ”<\/p>\n
able to keep the law at bay. :Ihat..vi{bu’l–2d<\/p>\n
the failure of the very system.”\n<\/p>\n
10. In the decision of Mohjamwedll flfiulla Vs
\nEmperor reported in AIRCJ  __77, the Hon’b|e
\nHigh Court of Rangoon hel:d”‘as-  if<\/p>\n
”(A).. s_g{.1;ji365j”ahd 357 –\n<\/p>\n
Omissionlffltowlgritevj:ud.gme_’nt before passing<\/p>\n
sentence shQu’licl_CjV*._n’o.tm:lA”ivitiate trial uniess it<\/p>\n
occasions.’ failure f’of’\u00abj.ustice ~ Criminal P.C.,<\/p>\n
s4..%.537; if  _
\n  it is desirable that Magistrates<\/p>\n
 .jsh’o:i:l’d.,_Ao”beyVthe express provisions of the law,
\n the”‘i1<)_rn'ission to write a judgment before
\npio..no.unc'ing a sentence should not necessarily<\/p>\n
 .. Vvuitiate.' the trial, unless such omission has in<\/p>\n
 'v.,faf};t occasioned a failure of justice: 14 All. 242
\n and 27 Mad. 237, not Fo|l.; 23 Cal.502, Re|.on.<\/p>\n
aw\/I-'<\/p>\n
9<\/span><\/p>\n
(8) Criminal P.C., S 367 — Omission to
\nsign judgment is mere irreguiarity curable by
\nCriminal P.C., $3.537. H<\/p>\n
Where a Magistrate prepares a judgment
\nbut does not sign it, such omission to sign
\njudgment amounts to a mere irreguia–rfit’y,.,l,:
\ncurable by 5-3.537: A.I.R. Zi925_AJ|,__ 299;”‘R\u00e9ii’,;;v,””‘v a<\/p>\n
1’!<\/p>\n
Of}.\n<\/p>\n
11. Appiying the principi*e,s”~~laidl.down,_in, tiiVe””aoove ” V<\/p>\n
mentioned ruling, in my view, in,-case*,– if-\u00bbt_he order sheet has<\/p>\n
not been signed, it is ‘l  under the<\/p>\n
procedural law.  orgnissliofn wil~lTn.ot’ cause in failure of<\/p>\n
justice. Fu’rthe.r,’j:,thi\u00a7?~:objecti-on ri’as”not been raised by the
\naccused in”the._Tria_| Cou.rt;.._,Fort_he first time, in this Court this<\/p>\n
objection has’l’b..ee’n\/Fiiise-dl.”~7i’:herefore, the contention of the<\/p>\n
,1′”|’e\u00aba_rneri_j’iseniior Counse-l-~~\u00abthat the order sheet has not been<\/p>\n
 the proceedings have to be quashed has<\/p>\n
i  no forchelandytilie same cannot be accepted.<\/p>\n
12.’\ufb01_The next contention urged by learned Senior<\/p>\n
  that cognizance taken by learned magistrate is<\/p>\n
.   application of mind and therefore it is bad in iaw.<\/p>\n
‘of<\/p>\n
E0\n<\/p>\n
13. In this regard, the impugned order reads as<\/p>\n
unden<\/p>\n
“Heard the learned Counsel for the.f”~~._<\/p>\n
complainant. Perused the original complaint an_”c’:i~v..f”-fr<\/p>\n
documents produced alongwith the comp|ai_n–t_:\u00e9.a’n’dV.’ft, ;_. <\/p>\n
the sworn statement of the complainant……Q:ri_t’l1–e: ._<\/p>\n
basis of the material availablefionirec_o’rd.-3 I,:”arn._”7′<\/p>\n
satisfied that the complainant i’has.’.Arnadle’ our a ”  <\/p>\n
primafacie case for an offen_Ce_.punishVa’o,le
\nof the N I Act, Hence, Ixproceed  the
\nfollowing:\n<\/p>\n
Register’–a__crimi’n’al– ca  accused<\/p>\n
in RegisteVr__’:Noii.’sII_I   offence ” punishable u\/s<\/p>\n
138,’otth’eri:i$!veg’otiVab.l:e’\u00abtiinstrttmlevnts Act, 1881, and
\nissue-.,s{smrrioVns’,'”‘to by RPAD for the
\naforesauid, ” offiencea  PF and postage paid.
\nFtetui”nab|e by_V_V1\u20ac’3\/12\/09.”\n<\/p>\n
  careful perusal of impugned order, it is clear<\/p>\n
,ll~1.agistrate has perused the original complaint<\/p>\n
‘  and do\u00abcurr}ve’n.t,s= produced alongwith the complaint and also<\/p>\n
_.,R\/j,”.’A”sviiorn,statement and on the basis of the materials available<\/p>\n
 =recor’d, he was satisfied that there was prima facie case<\/p>\n
 .:’_4aig.ai\u00abnst the petitioner–accused. The learned Magistrate has<\/p>\n
gr <\/p>\n
wkj<\/p>\n
I]<\/p>\n
focused his attention to the averment made in the complaint.<\/p>\n
Therefore, it IS difficult to say that the learned Magtstratehas<\/p>\n
not applied his mind. Therefore, the contention <\/p>\n
learned Senior Counsei that the cognizance ta|<e.n_:"  H<\/p>\n
law has no force.\n<\/p>\n
I<\/p>\n
15. The last contention urged the le.a”r’n,ed__HSe:hior <\/p>\n
Counsel for petitioner ‘_-is that’ ‘the,::chVequ’e”   been
\npresented within 6 month5s*\u00ab\u00ab.f.riJmf.the~d’atei.of~.handing over the<\/p>\n
cheque to the complainant.\u00bb\u00bb- ail-sot;niiitedllattention of this<\/p>\n
Court to Section_Vi.:v38:If{a’) oi”Neg_otia:hlein’stl”ument Act.<\/p>\n
16. ylilnlvthtistvregnvard,_’:lea.’rned..”Counsei for the respondent<\/p>\n
has relied on ‘the  case of Asho\/<:""months' period has to be calculated for<\/p>\n
 AA purposes of proviso (a) from the date mentioned
\n .V:o'nj_\u00abthe face of cheque and. not from any earlier
\n date when drawer actually gave cheque to<\/p>\n
'T drawee."\n<\/p>\n
Further, Section :L18(b) of the Negotiable Instruments<\/p>\n
Act as to date -~ that every negotiabie instrument bearing a<\/p>\n
date was made or drawn on such date. Six monthsg’.ihasV.t_obe” <\/p>\n
calculated from the date mentioned in the chequV_e__’~.j\ufb01hveirefore’,.V_4’f<\/p>\n
it is difficult to accept the contention”foVf’:’ti1e”<lea:rn-e_d'\u00ab_$en'i'or7<\/p>\n
Counsel that the cheque has not beenlpresenterdtwiithi'n"'av"<\/p>\n
period of six months from the date"'o:n'whichlitisiid'i*aii\u00a7ivn:<\/p>\n
17. There is no pr’ec’i’se   applied
\nto quash the proceedings;E\u00e9ichEase~”‘~hVa’s5._’;t.h~erefore to be
\nconsidered on its2_”‘o\\)\u00a7ijiri:ii’n1e.rit   decision has to<\/p>\n
be taken to   not. The learned<\/p>\n
Magistrate\ufb01hass’focusedrhis”~att*en’tion to the averrnents made<\/p>\n
in the C0l’i’i[5’ia_il’It_ a’n_d”‘iV.’tal<:'\u00e9_.ncognizance of the offence.<\/p>\n
4'Avermer.rt if made Vninltvhe compiaint constitutes the offence<\/p>\n
 the principle laid down in the decisions<\/p>\n
cited.s'u.praV"'iiAe'_;,__ 2lifJOi.1(3) SCC 726 and aiso not signing of the<\/p>\n
 order s'h'eet'ibeing an curable irregularity, I am of the opinion<\/p>\n
 "it*i.s. not rarest of rare case where this Court can exercise<\/p>\n
 inherelntwjpower to qiiashthe proceedings.<\/p>\n
\/,<\/p>\n
E?'\/,<\/p>\n
\u00a31<\/p>\n
18. In that view of the matter, I pass the following:<\/p>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
This Criminal Petition is d:’sm:’sse?d.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court M\/S Duo Properties Pvt Ltd vs Mr P Dayananda Pai on 30 November, 2010 Author: C.R.Kumaraswamy IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2010 “32. BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRJUSTICE C R ;<uMARASwAM\\.rj"V-A.'fQf\u00bb_ CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4709\/2010_i= 4' % BETWEEN: 1 M\/S DUO PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. 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-54240","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S Duo Properties Pvt Ltd vs Mr P Dayananda Pai on 30 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S Duo Properties Pvt Ltd vs Mr P Dayananda Pai on 30 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-11-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-21T19:10:58+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-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S Duo Properties Pvt Ltd vs Mr P Dayananda Pai on 30 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-21T19:10:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2081,\"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-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S Duo Properties Pvt Ltd vs Mr P Dayananda Pai on 30 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-21T19:10:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S Duo Properties Pvt Ltd vs Mr P Dayananda Pai on 30 November, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M\/S Duo Properties Pvt Ltd vs Mr P Dayananda Pai on 30 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S Duo Properties Pvt Ltd vs Mr P Dayananda Pai on 30 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-21T19:10:58+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-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S Duo Properties Pvt Ltd vs Mr P Dayananda Pai on 30 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-21T19:10:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010"},"wordCount":2081,"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-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010","name":"M\/S Duo Properties Pvt Ltd vs Mr P Dayananda Pai on 30 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-21T19:10:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S Duo Properties Pvt Ltd vs Mr P Dayananda Pai on 30 November, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54240","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=54240"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54240\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=54240"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=54240"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=54240"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}