{"id":7074,"date":"2010-02-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-tinplate-company-of-india-vs-banu-steel-industry-on-23-february-2010"},"modified":"2015-08-27T13:30:22","modified_gmt":"2015-08-27T08:00:22","slug":"the-tinplate-company-of-india-vs-banu-steel-industry-on-23-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-tinplate-company-of-india-vs-banu-steel-industry-on-23-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"The Tinplate Company Of India … vs Banu Steel Industry on 23 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
The Tinplate Company Of India … vs Banu Steel Industry on 23 February, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Aravind Kumar<\/div>\n
\u00ae\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. BAN\n\nDATED THIS THE 231*\u00bb DAY or FEBRUA\u00a7\u00a7':,V:'2h\u20aca\u00a7iV(}-. R\n\nBEFORE\n\nTHE HoN*BLE MR. JUs'rICE\"ARAV:ND  \n\nwe\n\nCIVIL REVISION PE'II3'IOaN.1\\:\u00a5C)z. 35 eFj 20:  \"  A\n\nBETWEEN :\n\nI.\n\nhaving its registere'ri_Vbffice__a:t,  \nNo.4. Bankshall S-treet; .4  \nKoikata       \n\nThe Tirlplate Com\ufb01ahy bf\n\nThe _  DVf\"Ir1d \ufb01aVvLimited,\n\nhay:-ing.Ait's. br\u00e9tn.eh\"--Qffi.ce at\" V  \"\nN O_ . F'--8,_ Nix.\u00bb 10; * .I?aiaee___R0ad,\n13th Main, Va$a.nthna,ga__r,\nBangalore --~5e\u00bbo'r052.'er \"\n\nBoth Pefitiorier  and 2 are\n\n 'Rep_r:esented\"herein by its\n\n\u00ab _ _ \"C01i2pa_riy._ Secretary.\n'  j' }\\.![r';v-.Sudd1.1afr3rata Kar.\n\n'E-Byv--..Sri;  P. Kumar, Sr. Counsel for\n\n\" s. King and Partridge, Adv.)\n\nBanu Steel Industry.\nN 0. 139-A, Metagalli Industriai Area,\nMysore, represented herein by its\n\n.. Petitioners\n\n\n\n6. The matter came to be subsequently adjourned to\n\n18-3-2004. There afterwards the suit in \n\nreferred to supra came to be adjourned \n\narguments on 5-41-2004, 28;i\"5:2004_l,\"<._ a'ndT~.._ \n\n28-6~2004. Thereaftervvards the   \nto 8-752004. On the said  set\ndown for further argu1r1en;'tsi:_ engaged\nanother counsel and  along with an\napplication undeidi  -..Procedure Code to set\naside the  placing the\ndefendanltdsdldly   on 6~--9--200-4\ndefendants tiled tmV(o.'.lir1wtle'r1.ocstory applications under Section\n\n15}. CFC, fordstayyol' sltliitlvand under order 7 Rule I1[d) of\n\n'Civil V-Procpedulre c\u00a2derri'for rejection of the plaint as being\n\nb'arred'lirriit:atioj.n respectively which came to be numbered\n\n-- it   as  The application \ufb01led under Order 9 Rule\n\n  Civil Procedure Code came to be allowed on l~l2-2004 and\n\n  matter was posted for hearing on I.A.No.7 and it was\n\nV.  --.ad}0'umed to 184-2005. Thereafterwards from time to time\n\n$f,,\/\n\n \n\n\n\nCode or under Order 7 rule 1 1 and or \ufb01ling objections to the\n\nP.i\\\/Iisc. would not amount to petitioner waivingright\n\ninasmuch as it is a mandatory obligation cast._:onf_ith'e'iCo.urt\u00ab.,,_._\n\nto exercise its power under Section'8'of".th-'e; A_ic't.uand_refeI"~.. "C\n\nthe parties to arbitration. He wou--.ld7aiso  \nthere is any delay in filing   defeat\nthe mandatory provisio:n\u00bb.._of Age  draw the\nattention of this Court   in the revision\npetition to    Court below was\ninclined to   filed under Section 8 of\nthe Act  _ and it is contrary to the\nprovisionsof'  Act. He would submit that\n\nimmediately (Sn,  suit "being registered, the application\n\n uVr"id.er" came to be filed and any statement made in\n\nproceedings cannot be taken note of while\n\n deciding o'r'adjudicating the application under Section 8 of\n\nAct.  support of his submission he would draw the\n\n of this Court to the judgment in the case of\n\nC Dkashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited and another Vs Verma\n\n \n\n\n\n12\n\nby the revision petitioners and there was no whisperp about\n\nthe Arbitration clause invoked by the revisionfpetitioners\n\nand she draws attention of the Court to \n\nobjection statement to contend  the\n\nrevision petitioners is to be constriiedlas thel..i\ufb011{st lstateurnent\nmade which is referable to Section 8 andshe' contends that\ndefendants have acceptied\ufb01  thernselves to the\n\njurisdiction of the Civil     \n\n10. She' wotiid';'--a1so_V--co;1tend5that after the ciismissai of\nthe  retspiondentvhad filed revision petition\nin CRP  also not contested by the\n\npresent revision\u00bb pet-i_ticner..-7 When the said revision petition\n\n..~   allowed b},r..this Court by order dated 19-1 l~200l\n\n 'r.eview"vpetition..was \ufb01led in RP 7212\/2004 to recall the\n\n  eai'lier"lordeiefdated 19--l1-200l whereunder the plaintiffs\n\nwere perriiitted to continue the suit in the capacity of in\n\n .__I'ori1:;al"'1oat1peris. Even in the said review petition she\n\n ..__contends that revision petitioners herein had dwelt upon the\n\n  __4lli'i1erits of the case and thus the revision petitioners are to be\n\n -\n<\/pre>\n
14<\/span><\/p>\n
their first statement by fiiing objections to P.Mis(: and
\ntraversing on merits of the case, they have given up their<\/p>\n
right to seek for arbitration. She would submit  the<\/p>\n
objection \ufb01led to P.Misc particularly <\/p>\n
the revision petitioners have delved upon tt’iie…r:I1.eriits’–oI” the <\/p>\n
case and there is no mention about.:the’~ai9bitiration <\/p>\n
11. She would also subriiit””~thatV. if.registratioriof the
\noriginal suit -is to be .{;”ori_sti’i1led”‘  ljt.li.e starting point for
\nLimitation then filing of appiieation i:Q__’i.der 7 Ruie 11(d}<\/p>\n
has to be construetiias first statemjen’tw.1i_nder Section 8 of the<\/p>\n
Arbitration Apt.’ attention of this Court to Section<\/p>\n
3(2}(ii) of  to contend that moment the<\/p>\n
  suit by presenting the petition in<\/p>\n
 ‘pau.peifis;tli.e suit is said to have been filed. She would<\/p>\n
  submitithat” the revision petitioners submitted to the<\/p>\n
..l_lj’_f.,jtidicial “a_t:’thority namely the Civil Court by filing several<\/p>\n
  appiieations, the revision petitioners are deemed to have<\/p>\n
V.  the right to invoke the arbitration clause.<\/p>\n
er”\n<\/p>\n
16<\/span><\/p>\n
culminating of the suit itself. Hence, it cannot be construed<\/p>\n
as supplemental proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
I3. She submits that from 1Q96__till revision\u00bb in <\/p>\n
petitioners have filed application, afterl’ ap.p’lications.f7and<\/p>\n
protracting the proceedings  has’: been1Arigl’rt1y”; taken’<\/p>\n
note of by the Court helow  _ the “application filed
\nunder Section 8 of the  ground of delay
\nand supports  below. The
\njudgment of    relied upon by
\nthe learned.-\u00bbcout1nlsel1 for  is also relied upon by
\n reference to paragraph 34<\/p>\n
and 42 to ‘contend-__th.at*…in the said case they had not<\/p>\n
subm_ittedton_ the” ~ jurisdiction of Civil Court and had<\/p>\n
lspecificallyi  their rights.\n<\/p>\n
14. vSri;I\\l\u00a7ohd.Saddiq, learned counsel appearing for<\/p>\n
ieurelsypondent’ “No.3 would contend that after the disposal of<\/p>\n
 4’_:t3:_R}?.ll2E3″?–3\/1999 on 1941-2001, the revision petitioners had<\/p>\n
i -:’f’1led’lthe review petition No. 722\/2004 which came to be<\/p>\n
Q”\n<\/p>\n
I7<\/p>\n
rejected on l9–l I-2004 to contend that in the review “petition<\/p>\n
the revision petitioners had taken up a specific__’4cont’enti.on<\/p>\n
that they had a case on merits to be adjudicate_d<\/p>\n
such the revision petitioners  t the id.<\/p>\n
jurisdiction of the Civil Court, _ Reiterating v”w:as’i’js.tateEl<\/p>\n
by Smt.Vidyu1atha he would   P.Misc
\nis to be construed as  to Section
\n8 of the Act. He would  Article 137 of
\nthe Limitation   of the present
\ncase inasmtrcll   having accrued to the
\nrevision   been exercised Within<\/p>\n
three years vvlienl  apply seeking appointment of<\/p>\n
arbitrationgcornirwenced lvnaniely in the year 1996. Having not<\/p>\n
  could not have invoked Section 8 and thus<\/p>\n
 clearly applicable to the facts of the present<\/p>\n
 case. “”‘-Elev-..’v%oti’ld also contend that third plaintiff and third<\/p>\n
 not parties to the Arbitration agreement and<\/p>\n
 the said clause cannot be invoked particularly when<\/p>\n
T -\u00ab’..the’third plaintiff being a proprietary concern.<\/p>\n
M<\/p>\n
18<\/span><\/p>\n
15. In reply Sri.K.P.Kumar, learned Senior .p’C-ounsel<\/p>\n
would draw the attention of the Court to <\/p>\n
namely the plaint in O.S.No.4463\/20HQ2″l-Lpmticniarlyl<\/p>\n
paragraph–3 to contend that plaitntilffs  if<\/p>\n
admitted third defendant is only a pr*oforma  neceslsaryr<\/p>\n
‘party to the suit though substaritial reliefisfclairnedlllagainst
\nonly defendants 1 and   attention
\nof the court to para l1  that
\nplaintiffs thems’el\\kes1.’halre  first plaintiff and
\nthird plaintiff  fie would also submit
\nthat at  of the Limitation Act
\ndoes not   the Arbitration Act, 1996 is<\/p>\n
a self ccn.tained\u00bb.:lC0de  the starting point for filing an<\/p>\n
‘-‘:’ap’pi.icatiori’lunder Section 8 of the Act commences only after<\/p>\n
:’in_stitt:t’ed a suit and before the first statement is<\/p>\n
it ‘met: and not’earlier to that.\n<\/p>\n
t   He W\ufb02ul\u00e9 also submit that Section 3(2)[i1′) of the<\/p>\n
  __Litnit;:41tion Act is to be construed only for the purpose of<\/p>\n
fgckoning the date of filing of the suit and only for the<\/p>\n
6%\/,<\/p>\n
I9<\/p>\n
limited purpose of application of the Limitation Act_.._a_.nd not<\/p>\n
for being considered as to whether it is a suit orwotlpi-erwise<\/p>\n
and as such the initiation of the suit by \ufb01ling–‘f’:;’Misc”peti:tior1 <\/p>\n
would not and cannot be construed'”a’s\u00abha*-‘ring institu-tedyinthei T it<\/p>\n
suit. With reference to the contention’-_raised_-by the<\/p>\n
counsel for the respondent   “delay he
\nwould rely upon the juvdgn\ufb02ienti’in’*.t.lieuicase  Sriiitagavendra
\nAdvertising and  Proprietor, Sri
\nRagavendra   I Advertising Vs.
\nPrasara V. Corporation of India).
\nrepreseirited’_’li   Director, Commercial<\/p>\n
Broadcasting_Sertfie\u00a2i:_’All” India Radio of Madras High<\/p>\n
Court iieeportu\u00e9d-diri”20(5′?-3(5) MLJ 1602 by drawing attention<\/p>\n
 to”   andmli4 to contend that even if there were to<\/p>\n
be  written statement said aspect need not<\/p>\n
V be examiziedor looked into for the purpose of considering an<\/p>\n
 under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act 1996. As<\/p>\n
_’_AiAa1*iI.Vaitem.atiVe submission he would submit that even<\/p>\n
i -\u00ab’..::a’s’suming Article 137 is held to be applicable to right to<\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n
20<\/span><\/p>\n
apply under Section 8 of the 1996 Act accrues onlygafter an<\/p>\n
action is brought about by the plaintiffs by  Zsuit<\/p>\n
before a judicial authority and the  hbe–enV’<\/p>\n
instituted on l8\u00ab-7~2002 (registeringuitllas..vO,S-{Afrom~?’\u00a7lVli_st:.} it<\/p>\n
the application was filed on .?.j7_–5–2i305′–whichl.–“istwell <\/p>\n
time and hence the order  pthellapplicationlll passed
\nby the Court below is  Lastly he
\nwould submit thatif the   the order of
\nthe Court below,’  given the liberty
\nto file written?   the suit on merits and
\nproceed   would also submit that
\nas per   4 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure<\/p>\n
Code the suit  tolhave been instituted on presenting<\/p>\n
  Rules contained in Order VI and<\/p>\n
   suifiimons having been served upon the<\/p>\n
1V”defendant  should have been accompanied with the<\/p>\n
 Accordingly he seeks for allowing the revision<\/p>\n
21<\/span><\/p>\n
17. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties,
\nthe following points arise for my consideration:<\/p>\n
(1) Whether in the facts and circuxnstanoes-.__of the
\ncase can it be held that defenda1its.._l’have
\nsubmitted their first statement on <\/p>\n
of the dispute?\n<\/p>\n
Whether the revision 4″..p:et.itioner.; . liisatisiy’ ” V t the
\ningredients of Secti.on..i\u00bb8 of vthe..AAirh’i’tVration
\nConciliation Act,  ‘w_hich”‘ -in  would<\/p>\n
entitle thern t-o:’seel_< forvvrefereiice to Arbitration?<\/p>\n
{ii}:  anialication under order Vli
\n Rule  \u00abbe supplemental proceedings
\n Section' 94 Civil Procedure Code or<\/p>\n
 othelrwise? A.\n<\/p>\n
  .(iii}.,A_v”~WAh”ether Article 137 of the Limitation Act is<\/p>\n
 .””‘;ip}ili’c’able to the facts of the present case?<\/p>\n
(iV}, ‘_A’1~ Whether the suit instituted under Order 33 Rule
\nit 1 in forma pauperis is to be construed as the
\nstarting point for limitation for invoking Section 8<\/p>\n
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 1996?<\/p>\n
 l<\/p>\n
 reads “as tiiider;\n<\/p>\n
\\-\u00bb  II<\/p>\n
2.2<\/p>\n
(V) Whether the order passed by the Courtwiibiieilow in<\/p>\n
rejecting the application \ufb01led under\u00ab~~Sectio’n_:V8.tof
\nthe Arbitration and Conciliation  1986 suffers<\/p>\n
from any legal infirmity’?~~ <\/p>\n
(vi) What order?\n<\/p>\n
18. in order to appreciateixthve ‘r\\ival..con,tentions raised<\/p>\n
by the parties it wou1ti”‘-bieT.of%n?ecessVa1jfto extract relevant<\/p>\n
provisions of Arbitratior3.=A’ct,::”:} referred to as<\/p>\n
the Old Act)?’-.    of Arbitration 8.:<\/p>\n
Conciliation  -{hereinafter referred to as the New<\/p>\n
Act).\n<\/p>\n
181.  ofithie  Act and Section 8 of New Act<\/p>\n
se5E{3\ufb01’34<\/p>\n
Section 8 of 1996 Act<\/p>\n
F<\/p>\n
 4; ‘534. fevrerv to stay legal<\/p>\n
p2’.,c>’t:e:.=-._di13{‘gs where there is<\/p>\n
_’an”~arbitration agreement :-\n<\/p>\n
 ._Where any party to an<\/p>\n
“8.Power to refer<\/p>\n
parties to arbitration<\/p>\n
where there is an<\/p>\n
arbitration agreement:\n<\/p>\n
M<\/p>\n
24<\/span><\/p>\n
were commenced, and still
\nremains, ready and willing to
\ndo all things necessary to the
\nconduct of the<\/p>\n
such authority<\/p>\n
proper
\narbitration,
\nmay make an order staying<\/p>\n
the proceedings.”\n<\/p>\n
commenced or continued
\nand an arbitralj”‘–.award<\/p>\n
made.”\n<\/p>\n
.,.,__7_J<\/p>\n
18.2. The present suit was by<\/p>\n
presenting the piaint   under Order 33<\/p>\n
Rule lof Code of Civil ProCedi’ire”wthiVeh’.  as under:<\/p>\n
“I.   by indigent<\/p>\n
person-::_”to the following provisions,<\/p>\n
 pmy suit’ ‘instituted by an indigent<\/p>\n
person. _ <\/p>\n
. t  ” . V V”{E\u00a7xpZnnVatton I  person is an indigent person —<\/p>\n
 ~_    not possessed of sufficient means<\/p>\n
 (“other than property exempt from attczchrnent<\/p>\n
” in execution of a decree and the sulqjectw<\/p>\n
matter of the suit} to enable him to pay the<\/p>\n
fee prescribed by law for the plaint in such<\/p>\n
suit, or<\/p>\n
are<\/p>\n
25<\/span><\/p>\n
(b) where no such fee is prescribed, U” he is not<\/p>\n
entitled to property worth one thozzsa:ndj:”‘,,A<\/p>\n
rupees other than the property exe’n\u00a7;ptj’roffn:A  \u00bb<\/p>\n
attachment in execution of a decree;<\/p>\n
subjectmatter of the suiftfm  A<\/p>\n
[Explanation II ~ Any propertyhhugvh\ufb02rh  h<\/p>\n
by a person after they:presenta_tio’n–7 of: his
\napplication for perrnission’–\u00abto”L_:saet.as aninciigent
\nperson, and before     application,
\nshall be taken into. in”‘co”i’i\u00a7s’ic:iering the
\nC1U~\u20acSii0n  :j()Tg  is an<\/p>\n
indigent, V   <\/p>\n
VA3′–\u00ab~, Where the plaintgff sues in a
\nrepre’::.en\u00abtatiueVhcapmity;r.the question whether he
\nis an indigent’ persohnhshall be determined with<\/p>\n
rgjference to the vrnerins possessed by him in such<\/p>\n
.4 ., _capac:h’.ty <\/p>\n
  II_o’1′:hn\u00a7’Lxi1’i;1itation Act, deals with Bar of Limitation in<\/p>\n
_:h_lAt’–\u00ab.V.rueSpect of Vsi’;1’ts appeais and applications which reads as<\/p>\n
*  under, % <\/p>\n
\ufb02\/<\/p>\n
26<\/span><\/p>\n
Part II<\/p>\n
Limitation of suits, Appeals and applicat.i_os1is:44t:’*5~ 3<\/p>\n
“3. Bar of Limitation –\n<\/p>\n
(1) Subject to the provis’ions_A_i “conitained\u00ab.
\nSections 4 to 22,? *{1′._nclusia)e],.
\ninstituted, appeal
\nmade after .the__ prescribedjperiod shall be
\ndismissed  not been
\nset uP\u20acr51_udej\u00e9nc%?}   “ii<\/p>\n
(2)   the <\/p>\n
fa)  a___- — -i<\/p>\n
 ” l  case, when the plaint is
\n presenteidl the proper officer;\n<\/p>\n
 i x{ii)x Vin””the_,case of a pauper, when his<\/p>\n
 ilapplicaiion for leave to sue as a<\/p>\n
pauper is made; and<\/p>\n
i .. ifiiiji in the case of claim against a company
\n which is being wound up by the court,
\nwhen the claimant first sends in his<\/p>\n
claim to the official liquidator;<\/p>\n
28<\/span><\/p>\n
“As regards the effect of a party’s failure to invoke
\nthe arbitration agreement by way of such a tiin’ely
\nrequest, it seems clear that article 8(1)
\nthat party from invoking the agreement  *
\nsubsequent phases of the court  ‘-ltd’
\nmay be noted that the Working
\nwide support for the View    of
\nparty should preclude relianceihon the “gagreeriiejnt
\nalso in other proceedingspjr:_conte2i:ts’\u00abdecided not
\nto incorporate a V general effect
\nbecause it would be  a simple
\nrule which with all the
\naspects -oi?    ” V _ f
\n18.5. The  of the New Act has been
\nenumeratedgby  I43i.”S,ii4BachaWat which read as follows:
\n s_ection”is~’based on the principle that the
\n right’iio’~_s\ufb01e’e.k arbitration is a contractual right and
\n be unilaterally abrogated so as
\n‘to overthrow the arbitration clause. Under this
\nsectiion, the judicial authority does not restrain the
\nA Vliplaintiff {a party to the agreement) from bringing
\n action in breach of his agreement with the<\/p>\n
defendant (the other party to the agreement). On<\/p>\n
\ufb02\/,.\n<\/p>\n
29<\/span><\/p>\n
the other hand, it is only on the defendant
\nexercising his right to go in for arbitration that
\nthe jadiciai authority makes the partiesy:””‘to
\nabide by their contract and contract V H<\/p>\n
them to arbitration.\n<\/p>\n
(Emphasis suppiiied  it     <\/p>\n
Failure of the defer1dant”to”eXercise  it
\nwould lead to an inferericeof anhxagreed _’if:oridii’etV’of
\nthe parties to sup_erseder..orA’abatidori”thee terrns of
\nthe agreement, Ves_tirrgivii.thev-judicial authority
\nwith jurisdiction to  including<\/p>\n
matters which required arl5itr’a.t_ior1. The judicial<\/p>\n
authorityi\ufb02 haidjudicate upon the
\ndisputes.’ It’ii’oes._.r\u00a3otV.enjoy suo motu power of
\nreference to arbitration. ”\n<\/p>\n
 {Eiilphiasis supplied by me)<\/p>\n
  in question is with regard to the<\/p>\n
 ‘sub–Section (1) of Section 8. The author in<\/p>\n
 his hoo.k”‘V.AaboVe referred has anaiysed sub~\u00absection (1) of<\/p>\n
  Seetieri Sand in the words of the author it reads as under:<\/p>\n
 I<\/p>\n
42<\/span><\/p>\n
mentioning any figures. This defendant th1’Q1;1gh
\nhis counsel issued a reply dated I6~–\u00bbO3_:’1.9f9f_6;w._
\nreiterating that the agreement entered  .
\nbetween this petitioner and defendant,\u00bbfihasfbe\u00e9en
\nacted upon by this defendant”‘andg_  is
\npetitioner who had violated’ th_’e’*fvte–rm_:s
\nagreement and failed tovrnaiie payr’nent’foVrVVthe Vi<\/p>\n
goods supplied.”\n<\/p>\n
24. The application’ for  plaint came to
\nbe filed under Qr:ier._7   Procedure Code. The
\nsaid app1ica\u00a7tio’n\u00ab\u00ab._Vii\u00bbTas__  an affidavit of the<\/p>\n
company  whereunder itfvvasfvcontended as follows:<\/p>\n
“I submit . in-.  of the piaint, the
\np1ainti_ff\/opponent hfasfstated as hereunder “the
\n  action”‘fo’r”the suit arose  13-3-1991
\n *i::>ei’r.1g  of meeting of the plaintiffs and the
\n ffgfv.__the\u00b0”defendants I and 2 at Bangalore
\nCity, or1’]sfA8’\u00abfIO–1991 being the date of plaintiffs
\n‘*-.,purcha.si1ng of the sick Unit from the third<\/p>\n
if ‘Cfdefendant, on 4\u00bb~11–I991 being the date of<\/p>\n
—  ‘intiniation as to the purchase of the sick unit by<\/p>\n
 _,i.the plaintiffs to defendants I and 2, on 27\u00bb\/12–<\/p>\n
4\/<\/p>\n
44<\/span><\/p>\n
limitation and therefore, the same is liable to-_’_be
\nrejected in limine without going into the _of_<\/p>\n
the case”.\n<\/p>\n
25. Subsequently when ;the_Co.urt the; <\/p>\n
plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 for :’noI}_payInen_t
\nthe matter had been taken
\nto 3 herein in CR? 2673 ‘\u00bbwas.lallov.red\u00a7 on 19-1 1\u00bb
\n2001, against which   -‘v\ufb01vas filed in RP
\nN 0.’? 22 \/ 2004,  l   petitioners herein
\nhad sought’    order passed in<\/p>\n
CRP.No.2873._Zl\u00a79\u00a7Ef:.;   it<\/p>\n
25.1. These read together it emanates that<\/p>\n
at thejfirst. instanjoethe revision petitioners did not raise a<\/p>\n
1″‘V.plea.yal.:outAptheaetrbitration clause. In the pleadings above<\/p>\n
   merely the pleadings which can be<\/p>\n
szonstrued’-.VA as supplemental inasmuch as the revision<\/p>\n
 have delved upon the merits of the claim itself.<\/p>\n
 of the revision petitioners is that they have taken<\/p>\n
 themselves of the risk of dwelling into the merits<\/p>\n
45<\/span><\/p>\n
particularly with reference to the objections to the P.Misc.
\nnaznely paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 as referred to..j’=.lfn_l’these<\/p>\n
paragraphs revision petitioners not only delved’:iip’on””–‘thf:<\/p>\n
merits also but have reiterated, ~~th_e  the. <\/p>\n
defendants on the basis of the :”agr:e_’e1nentsV;A’
\nnoticed that when responderltsherein  the
\nproceedings had got issued their
\ncounsel on [26–3-19\u00a3V33’6}:\ufb01   several demands
\nthereunder. E\\feiii.n    notice namely
\nreply notice  whisper made by
\nthe revision’   arbitration clause. These
\nfacts clearlygo  the revision petitioners being<\/p>\n
fully aware of the releyant arbitration clause namely clause<\/p>\n
 .26.Qi’l”th\u00e9.”i3gfeement””referred to supra had not pressed into<\/p>\n
 given a complete go by to the same.\n<\/p>\n
26.EB;e that as it may, when the proceedings came to be<\/p>\n
   _by the respondents herein, by filing suit for<\/p>\n
 recovery of money by instituting suit namely suit along with<\/p>\n
   application under Order 33 Rule 1 to sue as an indigent<\/p>\n
W.\n<\/p>\n
46<\/span><\/p>\n
person came to be resisted by the revision petitioners and<\/p>\n
took advantage of the order of dismissal and thereaI’terwards<\/p>\n
without raising any ground whatsoever  <\/p>\n
number of years to have the “‘rex1isi(3n hpetitiori-.i’toVi”-be’f it<\/p>\n
culminated and even the said order:iwher11″it_A.we1it”<\/p>\n
them and 1n favour of the resporident. herein fanid\u00e9thisi Court<\/p>\n
permitted the petitioners.theraxj\ufb02ft?”proseciiter their suit in
\nforma pauperis filed a  No. 722\/2004
\nand suffered an.-order  review petition.
\nThe dates as above clearly goes to show
\nthat   hiaivevivconsciously Waived their<\/p>\n
right to seek for r’efere’ncVe*-.to”arbitration.<\/p>\n
 wo1*ds_n_se;d in Section 8 are “when submitted<\/p>\n
“‘1l1ii’s;fi:’st \u00bbstaten”m_nt on the substance of dispute” is to be<\/p>\n
readwiith conf_ij}i.f1Vcti0n with the object with which the Section<\/p>\n
 has corn.e’W.into effect which can be classi\ufb01ed as two fold<\/p>\n
47<\/span><\/p>\n
(i) to ensure the parties to the lis settle
\ntheir dispute at a faster pace;   _<\/p>\n
(ii) to urge their right by iny;skizig…’..jj _
\ncovenant in the agreement   __
\nthe Court to bind:-“the. the
\ncovenant with which  <\/p>\n
upon.\n<\/p>\n
These two covenants are requili-e:c’I’vto”i)e satisfi-szdiigy the party<\/p>\n
who seeks to invoke” “the ,c1ause and not<\/p>\n
otherwise. It .visl’in_  the’ Hon’ble Supreme
\nCourt in   while considering
\nwhether~~aV   he”‘vvVpi:ecluded from filing an
\napplication’ inhthe event of lis dwelling upon<\/p>\n
the Inerits’—,of- the  in an incidental proceedings<\/p>\n
\u00ab”,cons_.1d\u00abered and carne–\u00abto a conclusion in the negative. The<\/p>\n
 examined with reference to the facts of<\/p>\n
thetcase be held against the petitioners, inasmuch as<\/p>\n
 the petitioners had an obligation to the Court to which an
\n  ‘~applic”ation was filed seeking reference to arbitration and<\/p>\n
 .___”‘.dernand for binding the other contracting party to adhere to<\/p>\n
M<\/p>\n
52<\/span><\/p>\n
of the Code would lie to this Court as against<\/p>\n
the decisions rendered by the Civil
\nBecause of these facts and circumstances’
\nthe law being as iaid down by the
\nCourt in the decision reported in\n<\/p>\n
497. it has to be held that:”1this_’Ccourt.
\nexercise its revisionai jtirisdictionddunderd<\/p>\n
115 of the Code.\n<\/p>\n
12. In View of  .foregoing.VjVreasons, I hold
\nthat these revision  p;_eti’tions  are not
\nmmntainabigiin this :;c.5urt,:’:;:idu.re\u00a7’ect them.”
\nIn View of the_si.’:i.ii’ie    the learned counsel for
\nthe petiv:ioners’?.vbi_c:1i% is effect that an application {\ufb02ed<\/p>\n
under Section  is to be construed as a<\/p>\n
sup;iieIIi\u00bbentaIa proceediiigs cannot be accepted and same is<\/p>\n
  question No. IV is answered holding<\/p>\n
 fs\ufb01blication under Section 7 Rule 11 would<\/p>\n
 _ not Be avsupialemental proceedings.<\/p>\n
   Coming back to the core issue that “first<\/p>\n
 -edstaitement on the substance of the dispute”, I am of the<\/p>\n
ex<\/p>\n
54<\/span><\/p>\n
material is as to whether the petitioner has
\n\ufb01led his first statement on the substance of the
\ndispute or not, if not, his application 11r1’der
\nsection 8 of the 1996 Act, may not be
\nunrnaintainable”. it  it it”. it<\/p>\n
(Emphasis suppliegl ‘by me} =  .1:   it<\/p>\n
It has been held by the H0n’b1e   ‘a:bove”‘*–.A I<\/p>\n
case that it has to be ascertainegi inihe factsiof cach..’3case,as
\nto whether petitioner has \ufb01led’-the.._V_first’ stateniient on the
\nsubstance of the dispv1ite70r’–not;;  iii effect means, if<\/p>\n
merits is touched updn”–iii Vsaid_’app’1i.cation filed under<\/p>\n
Sectionvihtiiotihieid as not maintainabie. In<\/p>\n
the  seen that revision petitioners
\nhave4;de1*.red  rrierits of the case in respect of the
\n  inmthe suit and hence the judgment of
\n1 case is to be held is in favour of the<\/p>\n
V .’responc1en.t”herein inasmuch as the oniy issue which came
\nit for consideration in the said case before the H0n’ble<\/p>\n
Siaiprerne Court was with reference to an application filed by<\/p>\n
acontesting defendant seeking Vacating the interim Order<\/p>\n
5<\/span><\/p>\n
55<\/span><\/p>\n
and incidentally delving upon the merits of the case would
\namount to waiving their right under Section 8 or not and
\nwas held in the facts of the said case in the negative.<\/p>\n
30. However, on examination of facts in <\/p>\n
case it is seen that revision petitioners have’-.i_’n .fa.ct’ delved<\/p>\n
upon the merits of the case in paragraphs   their\u00bb 1′. <\/p>\n
objections as referred to supra  have
\ntheir right if any to seek for   above
\ndiscussion, I am of ;oVp’in.ionjthatlfxhoint No. I
\nformulated herein ‘answered against<\/p>\n
the revision favour of the respondents by<\/p>\n
holding that defeiidantsrdgzamely the revision petitioners in<\/p>\n
_._the present suit~-..have submitted their statement on the<\/p>\n
AV”._subst_a1ice\u00ab.of the’ dispute and thus would not be entitled to<\/p>\n
inv=okei’the arbitration clause in exercise of their right under<\/p>\n
‘ .Section… 8’ of H the new Act.\n<\/p>\n
if * \u00ab..3l.VV”’In View of the discussion made hereinabove and<\/p>\n
‘conclusion arrived at, it is aiso to be held that the<\/p>\n
aw<\/p>\n
56<\/span><\/p>\n
revision petitioners have failed to demonstrate that they
\nhave satis\ufb01ed the ingredients of Section 8 of the Arbitration
\nAct, 1996 and they would be entitled to ciairnv i..th.ed’~.re1ief<\/p>\n
thereunder.\n<\/p>\n
32. One another aspect which>Vrequi:*esv–  ‘noticeddd\ufb02y<\/p>\n
in the instant case is that reVision::’petitioners have “been <\/p>\n
consistentiy appearing in
\nplace right from the year e.,Lti1i the date
\nof filing the app1ication””tinder_sectionip the New Act but
\nfor the reasonsibest  have consciously<\/p>\n
ornittedi\ufb02yto-_  about the Arbitration clause.<\/p>\n
This condtecti _ oi”_  petitioners expressly exhibit their<\/p>\n
 intent\u00a7ioni’* to VW-aivve the arbitration clause and their<\/p>\n
 ‘ttfsubmit themselves to the jurisdiction of the<\/p>\n
dispute being adjudicated. In View of above<\/p>\n
Ipoints .12 formulated herein above is answered agaisnt<\/p>\n
 it Xthedreyision petitioners. Hence, question of considering the<\/p>\n
 ____””.”arguments addressed on question Nos. 3. 4 and 5 would not<\/p>\n
@\/<\/p>\n
57<\/span><\/p>\n
arise and accordingly the said questions are not addressed
\nto and answered by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
33. It is needless to observe that in the an<\/p>\n
application is filed by the revision petitionezfs”be{oiie:_._:tl1e<\/p>\n
Court below to contest the matte; on nie1*its_~v  <\/p>\n
permission to \ufb01le written statement ..:’tf1’c._d ‘sained::”w’ili:,e_”be <\/p>\n
considered in accordance  oaits\n<\/p>\n
34. In view of the above fodllovving  passed.<\/p>\n
{i){ _Th’efIfevisi.oI1. .p’c1_:__it.1’o1_’: is dismissed as devoid<\/p>\n
 ofme1jit:3.{‘V_  <\/p>\n
iii}  O1;d’erV_v’V””‘paVs’.sed on LA. No.8 dated
\n”  22′.ei.2oio by 111 Additional City Civil<\/p>\n
 Bangalore is hereby confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
A “-._(iii}___* ‘ Order as to costs. ” ‘ ‘<\/p>\n
Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
SUDGE<\/p>\n
‘  ~ She\/bs*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court The Tinplate Company Of India … vs Banu Steel Industry on 23 February, 2010 Author: Aravind Kumar \u00ae IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. BAN DATED THIS THE 231*\u00bb DAY or FEBRUA\u00a7\u00a7’:,V:’2h\u20aca\u00a7iV(}-. R BEFORE THE HoN*BLE MR. JUs’rICE”ARAV:ND we CIVIL REVISION PE’II3’IOaN.1\\:\u00a5C)z. 35 eFj 20: ” A BETWEEN : I. having its […]<\/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-7074","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Tinplate Company Of India ... vs Banu Steel Industry on 23 February, 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\/the-tinplate-company-of-india-vs-banu-steel-industry-on-23-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Tinplate Company Of India ... vs Banu Steel Industry on 23 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-tinplate-company-of-india-vs-banu-steel-industry-on-23-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-02-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-27T08:00:22+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=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-tinplate-company-of-india-vs-banu-steel-industry-on-23-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-tinplate-company-of-india-vs-banu-steel-industry-on-23-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Tinplate Company Of India … vs Banu Steel Industry on 23 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-27T08:00:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-tinplate-company-of-india-vs-banu-steel-industry-on-23-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3498,\"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\\\/the-tinplate-company-of-india-vs-banu-steel-industry-on-23-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-tinplate-company-of-india-vs-banu-steel-industry-on-23-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-tinplate-company-of-india-vs-banu-steel-industry-on-23-february-2010\",\"name\":\"The Tinplate Company Of India ... vs Banu Steel Industry on 23 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-27T08:00:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-tinplate-company-of-india-vs-banu-steel-industry-on-23-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-tinplate-company-of-india-vs-banu-steel-industry-on-23-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-tinplate-company-of-india-vs-banu-steel-industry-on-23-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Tinplate Company Of India … vs Banu Steel Industry on 23 February, 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":"The Tinplate Company Of India ... vs Banu Steel Industry on 23 February, 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\/the-tinplate-company-of-india-vs-banu-steel-industry-on-23-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Tinplate Company Of India ... vs Banu Steel Industry on 23 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-tinplate-company-of-india-vs-banu-steel-industry-on-23-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-27T08:00:22+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":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-tinplate-company-of-india-vs-banu-steel-industry-on-23-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-tinplate-company-of-india-vs-banu-steel-industry-on-23-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Tinplate Company Of India … vs Banu Steel Industry on 23 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-27T08:00:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-tinplate-company-of-india-vs-banu-steel-industry-on-23-february-2010"},"wordCount":3498,"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\/the-tinplate-company-of-india-vs-banu-steel-industry-on-23-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-tinplate-company-of-india-vs-banu-steel-industry-on-23-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-tinplate-company-of-india-vs-banu-steel-industry-on-23-february-2010","name":"The Tinplate Company Of India ... vs Banu Steel Industry on 23 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-27T08:00:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-tinplate-company-of-india-vs-banu-steel-industry-on-23-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-tinplate-company-of-india-vs-banu-steel-industry-on-23-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-tinplate-company-of-india-vs-banu-steel-industry-on-23-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Tinplate Company Of India … vs Banu Steel Industry on 23 February, 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\/7074","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=7074"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7074\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7074"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7074"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7074"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}