{"id":67205,"date":"2011-08-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-08-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-engineering-ltd-vs-united-estate-builders-pvt-ltd-on-25-august-2011"},"modified":"2018-06-10T15:44:17","modified_gmt":"2018-06-10T10:14:17","slug":"patel-engineering-ltd-vs-united-estate-builders-pvt-ltd-on-25-august-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-engineering-ltd-vs-united-estate-builders-pvt-ltd-on-25-august-2011","title":{"rendered":"Patel Engineering Ltd vs United Estate & Builders Pvt. Ltd on 25 August, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Patel Engineering Ltd vs United Estate & Builders Pvt. Ltd on 25 August, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: R. S. Dalvi<\/div>\n
                                       (1)                               AO 589\/11\n\n             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                                                                               \nAmk\n                    APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 589 OF 2011\n                                  WITH\n\n\n\n\n                                                       \n                    CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 811 OF 2011\n\n      Patel Engineering Ltd.                           ..      Appellant\n                   Vs.\n\n\n\n\n                                                      \n      United Estate & Builders Pvt. Ltd.               ..      Respondent\n\n      Mr. Ashish Kamat i\/b Hariyani & Co. for the Appellant.\n      Ms. Alpana Ghone i\/b M\/s. I. R. Joshi & Co. for the\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n      Respondent.\n                           ig CORAM          :   MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J.\n\n      Date of reserving the Order                 :   17th August, 2011.\n                         \n      Date of pronouncing the Order               :   25th August, 2011.\n\n      JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      1.           The Appellant has filed this Appeal from the<\/p>\n
      Order challenging the order allowing restoration of<\/p>\n
      the Respondent’s Suit earlier dismissed for default.
\n      The Respondent has claimed that the Appeal from Order
\n      is not maintainable as it is not an appealable order.\n<\/p>\n
      The Appellant claims that it is appealable under Order
\n      43 Rule 1(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure.                      Order 43
\n      Rule 1 (d) relates to an order under Order 9 Rule 13<\/p>\n
      of the Code of Civil Procedure.                   Order 9 Rule 13
\n      relates to setting aside a decree ex parte against the
\n      Defendant.     The order impugned is not a decree passed
\n      ex   parte    against   the     Defendant.         It     is     an     order
\n      rejecting an order of restoration of the Suit.                                  A
\n      decree under Section 2(2) is a formal expression of
\n      adjudication which conclusively determines the rights<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:40:19 :::<\/span>
\n                                           (2)                                  AO 589\/11<\/p>\n
of    the    parties         with    regard         to    all    or     any      of     the
\nmatters      in        controversy         in       the    Suit.            An      order<\/p>\n
rejecting an            application         allowing restoration of                         a<\/p>\n
Suit would, rather than determine the rights of the
\nparties for any matters in controversy, restore for
\ndetermination            all       of     them       which        remain         to       be<\/p>\n
adjudicated.           Consequently the order is not appealable
\nas    claimed      by     the       Appellant.             The    Appeal         is     not
\nmaintainable.            It deserves to be dismissed on that<\/p>\n
score alone as argued by Ms. Ghone on behalf of the
\nRespondent.\n<\/p>\n
2.            Nevertheless the facts of the case have been<\/p>\n
stated to the Court and it can be seen that this
\nAppeal even on merits is not worth admission.\n<\/p>\n
3.            The Respondent filed a Suit on 10.06.2002 in<\/p>\n
the Bombay City Civil Court.                             The Suit came to be
\ndismissed on 23.02.2005 for want of prosecution by
\ndefault      in    appearance.                  I   am    told    that       both       the<\/p>\n
parties      did       not     appear       on      the    day       the     Suit       was
\ndismissed.         The Respondent took out a Notice of Motion
\nfive years thereafter in March, 2010 for restoration
\nof the Suit.             A notice was given to the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
The    Notice      of    Motion         initially         reached          hearing        on
\n09.04.2010.             It    was       adjourned         to    26.04.2010.               On
\n26.04.2010 the board was discharged and the matter was
\nshown       adjourned         to     02.07.2010.                It    came        to      be
\nadjourned         to    25.06.2010          when         the     application            for
\nrestoration was allowed but with costs of Rs.5000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:40:19 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                    (3)                          AO 589\/11<\/p>\n
    The Suit was restored to file to be heard on merits.\n<\/p>\n
    4.          The   Appellant    claims   that     there         is      no<\/p>\n
    justification in restoring the Suit.        Sufficient cause
\n    for the delay in taking out the application for five
\n    years is not shown.     The Appellant also claims that it<\/p>\n
    has acted on the orders of dismissal.          How it is acted
\n    is not stated.\n<\/p>\n
    5.          The Appellant took out its own application
\n    for setting aside the ex parte order restoring the<\/p>\n
    Suit.     That application came to be rejected.            The Suit
\n    has remained restored.        It has remained to be heard on<\/p>\n
    merits.    The Appellant resists the Suit being heard on
\n    merits.\n<\/p>\n
    6.          The relevant provisions of the Code of Civil<\/p>\n
    Procedure for appearance of parties and consequences
\n    of non appearance are required to be first noted.
\n    These are Rules 3, 4, 8 and 14 of Order 9 which run<\/p>\n
    thus :\n<\/p>\n
         3.   Where neither party appears, suit to be
\n         dismissed.- Where neither party appears when the
\n         suit is called on for hearing, the Court may make
\n         an order that the suit be dismissed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         4.   Plaintiff may bring fresh suit or Court may
\n         restore suit to file.- Where a suit is dismissed
\n         under rule 2 or rule 3, the plaintiff may
\n         (subject to the law of limitation) bring a fresh
\n         suit; or he may apply for an order to set the
\n         dismissal aside, and if he satisfies the Court
\n         that there was sufficient cause for [such failure
\n         as is referred to in rule 2], or for his non-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         appearance, as the case may be, the Court shall<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:40:19 :::<\/span>
\n                          (4)                      AO 589\/11<\/p>\n
     make an order setting aside the dismissal and
\n     shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit.\n<\/p>\n
     8.   Procedure where defendant only appears. –
\n     Where the defendant appears and the plaintiff<\/p>\n
     does not appear when the suit is called on for
\n     hearing, the Court shall make an order that the
\n     suit be dismissed, unless the defendant admits
\n     the claim, or part thereof, in which case the<\/p>\n
     Court shall pass a decree against the defendant
\n     upon such admission, and, where part only of the
\n     claim has been admitted, shall dismiss the suit
\n     so far as it relates to the remainder.\n<\/p>\n
     9.   Decree against plaintiff by default bars
\n     fresh suit.- (1) Where a suit is wholly or partly<\/p>\n
     dismissed under rule 8, the plaintiff shall be
\n     precluded from bringing a fresh suit in respect
\n     of the same cause of action.     But he may apply<\/p>\n
     for an order to set the dismissal aside, and if
\n     he satisfies the Court that there was sufficient
\n     cause for his non-appearance when the suit was
\n     called on for hearing, the Court shall make an
\n     order setting aside the dismissal upon such terms<\/p>\n
     as to costs or otherwise as it thinks fit, and
\n     shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit.\n<\/p>\n
     (2) No order shall be made under this rule
\n     unless notice of the application has been served
\n     on the opposite party.\n<\/p>\n
     14. No decree to be set aside without notice to
\n     opposite party.- No decree shall be set aside on
\n     any such application as aforesaid unless notice
\n     thereof has been served on the opposite party.\n<\/p>\n
                        (emphasis supplied by italics)<\/p>\n
7.       A reading of these provisions show that when
\nthe Suit is dismissed when both the parties fail to
\nappear it may be restored upon the satisfaction of the
\nCourt for the reason of non appearance and application
\nfor restoration would be filed by the Plaintiff alone.
\nThe Court has to be satisfied of the non appearance.\n<\/p>\n
                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:40:19 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                     (5)                                 AO 589\/11\n\n    The matter is between the Plaintiff and the Court.                             If\n<\/pre>\n
    the Defendant has also not appeared when the Suit was<\/p>\n
    dismissed there is no provision for even notifying the<\/p>\n
    Defendant of the application for restoration of the
\n    Suit. [See. Ramjilal Vs. Kesheo Ram & Anr. 64 IC 767=
\n    AIR 1923 Oudh 55]<\/p>\n
    8.         However when the Defendant appears and the
\n    Plaintiff does not appear and the Suit is dismissed<\/p>\n
    and the application for restoration is made, notice
\n    has to be given to the Defendant of the application<\/p>\n
    for restoration because the Defendant had appeared and
\n    had knowledge of the dismissal of the Suit.\n<\/p>\n
    9.         Similarly when the Plaintiff appears and the
\n    Suit is decreed ex parte and that decree has to be set<\/p>\n
    aside by the Defendant notice has to be given to the<\/p>\n
    Plaintiff because the Plaintiff had appeared and had
\n    knowledge of the decree.\n<\/p>\n
    10.        This    is   the    case    when    neither          party        had
\n    appeared when the Suit was dismissed.                    It could have
\n    been   simplicitor      restored      to   file     to     be     heard        on
\n    merits.    Of course the Court would give fresh notice<\/p>\n
    to the Defendant for being heard on merits if the
\n    Defendant does not appear after the Suit is restored
\n    to file.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n    11.        It     may   be    mentioned       that       despite         these\n    provisions      which   are   specific      with       regard        to      the\n\n\n\n\n                                                      ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:40:19 :::<\/span>\n                                            (6)                              AO 589\/11\n\n<\/pre>\n
notice to the opposite party by way of practice and
\nfor the sake of interest of justice parties are called<\/p>\n
upon to serve every application taken out by them to<\/p>\n
the opposite party.               Consequently the Notice of Motion
\ntaken out by the Respondent for restoration of their
\nSuit was served upon the Appellant and the Appellant<\/p>\n
was    to     be    heard       though       that    was    not    a     mandatory
\nrequirement under the Code of Civil Procedure.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                                    \n12.           It     is    correct         that     the    Notice      of     Motion\nserved        upon        the     Appellant\n                                      ig             was     adjourned            from\n<\/pre>\n
26.04.2010 to 02.07.2010.                        It was indeed heard and
\ndisposed of before that date and hence the Appellant<\/p>\n
herein was not heard.                   The Appellant has not applied
\nfor being heard on merits of that application.                                      The
\nAppellant simplicitor sought to get that order set<\/p>\n
aside.        Even in this Appeal the Appellant has not<\/p>\n
offered for being heard on merits of the application
\nfor    restoration              of    the        Suit.           The     Appellant
\nsimplicitor claims that the Appeal be allowed and the<\/p>\n
order of restoration be set aside so that the Suit
\nremains dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
13.           How     the       order      of    restoration        came       to     be<\/p>\n
passed is, therefore, required to be noted.                                   It was
\nupon     an        application        which         was    served       upon        the
\nAppellant.           The     order      was       passed    upon       payment        of
\ncosts.        All     that      the     order       did    was    to    allow       the
\nparties       to    be     heard      on     merits.        It    is     the      most
\nequitable order of the kind.                         If the delay of five<\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:40:19 :::<\/span>
\n                                      (7)                              AO 589\/11<\/p>\n
    years resulted in the Appellant acting upon the order
\n    of dismissal to alter the position of the parties that<\/p>\n
    would be seen when the case of the parties is heard on<\/p>\n
    merits.    Though that is the contention, it has not
\n    been   shown     how   the    Appellant    acted     upon       the      said
\n    order.    Setting aside the order of restoration without<\/p>\n
    the Appellant showing how it has acted upon the order
\n    of dismissal is most inequitable and even improper.
\n    The vehemence of the Appellant not to proceed on the<\/p>\n
    merits of the case, speaks much of such inequity.
\n    Consequently       the  ig   rejection     of    the        Appellant’s
\n    application resisting the restoration of the Suit for
\n    it to be heard on merits is just and equitable.                              It<\/p>\n
    does not deserve to be interfered with even if the
\n    Appeal was maintainable.               The Appeal is, therefore,
\n    dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
    14.        The     Civil       Application      is      disposed             of
\n    accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
                                               (ROSHAN DALVI, J.)<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:40:19 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Patel Engineering Ltd vs United Estate & Builders Pvt. Ltd on 25 August, 2011 Bench: R. S. Dalvi (1) AO 589\/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Amk APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 589 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 811 OF 2011 Patel Engineering Ltd. .. Appellant […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-67205","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPatel Engineering Ltd vs United Estate & Builders Pvt. Ltd on 25 August, 2011 - 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\/patel-engineering-ltd-vs-united-estate-builders-pvt-ltd-on-25-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Patel Engineering Ltd vs United Estate & Builders Pvt. Ltd on 25 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-engineering-ltd-vs-united-estate-builders-pvt-ltd-on-25-august-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-08-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-10T10:14:17+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-engineering-ltd-vs-united-estate-builders-pvt-ltd-on-25-august-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-engineering-ltd-vs-united-estate-builders-pvt-ltd-on-25-august-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Patel Engineering Ltd vs United Estate & Builders Pvt. Ltd on 25 August, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-10T10:14:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-engineering-ltd-vs-united-estate-builders-pvt-ltd-on-25-august-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1534,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-engineering-ltd-vs-united-estate-builders-pvt-ltd-on-25-august-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-engineering-ltd-vs-united-estate-builders-pvt-ltd-on-25-august-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-engineering-ltd-vs-united-estate-builders-pvt-ltd-on-25-august-2011\",\"name\":\"Patel Engineering Ltd vs United Estate & Builders Pvt. Ltd on 25 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-10T10:14:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-engineering-ltd-vs-united-estate-builders-pvt-ltd-on-25-august-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-engineering-ltd-vs-united-estate-builders-pvt-ltd-on-25-august-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-engineering-ltd-vs-united-estate-builders-pvt-ltd-on-25-august-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Patel Engineering Ltd vs United Estate & Builders Pvt. Ltd on 25 August, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Patel Engineering Ltd vs United Estate & Builders Pvt. Ltd on 25 August, 2011 - 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\/patel-engineering-ltd-vs-united-estate-builders-pvt-ltd-on-25-august-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Patel Engineering Ltd vs United Estate & Builders Pvt. Ltd on 25 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-engineering-ltd-vs-united-estate-builders-pvt-ltd-on-25-august-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-08-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-10T10:14:17+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-engineering-ltd-vs-united-estate-builders-pvt-ltd-on-25-august-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-engineering-ltd-vs-united-estate-builders-pvt-ltd-on-25-august-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Patel Engineering Ltd vs United Estate & Builders Pvt. Ltd on 25 August, 2011","datePublished":"2011-08-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-10T10:14:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-engineering-ltd-vs-united-estate-builders-pvt-ltd-on-25-august-2011"},"wordCount":1534,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-engineering-ltd-vs-united-estate-builders-pvt-ltd-on-25-august-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-engineering-ltd-vs-united-estate-builders-pvt-ltd-on-25-august-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-engineering-ltd-vs-united-estate-builders-pvt-ltd-on-25-august-2011","name":"Patel Engineering Ltd vs United Estate & Builders Pvt. Ltd on 25 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-08-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-10T10:14:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-engineering-ltd-vs-united-estate-builders-pvt-ltd-on-25-august-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-engineering-ltd-vs-united-estate-builders-pvt-ltd-on-25-august-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-engineering-ltd-vs-united-estate-builders-pvt-ltd-on-25-august-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Patel Engineering Ltd vs United Estate & Builders Pvt. Ltd on 25 August, 2011"}]},{"@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\/67205","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=67205"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67205\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=67205"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=67205"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=67205"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}