{"id":58818,"date":"2009-02-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-02-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-chamundeshwari-corporation-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-3-february-2009"},"modified":"2019-01-10T02:34:10","modified_gmt":"2019-01-09T21:04:10","slug":"ms-chamundeshwari-corporation-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-3-february-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-chamundeshwari-corporation-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-3-february-2009","title":{"rendered":"M\/S.Chamundeshwari Corporation vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 3 February, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Jharkhand High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">M\/S.Chamundeshwari Corporation vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 3 February, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI\n                           L.P.A. No.114 of 2004\n\n          M\/s Chamundeshwari Corporation through\n          its Proprietor Premi Arora                        ....      Appellant\n                                     Versus\n          The State of Jharkhand and Others                 ....      Respondents\n\n          CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI\n                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR\n\n          For the Appellant       :     Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Advocate\n                                        Ravi Kr. Singh, Advocate\n                                        Niki Sinha, Advocate\n                                        Ratna Prabha, Advocate\n          For the State           :     J.C. to A.G.\n                          -----\n\n11\/03.02.2009<\/pre>\n<p>    The appellant was the successful bidder against the Notice<br \/>\n          Inviting Tender (N.I.T.), issued by the Tribal Welfare Department,<br \/>\n          State of Jharkhand, for supply of cloth materials as per the terms<br \/>\n          of the tender.\n<\/p>\n<p>          2.     As many as 13 persons took part in the tender. The Tender<br \/>\n          Committee, after preparing a comparative chart, accepted the bid<br \/>\n          of the appellant. The rate quoted by the appellant was 86.00 +<br \/>\n          4.5% for Suitings and 44.44+4.5% for Shirting. In the final<br \/>\n          comparative chart (Annexure-12) the composite rate was shown as<br \/>\n          Rs. 89.87 and Rs. 46.44. The bids of the respondent No.4 and<br \/>\n          other contenders were not accepted for the reasons noted in the<br \/>\n          remarks column i.e. for want of I.S.O. certificate, quoting of non-<br \/>\n          branded cloths on higher rates etc.\n<\/p>\n<p>          3.     The      writ    petitioner-Respondent   No.4   challenged     the<br \/>\n          allotment on the ground that the acceptance of the tender of the<br \/>\n          appellant was in violation of the terms of the N.I.T. It was alleged<br \/>\n          that in the Notice Inviting Tender, there was no provision for<br \/>\n          separate cost for payment of transportation to the supplier but the<br \/>\n          tender of the appellant was accepted with the stipulation of<br \/>\n          payment of extra transportation\/handling charges.             The writ<br \/>\n          petition was contested by the appellant as also by the State.\n<\/p>\n<p>          4.     Learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties disposed of<br \/>\n          the writ petition holding, inter alia, that Writ Petitioner-Respondent<br \/>\n          No.4 was rightly found disqualified by the Tender Committee on<br \/>\n          three grounds i.e. (i) it did not furnish I.S.O. certificate, (ii)<br \/>\n          composition of Polyester and Viscose offered for supply was not as<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                            -2-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>per the specification and (iii) the petitioner had quoted two<br \/>\ndifferent rates.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.     Learned Single Judge, while refusing relief to the writ<br \/>\npetitioner, however, intervened in the decision of the Tender<br \/>\nCommittee on the rate quoted by the petitioner. According to the<br \/>\nlearned Single Judge, the rate quoted by the appellant and<br \/>\naccepted by the Tender Committee included the transportation and<br \/>\nhandling charges which were contrary to the terms of the notice.<br \/>\nLearned Single Judge directed the concerned respondents not to<br \/>\npay 4.5% extra amount in future and to recover\/adjust that<br \/>\namount, if already paid.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.     The appellant is aggrieved by only that part of the order of<br \/>\nthe learned Single Judge whereby he has directed the respondent<br \/>\nnot to pay 4.5% of the amount in future and to recover\/adjust that<br \/>\namount if already paid.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.     Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the<br \/>\nappellant submitted that learned court below while accepting the<br \/>\ndecision of the Tender Committee has erroneously interfered with<br \/>\nthe rate quoted by the appellant. She further submitted that the<br \/>\nTender Committee is especially constituted for taking decisions and<br \/>\nin its discretion, to decide the rate and the court cannot substitute<br \/>\nthe decisions of the Tender Committee. It has been submitted that<br \/>\nthe decisions of the Tender Committee is based on various<br \/>\nconsiderations and without properly considering the situation under<br \/>\nwhich the decision has been taken by the Tender Committee,<br \/>\nlearned single judge has erroneously interfered with the decision of<br \/>\nthe said committee. The decision making process of the Tender<br \/>\nCommittee cannot be interfered with by the court without arriving<br \/>\nat the finding that it is necessary to do so in the public interest.<br \/>\nLearned Single Judge on the one hand has found the decision of<br \/>\ntender committee allotting the tender to the appellant and rejecting<br \/>\nthe offer of the writ petitioner as valid and on the other hand has<br \/>\nerroneously interfered with the decision regarding the rate quoted<br \/>\nby the petitioner. He, however, has not found any malafide or<br \/>\ninvolvement of any public interest warranting such interference.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.     Learned counsel referred to and relied upon a decision of<br \/>\nthe Supreme Court in the case of Raunaq International Ltd Vrs.<br \/>\nI.V.R. Construction Ltd. and others (reported in AIR 1999<br \/>\nSupreme Court 393) and submitted that unless the court is<br \/>\nsatisfied that there is involvement of substantial amount of public<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                             -3-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>interest, or that the transaction of the process was tainted with<br \/>\nmalafide, the court should not intervene in the disputes between<br \/>\ntwo rival tenderers in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the<br \/>\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.      It has been submitted that learned Single Judge having held<br \/>\nthat the decision of the Tender Committee regarding acceptance of<br \/>\noffer of the appellant was not tainted with any illegality or malafide,<br \/>\nreview of the decision regarding acceptance of rate as quoted by<br \/>\nthe appellant is wholly unwarranted and unjustified and the same is<br \/>\ncontrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in Raunaq<br \/>\nInternational Ltd. (Supra).\n<\/p>\n<p>10.     Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State supported<br \/>\nthe decision of the Tender Committee and contentions of the<br \/>\nappellant.      The writ petitioner- Respondent No.4 has also not<br \/>\ncontested this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.     Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner-<br \/>\nRespondent No.4 submitted that in the writ petition he had<br \/>\nchallenged the decision of the Tender Committee allotting the work<br \/>\nin favour of the appellant. The writ petitioner has not challenged<br \/>\nthe said decision of the Learned Single Judge whereby he had<br \/>\ndismissed his writ petition.        The writ petitioner is no longer<br \/>\ninterested in contesting the appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.     We have heard learned counsel for the parties and<br \/>\nconsidered the submissions made by them. We find force in the<br \/>\nsubmissions and points taken by the appellant.            The Apex Court<br \/>\nhas given a clear guideline regarding interference of the court in<br \/>\ntender matters in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the<br \/>\nConstitution.     The Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court in the case of Tata<br \/>\nCellular Vs. Union of India [reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651]<br \/>\ntaking notice of number of earlier decisions held that the court in<br \/>\nexercise of writ jurisdiction can enter into the judicial review of the<br \/>\ncontractual process and decision of the government bodies only in<br \/>\norder    to    prevent   arbitrariness   and     favouritism,   subject    to<br \/>\nlimitations, which may be precisely summed up as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>        (i)     The court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely<br \/>\n                reviews the manner in which the decision was made.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<pre>\n        (ii)    The Court does not have the expertise to correct the\n                administrative    decisions.     If   a   review   of     the\n                administrative decision        is permitted, it    will be\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   -4-<\/span>\n\n\n<\/pre>\n<blockquote><p>                     substituting its own decision without the necessary<br \/>\n                     expertise which itself may be fallible.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>            (iii)    The government must have freedom of contract. In<br \/>\n                     other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary<br \/>\n                     concomitant for an administrative body functioning in<br \/>\n                     an   administrative     sphere or quasi-administrative<br \/>\n                     sphere,     subject   to      the   test   by   applying   the<br \/>\n                     &#8220;Wednesbury Principle of Reasonableness&#8221; of the<br \/>\n                     decision that does not admit arbitrariness, bias or<br \/>\n                     malafide.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     13.    Almost the same view has been taken by the Apex Court in<br \/>\n     the case of Asia Foundation and Construction Ltd. Vs.<br \/>\n     Trafalgar House Construction Pvt. Ltd. [reported in (1997)<br \/>\n     1 SCC 738].\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     14.    The      Supreme     Court     after    elaborate    discussion,    has<br \/>\n     concluded that in absence of overwhelming public interest or<br \/>\n     allegation of malafide or collateral reasons for granting the contract<br \/>\n     the court should not interfere with the decision of the Tender<br \/>\n     Committee in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the<br \/>\n     Constitution.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     15.    In our opinion, learned Single Judge while accepting the<br \/>\n     process of the tender has committed an error in interfering with the<br \/>\n     rate accepted by the Tender Committee. There is no finding of<br \/>\n     learned Single Judge that the said part of the decision of Tender<br \/>\n     Committee is tainted with malafide or collateral reasons or the<br \/>\n     decision is against the public interest. In absence of such elements<br \/>\n     it was not proper for learned Single Judge to substitute its own<br \/>\n     decision regarding the rate decided by the expert committee. That<br \/>\n     part of the impugned order by which the rate has been modified<br \/>\n     and the concerned authorities are directed to stop payment of part<br \/>\n     of the rate and adjust or realize the amount already paid to the<br \/>\n     appellant is not sound and sustainable.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     16.     We set aside that part of the order of the learned Single<br \/>\n     Judge and allow this appeal.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     17.    However, there is no order as to cost.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>                                                    (Narendra Nath Tiwari,J.)<\/p>\n<p>                                                         (Pradeep Kumar,J.)<br \/>\nShamim\/\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Jharkhand High Court M\/S.Chamundeshwari Corporation vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 3 February, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI L.P.A. No.114 of 2004 M\/s Chamundeshwari Corporation through its Proprietor Premi Arora &#8230;. Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand and Others &#8230;. Respondents CORAM: HON&#8217;BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI HON&#8217;BLE MR. JUSTICE [&hellip;]<\/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":[8,18],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-58818","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jharkhand-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>M\/S.Chamundeshwari Corporation vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 3 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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-chamundeshwari-corporation-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-3-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S.Chamundeshwari Corporation vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 3 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-chamundeshwari-corporation-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-3-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-02-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-09T21:04:10+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=\"7 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-chamundeshwari-corporation-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-3-february-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-chamundeshwari-corporation-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-3-february-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S.Chamundeshwari Corporation vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 3 February, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-09T21:04:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-chamundeshwari-corporation-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-3-february-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1331,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jharkhand High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-chamundeshwari-corporation-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-3-february-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-chamundeshwari-corporation-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-3-february-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-chamundeshwari-corporation-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-3-february-2009\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S.Chamundeshwari Corporation vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 3 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-09T21:04:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-chamundeshwari-corporation-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-3-february-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-chamundeshwari-corporation-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-3-february-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-chamundeshwari-corporation-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-3-february-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S.Chamundeshwari Corporation vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 3 February, 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":"M\/S.Chamundeshwari Corporation vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 3 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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-chamundeshwari-corporation-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-3-february-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S.Chamundeshwari Corporation vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 3 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-chamundeshwari-corporation-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-3-february-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-02-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-09T21:04:10+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-chamundeshwari-corporation-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-3-february-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-chamundeshwari-corporation-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-3-february-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S.Chamundeshwari Corporation vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 3 February, 2009","datePublished":"2009-02-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-09T21:04:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-chamundeshwari-corporation-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-3-february-2009"},"wordCount":1331,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jharkhand High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-chamundeshwari-corporation-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-3-february-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-chamundeshwari-corporation-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-3-february-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-chamundeshwari-corporation-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-3-february-2009","name":"M\/S.Chamundeshwari Corporation vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 3 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-02-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-09T21:04:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-chamundeshwari-corporation-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-3-february-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-chamundeshwari-corporation-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-3-february-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-chamundeshwari-corporation-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-3-february-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S.Chamundeshwari Corporation vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 3 February, 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\/58818","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=58818"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58818\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=58818"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=58818"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=58818"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}