{"id":75468,"date":"2010-01-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-tirath-engineers-vs-2-shri-anirudh-jain-on-21-january-2010"},"modified":"2017-05-27T17:50:32","modified_gmt":"2017-05-27T12:20:32","slug":"ms-tirath-engineers-vs-2-shri-anirudh-jain-on-21-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-tirath-engineers-vs-2-shri-anirudh-jain-on-21-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"M\/S. Tirath Engineers vs 2 Shri Anirudh Jain on 21 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S. Tirath Engineers vs 2 Shri Anirudh Jain on 21 January, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: Anoop V.Mohta<\/div>\n
    Arbp482.09                              1\n\n                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                      ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                                                                           \n                      ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 482 OF 2009\n\n\n\n\n                                                   \n    M\/s. Tirath Engineers,\n    34, Punit Nagar,\n    New Sama Road,\n\n\n\n\n                                                  \n    Baroda-390 008.                                         ...Petitioner.\n\n\n                    Vs.\n\n\n\n\n                                               \n    1  Union of India, acting through\n                             \n        Dy. Chief Engineer (S & C),\n        Western Railway, \n                            \n        Near R. E. Office,\n        Pratapnagar, Vadodara-4.\n         \n\n    2  Shri Anirudh Jain,\n        Ld. Umpire,\n      \n\n\n\n        Divisional Railway Manager,\n        Central Railway, \n        Bhusaval.                                           ...Respondents.\n\n\n\n\n\n    Ms. Shilpa Kapil for the Petitioner.\n    Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Respondent.\n\n\n\n\n\n                                           AND\n                 ARBITRATION PETITION (LODGING) NO. 345 OF 2009\n\n                                      ALONG WITH\n\n                       NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1574 OF 2009\n                                       IN\n                 ARBITRATION PETITION (LODGING) NO. 345 OF 2009\n\n\n\n\n                                                   ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:32:21 :::\n     Arbp482.09                                       2\n\n\n\n    Union of India, represented by\n    Dy. Chief Engineer (C),\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                           \n    Western Railway, \n\n\n\n\n                                                                  \n    Pratapnagar, \n    Vadodara-390 004.                                                       ... Petitioner \n\n\n\n\n                                                                 \n                        Vs.\n\n\n    M\/s. Tirath Engineers,\n\n\n\n\n                                                        \n    34, Punit Nagar,\n    New Sama Road,                  \n    Baroda-390 008.                                                         ...Respondent.\n                                   \n    Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Petitioner.\n    Ms. Shilpa Kapil for the Respondent. \n          \n\n                               CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.\n<\/pre>\n
    DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT       :- 26TH NOVEMBER, 2009.
\n    DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT :-  21st JANUARY, 2010.\n<\/p>\n
    JUDGMENT-\n<\/p>\n
    1            Both   the   parties   have   challenged   the   impugned   award   dated   23rd <\/p>\n
    December, 2008 by invoking Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation <\/p>\n
    Act,   1996   (for   short,   “The   Arbitration   Act”),   though   the   Arbitration <\/p>\n
    proceedings   based   upon   the   agreement   between   the   parties   dated   1st <\/p>\n
    December,   1987   commenced   on   24th  January   1996,   under   the   old <\/p>\n
    Arbitration Act of 1940. But,   ultimately   the   award   published   on <\/p>\n
                                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:32:21 :::<\/span>
\n     Arbp482.09                                  3<\/span><\/p>\n
    23rd  December, 2008 by the umpire\/ arbitrator.\n<\/p>\n
    3            The basic events are-\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                       \n    4            On 27\/08\/1987, the Respondent had invited tenders for the work of \n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n<\/pre>\n
    construction of various structures in connection with providing facilities for <\/p>\n
    ROH repairs to tank wagon with roller bearing in sick lines at Karachiya <\/p>\n
    yard.     The   contract   for   said   work   was   awarded   to   the   Petitioner   vide <\/p>\n
    Acceptance letter bearing No. Dy.CE\/S & C\/92 dated 27\/08\/1987.   The <\/p>\n
    cost   of   the   work   was   Rs.19,71,888.45\/-   with   completion   period   of   12 <\/p>\n
    months i.e. 26\/08\/1988 from the date of letter of Acceptance.\n<\/p>\n
    5            On 01\/12\/1987, accordingly, Contract Agreement No. Dy.CE\/CA\/57 <\/p>\n
    dated 01\/12\/1987, was entered into by and between the parties.\n<\/p>\n
    6            On 15\/09\/1987, accordingly, the Petitioner has mobilized adequate <\/p>\n
    resources at site to commence the work.   Since the Respondent has not <\/p>\n
    issued  all  drawings  to take  up the  work immediately  the  Petitioner  had <\/p>\n
    addressed a letter dated 15\/09\/1987, to the Respondents requesting the <\/p>\n
    Respondents to issue all the drawings.\n<\/p>\n
    7            On 21\/09\/1987, the Petitioner again reminded the Respondents vide <\/p>\n
    their letter dated 21\/09\/1987 to issue the drawings which have not been <\/p>\n
    finalized by the Respondents till that date.\n<\/p>\n
    8            On 05\/10\/1987, the Petitioner started the work and had completed <\/p>\n
    the excavation of building foundation by 05\/10\/1987.  The Petitioner also <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:32:21 :::<\/span>
\n     Arbp482.09                                     4<\/span><\/p>\n
    requested the Respondents in letter dated 05\/10\/1987, for getting the line <\/p>\n
    layout for the main column foundations to enable the Petitioner to take up <\/p>\n
    the excavation of main columns foundation.  The Petitioner also requested <\/p>\n
    to the Respondents to get the lines also blocked to take up the further work <\/p>\n
    of foundation on main columns.\n<\/p>\n
    9            On 06\/10\/2008, the Respondent had furnished some of the drawings <\/p>\n
    pertaining to the work with their letter dated 06\/10\/2008 and again issued <\/p>\n
    the revised drawing showing the foundation details of main column with <\/p>\n
    their letter dated 19\/10\/1987.  Thereafter, also the Respondents had issued <\/p>\n
    the   drawings   to   the   Petitioner.   05\/10\/1987,   the   Respondent   has <\/p>\n
    abnormally delayed the issuing of the working drawings.\n<\/p>\n
    10           On   31\/01\/1990,   since   the   original   contract   period   expired   on <\/p>\n
    26\/08\/1988,   the   Petitioner   applied   for   extension   of   time   subject   the   to <\/p>\n
    Respondents approving revised rates due to delay and various breaches of <\/p>\n
    contract   committed   by   them.     The   contract   was   extended   up   to <\/p>\n
    31\/01\/1990. Ultimately, the  contract was  wrongfully taken  away by the <\/p>\n
    Respondent from the Petitioner on 02\/01\/1990.  The Petitioner has carried <\/p>\n
    out the work value of Rs. 16,34,044\/- (almost 85%).\n<\/p>\n
                 The various differences had arisen between the parties due to various <\/p>\n
    issues like non issuance of contracted drawings which resulted in the work <\/p>\n
    being prolonged, delay in removing High Tension lines from the work site <\/p>\n
    which had given rise to dispute and differences between the parties, which <\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:32:21 :::<\/span>
\n     Arbp482.09                                    5<\/span><\/p>\n
    has further given rise to invocation of Arbitration Clause by the Petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
    11           On   05\/10\/1991,   the   Petitioner   has   addressed   a   letter   dated <\/p>\n
    05\/010\/1991   to   the   General   Manager   of   Respondent   requesting   him   to <\/p>\n
    appoint   the   Arbitrator   as   contemplated   in   clause   64   of   the   General <\/p>\n
    Conditions   of   Contract.     Since   the   General   Manager   of   the   Respondent <\/p>\n
    failed   to   appoint   the   Arbitrators   in   the   matter   the   Petitioner   filed   a <\/p>\n
    Arbitration Suit No. 1911 of 1992 in this Hon’ble High Court.  The Hon’ble <\/p>\n
    Court directed the Respondents to appoint the Arbitrators in the matter.\n<\/p>\n
    12<\/span><\/p>\n
                 On  28\/08\/1996,  accordingly,  the  General   Manager  appointed  Shri <\/p>\n
    M.S. Ekbote, the then Chief Track Engineer (HQ), Churchgate and Shri S.B.\n<\/p>\n
    Kulkarni   as   Joint   Arbitrators   vide   General   Manager’s   letter   dated <\/p>\n
    28\/08\/1996.     Thereafter,   the   Respondent   had   changed   the   Arbitrators <\/p>\n
    many times and ultimately Smt. Rashmi Kapoor and Shri. J.C. Parihar were <\/p>\n
    appointed and they nominated Shri Anirudh Jain as Umpire.\n<\/p>\n
    13           On   29\/10\/2004,   thereafter,   the   Joint   Arbitrators   held   various <\/p>\n
    meetings   in   the   matter   but   they   had   not   published   the   Award   and   the <\/p>\n
    Umpire declined to proceed in the matter, ultimately the Petitioner again <\/p>\n
    approached this Hon’ble High Court, vide Application No. 52 of 2004 for <\/p>\n
    removal   of   the   Umpire   and   appointment   of   new   Umpire.     The   Hon’ble <\/p>\n
    Court disposed of the Application on 29\/10\/2004, directing the parties to <\/p>\n
    appear   before   the   Umpire   and   at   the   same   time   it   directs   the   Joint <\/p>\n
    Arbitrators to publish the Award within three months.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:32:21 :::<\/span>
\n     Arbp482.09                                     6<\/span><\/p>\n
    14           On   26\/02\/2005,   the   Joint   Arbitrators   published   their   Award   on <\/p>\n
    26\/02\/2005.\n<\/p>\n
    15           On 21\/11\/2005, the Petitioner filed an Arbitration Petition No. 324 <\/p>\n
    of 2005 in this Hon’ble Court for setting aside the Award passed by the <\/p>\n
    Joint Arbitrators Smt. Rashmi Kapoor and Shri J.C. Parihar.   The Hon’ble <\/p>\n
    Court   vide   its   order   dated   21\/11\/2005   disposed   of   the   aforesaid <\/p>\n
    Arbitration   Petition   by   setting   aside   the   said   Award   and   directing   Shri <\/p>\n
    Anirudh   Jain,   the   Umpire   to   take   over   the   Arbitration   Proceedings   and <\/p>\n
    make the Award as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
    16           On   23\/12\/2008,   the   Umpire   has   held   various   meetings   and <\/p>\n
    published the Award.  Being aggrieved by the Award dated 23rd December, <\/p>\n
    2008, the Petitioner seeks to challenge the Award.\n<\/p>\n
    17           Hence this Petition. \n\n    18           The Respondent,   Union  of India  has also filed the Petition  under \n\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
    Section   34   of   the   Arbitration   Act,   along   with   Notice   of   Motion   for <\/p>\n
    condonation of delay by relying on the following paragraph.\n<\/p>\n
    19           The Award is challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, in <\/p>\n
    view   of   the   fact   that   the   Respondents   themselves   have   challenged   the <\/p>\n
    award   dated   26\/02\/2005,   passed   in   the   Contract   No.   CE\/CA\/57   dated <\/p>\n
    01\/12\/1987 in Arbitration Petition No. 324 of 2005, wherein in Paragraph <\/p>\n
    No. 9  of the said Petition, the Respondent made the following averments <\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:32:21 :::<\/span>
\n     Arbp482.09                                      7<\/span><\/p>\n
    as:\n<\/p>\n
                 “The   petitioners   submit   that   the   Arbitral   Tribunal   was <\/p>\n
                 constituted under the provisions of Arbitration Act, 1940 and <\/p>\n
                 the proceedings were conducted as per the provisions of the <\/p>\n
                 Arbitration Act, 1940.   The petitioners submit that as per the <\/p>\n
                 clause   64   of   the   General   Conditions   of   Contract,   the <\/p>\n
                 modification\/   enactments   of   the   Arbitration   Act,   1940   are <\/p>\n
                 applicable   and   as   such   the   impugned   award   is   challenged <\/p>\n
                 under   the   provisions   of   Arbitration   and   Conciliation   Act, <\/p>\n
                 1996.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    20           The said petition was disposed of by this Hon’ble High Court vide <\/p>\n
    order   dated   21\/11\/2005.   In   view   of   pendency   of   above   Petition,   under <\/p>\n
    Section   34   of   the   Arbitration   Act,     on   the   fact   that   the   award   dated <\/p>\n
    23\/12\/2008 was received on 30\/12\/2008, therefore, the Petition is filed <\/p>\n
    along with the Notice of Motion on 8th April, 2009.\n<\/p>\n
    21           The   Petition   under   Section   34   of   the   Arbitration   Act   is   not <\/p>\n
    maintainable against the impugned award which was basically passed by <\/p>\n
    the   Arbitrator   empowered   under   the   Old   Act   of   1940,   as   the   parties <\/p>\n
    throughout   participated   before   the   Arbitrator   and   the   Arbitrator   also <\/p>\n
    proceeded   as   per   the   old   Act.     Admittedly,   the   Arbitration   Proceeding <\/p>\n
    commenced on 24th January, 1996.\n<\/p>\n
    22           This is in view of the clear provision of Section 85 of the Arbitration <\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:32:21 :::<\/span>
\n     Arbp482.09                                     8<\/span><\/p>\n
    Act, 1996 which is reproduced as under-\n<\/p>\n
                 “S. 85. Repeal and saving.- (1) The Arbitration (Protocol and  <\/p>\n
                 Convention) Act, 1937 (6 of 1937), the Arbitration  Act, 1940
\n                 (10   of   1940)   and   the   Foreign   Awards   (Recognition   and  <\/p>\n
                 Enforcement) Act, 1961 (45 of 1961) are hereby repealed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 (2)   Notwithstanding such repeal,-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                        (a) the provisions of the said enactments shall apply in
\n                 relation  to  arbitral  proceedings which   commenced  before this
\n                 Act came into force unless otherwise agreed by the parties but
\n                 this Act shall  apply in relation to arbitral  proceedings which  <\/p>\n
                 commenced on or after this Act comes into force.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    23<\/span><\/p>\n
                 Section 85(2) (a) corresponds to Section 48 of the Arbitration Act of <\/p>\n
    1940 and  Section 84(1) of the English Arbitration Act, 1996.\n<\/p>\n
    24           It is clear from the above provisions that the Arbitration Act, 1940 <\/p>\n
    shall continue to apply to the Arbitration Proceedings which commenced <\/p>\n
    after invocation of the Arbitration agreement between the parties prior to <\/p>\n
    24th January, 1996.  In the present case, there is nothing to show that the <\/p>\n
    parties have agreed to be governed by the Arbitration Act, 1996 at any <\/p>\n
    point   of   time.  (State   of   Goa   Vs.   Chinna   Nachimuthu   Constructions,<\/p>\n
    2008(3), Arb. L.R. 220 (Bom) DB. (2) Radhey Shyam Assoc. Vs. State of  <\/p>\n
    Maharashtra, 2008 (3) Arb. LR 216 (Bom).  (3) Gammon India Ltd. Vs.  <\/p>\n
    Sheth Estate Development Pvt. Ltd., 2006 (2) Arb. L.R. 194 (Guj.) (D.B.)  <\/p>\n
    (4) DDA V. S. Kumar, 2008 (3) Arb. L.R. 290 (Del) (DB).\n<\/p>\n
    25           The Apex Court in  Thyssen Stahlunion GMBH Vs. Steel Authority <\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:32:21 :::<\/span>
\n     Arbp482.09                                       9<\/span><\/p>\n
    of India Ltd.,   (1999) 9 S.C.C. 334, referring to the earlier Judgment of <\/p>\n
    Shetty’s Constructions Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Konkan Rly. Construction, (1998)  <\/p>\n
    5 S.C.C. 599, reiterated that when the Arbitration Proceeding commenced <\/p>\n
    before the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which came into force on <\/p>\n
    25th  January,   1996,   would   be   enforced   under   the   provisions   of   the <\/p>\n
    Arbitration   Act,   1940.     As   at   the   time   of   commencement   of   Arbitration <\/p>\n
    proceedings, in the present case, the old Act was enforced.  Even after the <\/p>\n
    commencement of the new Act, the parties never agreed to be governed by <\/p>\n
    the new Act.  On the contrary, the parties and the Arbitrators proceeded on <\/p>\n
    the basis of old Act.\n<\/p>\n
    26           Section 14 of the Old Act provides for the award to be signed and <\/p>\n
    filed.   Both   the   Acts   are   comparatively   different   on   this   aspects.   The <\/p>\n
    challenge   to the  award and\/or  the   enforcement of  the  award  would be <\/p>\n
    governed by the old Act, only.\n<\/p>\n
    27           The   orders,   even   if   any,   passed   by   the   Court   in   the   present <\/p>\n
    proceedings as referred above, it cannot be read to mean that after 1996, in <\/p>\n
    an Arbitration proceedings which commenced on the basis of old Act, is <\/p>\n
    now required to be proceeded with or governed by the new Act, specially <\/p>\n
    when the provisions of the old Act, in the present facts and circumstances <\/p>\n
    and in view of Section 85 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 itself, is governed by <\/p>\n
    the old Act, (Niraj Munjal Vs. Atul Grover, (2005) 5 S.C.C. 404.)<\/p>\n
    28           In view of above, in  my view, the Arbitration Petitions as filed by <\/p>\n
                                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:32:21 :::<\/span>
\n     Arbp482.09                                        10<\/span><\/p>\n
    invoking   Section   34  of  the   Arbitration   Act,   1996   challenging   the   award <\/p>\n
    dated 23rd December, 2008, in the present facts and circumstances are not <\/p>\n
    maintainable.  The remedy is elsewhere.\n<\/p>\n
    29           Resultantly,   the   Arbitration   Petition   No.   482   of   2009,   as   well   as, <\/p>\n
    Arbitration Petition (L) No. 345 of 2009 and the Notice of Motion No. 1574 <\/p>\n
    of 2009 filed by the Union of India, against the same award dated 23 rd <\/p>\n
    December, 2008, is also not maintainable, therefore, dismissed. No order as <\/p>\n
    to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                       ig                      (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)\n                                     \n         \n      \n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                                      ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:32:21 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court M\/S. Tirath Engineers vs 2 Shri Anirudh Jain on 21 January, 2010 Bench: Anoop V.Mohta Arbp482.09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 482 OF 2009 M\/s. Tirath Engineers, 34, Punit Nagar, New Sama Road, Baroda-390 008. …Petitioner. Vs. 1 Union of India, […]<\/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-75468","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S. Tirath Engineers vs 2 Shri Anirudh Jain on 21 January, 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-tirath-engineers-vs-2-shri-anirudh-jain-on-21-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S. Tirath Engineers vs 2 Shri Anirudh Jain on 21 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-tirath-engineers-vs-2-shri-anirudh-jain-on-21-january-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=\"2010-01-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-27T12:20:32+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=\"9 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-tirath-engineers-vs-2-shri-anirudh-jain-on-21-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-tirath-engineers-vs-2-shri-anirudh-jain-on-21-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S. Tirath Engineers vs 2 Shri Anirudh Jain on 21 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-27T12:20:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-tirath-engineers-vs-2-shri-anirudh-jain-on-21-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1670,\"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\\\/ms-tirath-engineers-vs-2-shri-anirudh-jain-on-21-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-tirath-engineers-vs-2-shri-anirudh-jain-on-21-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-tirath-engineers-vs-2-shri-anirudh-jain-on-21-january-2010\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Tirath Engineers vs 2 Shri Anirudh Jain on 21 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-27T12:20:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-tirath-engineers-vs-2-shri-anirudh-jain-on-21-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-tirath-engineers-vs-2-shri-anirudh-jain-on-21-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-tirath-engineers-vs-2-shri-anirudh-jain-on-21-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Tirath Engineers vs 2 Shri Anirudh Jain on 21 January, 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. Tirath Engineers vs 2 Shri Anirudh Jain on 21 January, 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-tirath-engineers-vs-2-shri-anirudh-jain-on-21-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S. Tirath Engineers vs 2 Shri Anirudh Jain on 21 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-tirath-engineers-vs-2-shri-anirudh-jain-on-21-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-27T12:20:32+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-tirath-engineers-vs-2-shri-anirudh-jain-on-21-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-tirath-engineers-vs-2-shri-anirudh-jain-on-21-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S. Tirath Engineers vs 2 Shri Anirudh Jain on 21 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-27T12:20:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-tirath-engineers-vs-2-shri-anirudh-jain-on-21-january-2010"},"wordCount":1670,"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\/ms-tirath-engineers-vs-2-shri-anirudh-jain-on-21-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-tirath-engineers-vs-2-shri-anirudh-jain-on-21-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-tirath-engineers-vs-2-shri-anirudh-jain-on-21-january-2010","name":"M\/S. Tirath Engineers vs 2 Shri Anirudh Jain on 21 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-27T12:20:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-tirath-engineers-vs-2-shri-anirudh-jain-on-21-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-tirath-engineers-vs-2-shri-anirudh-jain-on-21-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-tirath-engineers-vs-2-shri-anirudh-jain-on-21-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S. Tirath Engineers vs 2 Shri Anirudh Jain on 21 January, 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\/75468","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=75468"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75468\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=75468"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=75468"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=75468"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}