{"id":69620,"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-2010-2"},"modified":"2017-01-03T07:42:12","modified_gmt":"2017-01-03T02:12:12","slug":"ms-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010-2","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 30\" DAY OF NOVEMBER 2010\n\nBEFORE\nTHE HO|\\\u00a3'BLE MRJUSTICE C R KUMARASWAMY \n\nCRIMINAL PETITION NO.4901\/2010\nBETWEEN:\n\n1 M\/S DUO PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.\nA COMPANY REGISTERE UNDER\nCOMPANIES ACT, *   I ' ..  \nHAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE \"AT No.28,  \nULSOOR ROAD, BANGALORE 42  . * \nREP. BY ITS DIRECTORS,  - \"\nMR. T.PHANI MAHESH  j _ ,~ A.\nMR. A.M.SHARATH CHANDRA.  \n\n2 SR1 TVIPHATIAIII-\u00e9aAHEfS'Pe _ \nS\/O SRI T C A'S'%;iWA'RTH..NARAYAN\nAGEO\"ABO,OT 45 TEARS,  \"\nDIRCTOR _  S  '\nM\/S DUO PROPERT_IES_ (P).-~LTD.,\nNO;28,_ULSOQR'ROAD,\nRANGALORE 42\";-I  ..... .. .\n\n \u00bb MR A... M\u00ab..,S.R'ARATH CHANDRA\n\n \"S\/O IA,_C.,ML|Nw1V'ENKATE GOWDA\n~.A'G_E~D A~sjOu\"T~,49 YEARS,\nDIRCTOR I' *\nM\/\"S DUO 'PROPERTIES (P) LTD.,\n NO.28,'tJLSOOR ROAD,\n.. RANGA~LORE 42.  PETITIONERS\n\n,  '(:.3.\\?*T.S'RI...*'ORAvI B. NAIK, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR W8. A K S\n'  __AS'SOCIATES, ADVOCATES)\n\n5\" .I'\n31;'\n\n\n\nE\\)\n\nAND :\n\nMR P. DAYANANDA PAI\nS\/O LATE P NARASIMHA PAI\n\nAGEO ABOUT 64 YEARS,\n\nNO.10\/1, LAKSHMINARAYANA\n\nCOMPLEX, GROUND FLOOR\n\nPALACE ROAD,\n\nBANGALORE 52.  RESPONDENT <\/pre>\n
(BY M\/S. s MAHESH & COMPANY, AOVOCATES)<\/p>\n
CRL.P FILED U\/S.482 OF CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE  T”<\/p>\n
PETITIONERS PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT”‘._M’A_Y. BE<\/p>\n
PLEASED To QUASH THE ENTIRE”\u00bb–.PROCEE,OI*:x:.Gs’-_I,N it
\nC.C.NO.27’O89\/O9 PENDING ON THE FILE ,Qrg=;,Tr~i_E” <\/p>\n
BANGALORE.\n<\/p>\n
THIS CRi…P IS COMING ON FO’P.,ADMIsGION Ti:iz’.s;VOAY, <\/p>\n
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:\n<\/p>\n
 o R Dt.E;s <\/p>\n
This  f_iIedWi;nder Section 482 of
\nCr.P.C. by  the petitioners praying to
\nquash the’entire’uproACeedin’gs’in C.C. No. 27089\/2009 pending
\n the  oi<'i;<v"Agidi.TCi\\\u00e91Oi91A. A Bangalore.<\/p>\n
    learned Counsel for the petitioners<\/p>\n
 as well as learned' Counsei for the respondent.<\/p>\n
   'The primary facts of the case is as under:<\/p>\n
 Mr.P Dayananda Pai has presented a complaint<\/p>\n
 hefovrei: the XV Addi. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.<\/p>\n
ix"\n<\/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,
\nM.G.Road Branch, M.G.Road, Bangalore, for a sum of<\/p>\n
Rs.2,G0,00,000\/~ (Rupees Two Crore Only). The said cheque<\/p>\n
was presented for encashment and the sarnevV.i_:w4as.<\/p>\n
dishonoured on the ground of “insufficient funds”. _ThAe’reafte_r,f-‘.____” _<\/p>\n
legal notice was issued on 29.08i20Q9.,.__ In ,s’pite.I’eriisiegai <\/p>\n
notice, the accused failed to pay the ariti-.oun’_tiand’there’by”<\/p>\n
have alleged to have committed ‘a_n”–Qffenjc’e Vpu,nish’ai3ie\u00ab~.underi<\/p>\n
Sections 138 and 141 of Negotiabie__in*stru.rfnents”Act, 1881.<\/p>\n
4. It is the contentirogn. er }si:i.”ReL\\jzit’g”ee_i\\iaii<, learned<\/p>\n
Senior Coun_sei–  on<b'e*ha!f' of the petitioners that the<\/p>\n
order sheet d"aet_eid has not been signed by the<\/p>\n
Viea'rnedv.\u00bb\u00abi3ddii*. CMii4",'—-V:B_a_nga|ore. He further submits that<\/p>\n
co.gniaa-nice..:_vta}<eVr1'\u00bb__by the learned Magistrate is without<\/p>\n
 vappitication  The cheque has not been presented<\/p>\n
 within  monthxs from the date of handing over of the cheque<\/p>\n
vtottthe ciompvitainant. The attention of this Court was invited to<\/p>\n
 _Se-=:ticgnt'1"A38(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act.<\/p>\n
Vex<\/p>\n
4<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
5. Learned Counsel for the respondent relies on the<\/p>\n
ruling in the case of Surendra Singh and Others Vs State of
\nUttar Pradesh reported in AIR 1954 SC 194, wherein at
\npara 14 of the said ruling reads as under:<\/p>\n
“:4. As soon as the judgment is delivered}ft’-\u00ab.V.”‘.<\/p>\n
that becomes the operative pronouncement of3V_th’e” -1- <\/p>\n
Court. The law then provides for the m_a.nn_er.Vyihri-Ii’ ._
\nwhich it is to be authenticated andtnade-\u00ab.ce;i’t.ai’ii4._ <\/p>\n
The rules regarding this differ 1but7..’th’ey not,  <\/p>\n
form the essence of the nnatter and if’ tlie’reoi._’is.._VV
\nirregularity in carrying therh”‘~V..out_Vit
\nThus, if a judgment tia’i3.pensi’n’otht_j:oVVbe._’signed”a’nd
\nis inadvertently acted  the<\/p>\n
proceedings:iivf,;on:\u00a7Vet;ii:en.t’ on’._””it”Vwou|d be valid
\nbecause the  be shown to have
\nbeen vaiid_ity_de’!iv’eredi\u00a3’;v4oVnld stand good despite
\ndefjctpts. in  the’ irnode of its subsequent<\/p>\n
\ufb01”~ . . . . .\n<\/p>\n
‘  authentication.\n<\/p>\n
 ‘Vi-‘l.e ai’sVo”–\u00ab.reli.esf”on another ruling in the case of Ashok<\/p>\n
 ‘Yeshwa’rit v\u00e9iadahve Vs Surendra Madhavrao Nighojakar<\/p>\n
 a.r3=o4the’r’Jreported in (2001) 3 scc 726, in Head Notes<\/p>\n
 A..ian’\u00a2–:a,”i’t is held that:\n<\/p>\n
“A. Six months’ period ‘has to be<\/p>\n
calculated for purpose of proviso (a) from the<\/p>\n
.\u00a7 <\/p>\n
\u00abV-”\n<\/p>\n
date mentioned on the face of cheque and not<\/p>\n
from any eariier date when drawer actuatty gave <\/p>\n
cheque to drawee — High Court rightly dismisse_d\ufb01”-.ii’~<\/p>\n
appeHant–drawer’s appeai against issue of pro_ce’ss–.’,j_~–._._i 5 .;. \u00e9 <\/p>\n
against him – Words and Phrases –~ “post__\u00bbdajtevdV’_i.’V. %<\/p>\n
cheque”.\n<\/p>\n
8. Post dated cheque, remains a_b’i;il:’of”<\/p>\n
exchange tiil the date writte-n’L:”o.n the face,  <\/p>\n
on that date it becomes a chAequ:’e._ <\/p>\n
And it is fu rther  <\/p>\n
“For p’ro’s~e:cutin1g a ~~pe’rso’nCf’~fo.F_._.fan offence
\nunder Section. V1″38′..__of “the “~i\\EVe’g\u00a5_o’ti_a brie Instruments<\/p>\n
Act itVp,is…i.nAe”iszi_taii-\ufb01e that  is presented to
\nthe t}anl<__e_rx  ofjsix months from the
\ndate onuwh%iVch or within the period of
\nits vatidityswhicheV~er*..i's eariier. When a post<\/p>\n
datijed ic:heque"i-spyvritten or drawn, it is only a bill<\/p>\n
'A \u00abofiiiexchfanijez and so tong the sameuremains a bilt<\/p>\n
  "of 'Vexch-an"g;%e,_the provisions of Section 138 are not<\/p>\n
.'app\u00ab|icabIe'i_to* the said instrument. The post dated<\/p>\n
chueque becomes a cheque within the meaning of<\/p>\n
 nSection: 138 of the Act on the date which is<\/p>\n
 'written thereon and the 6 months' period has to<\/p>\n
Vfbe reckoned for the purposes of proviso (a) to
\nSection 138 of the Act from the said date."<\/p>\n
Q?\/,<\/p>\n
6<\/span><\/p>\n
6. The learned counsel for respondent relies on<\/p>\n
Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act -\u00bb- Presumptions<\/p>\n
as to negotiable instruments sub clause (b) reads as,,i.ind\u00bbeir’;s.4f  3<\/p>\n
(b) as to date ~ that every negot’i~a:bl’e’_i.’~.xi”, <\/p>\n
instrument bearing a date was made-or dyrawnjon it  <\/p>\n
such date.”\n<\/p>\n
7. It is the contention of’t’h.e”learned.V_S’en’aior.Counsel
\nthat since the ordersheet date_d  notsigned, the<\/p>\n
proceedings has to be quashed’)   <\/p>\n
8. Section follows:\n<\/p>\n
,,.’.’4.6S}’*F_i”nda1n_g_  siente-.nc,e,~\u00a7’when reversible<\/p>\n
by reasonof’e’rro_r,eomis’s.i.on or irregularity.<\/p>\n
 provisions hereinbefore<\/p>\n
 corhjtained, wn”o..,_Vfiln’ding, sentence or order passed\n<\/p>\n
–  ;’aa.,”iCoi;irt ofcornpetent jurisdiction shall be
\n‘_   “altered by a Court of appeal,
\n revision on account of any error,
\nolmission-.\u00ab-“”or irregularity in the complaint,<\/p>\n
 AA sumimoihs, warrant, proclamation, order,
\n .,j:udjgment or other proceedings before or during
\nAttrial or in any inquiry or other proceedings under
\n“this Code, or any error, or irregularity in any<\/p>\n
sanction for the prosecution, unless in the opinion<\/p>\n
M if<\/p>\n
7<\/span>
\nof that Court, a failure ofjustice has in fact been<\/p>\n
occasioned thereby.\n<\/p>\n
(2) In determining whether any error,
\nomission or irregularity in any proceeding under
\nthis Code, or any error, or irregularity in any <\/p>\n
sanction for the prosecution has occasioned <\/p>\n
failure of justice, the Court shall have regar.dV_:\u00e9.to”5.””‘—dd ‘V’ <\/p>\n
the fact whether the objection could and ._
\nhave been raised at an earlierWVs”ta~g_e’\u00ab\u00ab._in’ <\/p>\n
groceedings.”\n<\/p>\n
In the case of K M Mathew  ‘KA Ab,r&3,han’3 <\/p>\n
Others in cr\/.A.\/vo. 701\/1998,  gso\u00e9nka” ti’\/s ,r>a;lam<\/p>\n
Sambhav ; Ja:’n ,a’r;ic_:’_.Anoti\u00e9er..___in_ cr\/.A.No.849\/2002, Han’
\nNarafn Nigam\u00e9l . Bihar and Others in<\/p>\n
Cr\/.A.No._\u00a7848,\/2002–reported in (2002) 5 scc 570 at para<\/p>\n
2’1_reads_as_ttn,d-eVr:~.,<\/p>\n
A A  a grave illegality is committed,<\/p>\n
the su.__;)erio’rA courts should not interfere. They
\n shou1’d,Vrallow the Court which is seized of the
\n Arriatter to go on with it. There is always an
\n‘appellate Court to correct the errors. One should<\/p>\n
 ‘V —–E:<eep in mind the principle behind Section 465<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C. Any and every irregularity or infraction<\/p>\n
3, ,:\n<\/p>\n
3,; )
\nt..,,.\u00ab’<\/p>\n
8<\/span><\/p>\n
of a procedurai provision cannot constitute a
\nground for interference by a superior Court<\/p>\n
unless such irreguiarity or infraction has caused
\nirreparable prejudice to the party and requires to<\/p>\n
be correct at that stage tends to defeat the ends<\/p>\n
of justice instead of serving those ends.
\nshould not be that a man with enough mean_s;’_”i’sif-f.,’~v–.’..f’ \u00bb if
\nable to keep the law at bay. That wouIdWm”ean~ C<\/p>\n
the failure of the very system.”\n<\/p>\n
10. In the decision of Mohamed’~Haya;f.’n,,!’97tJffaV’ii\/S”V”g<\/p>\n
Emperor reported in AIR 1930 _’Vf’V<"c."ii7'_L',ir<_3onV"}'..7':_,"'thez:i;lon'ble
\nHigh Court of Rangoon heid  i  C V
\n.\u00bb(A) Criminal  M.\n<\/p>\n
Omission_  before passing
\nsentence’ishouldi’j_jn.ot\u00ab.._:v-i\u00bbti’a~te trial unless it
\noccasionsi–failure-__of._jLis~tice ~\u00bb Criminal P.C.,
\ns.5;\u00a53:7.  ”  if
\n  it iswdesirable that Magistrates
\n   express provisions of the iaw,<\/p>\n
 to write a judgment before<\/p>\n
prohou-nci’ri’g a sentence should not necessarily<\/p>\n
 vitiate’=-the trial, unless such omission has in<\/p>\n
fa_ct:.’occasioned a failure ofjustice: 14 All. 242
\nand 27 Mad. 237, not F-“o|l.; 23 cai.5o2, Rei.on.<\/p>\n
ix”\n<\/p>\n
(B) Criminal P.C., S 367 –~ Omission to
\nsign judgment is mere irregularity curable by
\nCriminal P.C., S.537.\n<\/p>\n
Where a Magistrate prepares a judgme_n;’t”‘~ C’
\nbut does not sign it, such omission to sign’_ti1e  C<\/p>\n
judgment amounts to a me:re””ri–r.rgeg\u00e9,:|arity7[ <\/p>\n
I!<\/p>\n
OH.\n<\/p>\n
11- Applying the .lsri,T’cipllres~uiI’i*iin'”down above
\nmentioned ruling, in my order sheet has
\nnot been signed,.~:i;t *1-is  under the
\nprocedural lawf.” V__ii{‘ip’i|A;jl’,\/:\u00bbr*.o_t”cause in failure of
\njustice.  ‘hast-‘not been raised by the
\naccused inlithe   first time, in this Court this<\/p>\n
objection hasxibeern Vra_isAed”.’Af?herefore, the contention of the<\/p>\n
:_.-“i’ea_rned_j’3\u00a5Sen’ior’ Cou”r’isel.__.that the order sheet has not been<\/p>\n
isi-g’ned” a.ndv..tl”sieVr=e:fore, the proceedings have to be quashed has<\/p>\n
  no force\u00e9and tvhesame cannot be accepted.<\/p>\n
 .. ;1_2..’=-~The next contention urged by learned Senior<\/p>\n
4’_’CouVr\u00a7seil”\u00abis that cognizance taken by learned magistrate is<\/p>\n
 .:’_’wit.hout application of mind and therefore it is bad in law.<\/p>\n
\u20ac13:\n<\/p>\n
curable by 5.537: A.I.R. 1925’Ali;\u00a7f299,iir\u00bb.Retall  <\/p>\n
ll)\n<\/p>\n
13. In this regard, the impugned order reads as<\/p>\n
unden<\/p>\n
“Heard the learned Counsel for the
\ncomplainant. Perused the original complaint and<\/p>\n
documents produced alongwith the complaint and <\/p>\n
the sworn statement of the complainant. On <\/p>\n
basis of the material available on record.  ~’-~ <\/p>\n
satisfied that the complainant has made….odr.Vv’a.l.::’ _<\/p>\n
primafacie case for an offence pu”nish’ab.Ieau\/.5  <\/p>\n
of the N I Act, Hence, I proc\u00e9edhto: pa’ss:%”the,. ” <\/p>\n
following: _
\noRoeg A _ :\n<\/p>\n
Register a criminal_ case”a’gvaainV\u00a7t’~t,he atltvciis\u00e9vd
\nin Register No.III for4″an”oi7fe}icetlipa\ufb01nigsralable u\/s<\/p>\n
138 oftlheiflegotnifalblejTnstrumvelnvts Act, 1881, and
\nissue:”‘sum_m’cns’:V:to:%gti1e’i’ra:c’cpsed by RPAD for the
\naforesaid, offen<:eK: .and postage paid.
\nReturnat\ufb02exby.t8\/12fO9."\n<\/p>\n
   “careful perusal of impugned order, it is clear<\/p>\n
that~-the’ ll\u00e9giatg\u00e9istrate has perused the original complaint<\/p>\n
hand doclumentsl\ufb02Eproduced alongwith the complaint and also<\/p>\n
 Istatement and on the basis of the materials available<\/p>\n
 on ‘recs-rd”, he was satisfied that there was prima facie case<\/p>\n
 .:agVa.in–st the petitioner–accused. The learned Magistrate has<\/p>\n
pr<\/p>\n
focused his attention to the averment made in the complaint.<\/p>\n
Therefore, it is difficult to say that the learned Magistrate___has<\/p>\n
not applied his mind. Therefore, the contention raised.ji3$fj\u00ab\u00abt_hveV<\/p>\n
learned Senior Counsel that the cognizance taken:-.is’<\/p>\n
law has no force.\n<\/p>\n
15. The last contention urged byhlthe |ea.r’l.:e(:l “Se’riio~r’VF,<\/p>\n
Counsel for petitioner is that   not “been
\npresented within 6 monthsifrom the’Vdiate.,’Vo’f_handinigover the
\ncheque to the complainant.__aiisof:inrv~itedI’V_’a_ttention of this<\/p>\n
Court to Section  of*.l\\lego’tia’bl:e’ I-nstrurnent Act.<\/p>\n
16. {VInlVtAhi’s.7rega.rd,_lea’_rned Counsel for the respondent
\nhas relied on the  case of Ashok Yeshwant<\/p>\n
Badave’v’s_.Suurehd’ra”‘ rnadhavrao Nighojakar reported in<\/p>\n
  wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has<\/p>\n
hell\u00e9i;    if<\/p>\n
ll,.”:’Si>\u00ab<f'V'months' period has to be calculated for<\/p>\n
 Ag purposes of proviso (a) from the date mentioned
\n ,orij_\u00abthe face of cheque and not from any earlier
\n date when drawer actually gave cheque to<\/p>\n
' drawee."\n<\/p>\n
Further, Section 118(b) of the Negotiable Instruments<\/p>\n
Act as to date — that every negotiabie instrument bearijrigga<\/p>\n
date was made or drawn on such date. Six monthsg.has <\/p>\n
calculated from the date mentioned in the chequ.e_.”:”Tiheirefore; <\/p>\n
it is difficult to accept the contentionlhioithey ‘i’ear’n.e:(:j:j’.SgVn’ioVr’ <\/p>\n
Counsel that the cheque has not beenp–resente’d.:’withiiiia.it<\/p>\n
period of six months from the date”‘on”iwhich’it.Vis”‘dir-iavrin. <\/p>\n
17. There is no  can be applied
\nto quash the proce\u00e9d.in9s;i”‘Ea\u00e9’ti  \u00a2a$AeVg’1Ariagfthl\u00e9rerore to be
\nconsidered on   decision has to
\nbe taken  ::the_  not. The learned
\nMagistrateujas  to the averments made<\/p>\n
in the comp’lainit.g cognizance of the offence.<\/p>\n
V4.Ay_ermerit vvmade in\u00bbthe___.compiaint constitutes the offence<\/p>\n
‘a’l.|_1evge’d~.__ AA_ppiiyi.A:n’g___the principle iaici down in the decisions<\/p>\n
 V cite’d’*su*praWi;e”:\u00e9.. SCC 726 and also not signing of the<\/p>\n
 order shlleethbeirig an curable irregularity, I am of the opinion<\/p>\n
 that it’is_not rarest of rare case where this Court can exercise<\/p>\n
 _’i~n’–her\u00a7entApower to quash the proceedings.<\/p>\n
18. In that view of the matter, I pass the foiiowing:<\/p>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
This Criminal Petition is dismissed.<\/p>\n
*bgn\/..<\/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 30″ DAY OF NOVEMBER 2010 BEFORE THE HO|\\\u00a3’BLE MRJUSTICE C R KUMARASWAMY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4901\/2010 BETWEEN: 1 M\/S DUO PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. A COMPANY REGISTERE UNDER […]<\/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-69620","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-2010-2\" \/>\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-2010-2\" \/>\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=\"2017-01-03T02:12:12+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=\"11 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-2010-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010-2\"},\"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\":\"2017-01-03T02:12:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010-2\"},\"wordCount\":2199,\"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-2010-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010-2\",\"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\":\"2017-01-03T02:12:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010-2#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-2010-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010-2#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-2010-2","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-2010-2","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":"2017-01-03T02:12:12+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":"11 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-2010-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010-2"},"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":"2017-01-03T02:12:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010-2"},"wordCount":2199,"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-2010-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010-2","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":"2017-01-03T02:12:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010-2#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-2010-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-duo-properties-pvt-ltd-vs-mr-p-dayananda-pai-on-30-november-2010-2#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\/69620","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=69620"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69620\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69620"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=69620"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=69620"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}