{"id":98520,"date":"2010-08-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chief-engineer-vs-amjathulla-on-26-august-2010"},"modified":"2017-08-23T15:19:20","modified_gmt":"2017-08-23T09:49:20","slug":"the-chief-engineer-vs-amjathulla-on-26-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chief-engineer-vs-amjathulla-on-26-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"The Chief Engineer vs Amjathulla on 26 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
The Chief Engineer vs Amjathulla on 26 August, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: K.L.Manjunath And B.Manohar<\/div>\n
1\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\n\nDATED THIS THE 25\"'DAx or AUGUST, 2019;\n\nPRESENT\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.L.MANJU\ufb01\ufb01THTS'R\n\nAND .\"\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUsTIcE\"D~\ufb01&NQH\u00a7\u00a7DVT57n\n\nR.F.A.No.1482}2OO3\nBETWEEN:\n\n1 THE CHIEF ENGINEER;\"m*3\nHEMAVATHI CANAL ZONEg'Vu\nKUNIGAL ROAD, Tumunsg\n\n2 THE ExDcDT:vE{EN\u00a7iNEE\ufb015g_' f\nHEMAVATHI CANAL ZONE,jV' \"\"\nKUNI$ALjRGAD,bTGMUE,\"D.,\n\n3 THE CHi\ufb01?\ufb02SEC\u00a7EE\ufb01RY'\nGovT;%oF,KAaNATDKA\"\nvIDHAxA_soUDHA,_DANGALoRE.\n\n4 ;THE sEcRETARY_\n.\u00ab *--DEPT:.oE Ma\u00e9bn IRRIGATION,\nV*\u00bb_vTDnADA,soUDHA,\n\n5, THE Dy} COMMISSIONER\n'TUMKUR DIsT., ... APPELLANTS\n\nC=D{3y_sii:RAMAcHANDRA R.NAIK,HCGP)\n:?,AuD~\u00a3\n\n._*~- 1 AMJATHULLA\n\nS\/OIDRIS BAIG\n\n36 YRS, PWD CLASSW3, CONTRACTOR,\n\n1ST CLASS, P.G.LAYOUT,\n\nTUMKUR. ... RESPONDENT<\/pre>\n
$7″\n<\/p>\n
2<\/span>
\n(By Sri: BASAVRRAJ M MEKKI, ADV.)<\/p>\n
THIS RFA FILED U\/3.96 0:-3* CPC AGAINsf.i::””1faE:
\nJUDGMENT AND DEGREE DATED 16.8.2883 pAsssD_”.:1;<\/p>\n
o.s.No.94\/2002 ox THE. FILE of THE ADDL–…’VV’c:v;f_Lw~.
\nJUDGE ($R.DN.) & CJM., TUMKUR, DEc:3EE1.1s:Gva.’*1*L1:~;–a”<\/p>\n
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY. r~\u00ab_ti<\/p>\n
THIS APPEAL comma 03151 E’.QRj;. <\/p>\n
DAY, MANJUNATI-i J, DELIvERED”<.fr;\u00e9:g "FoLLoW1;es:'v
\n A it  i
\nThe legality\u00bb and ~a$;r\u00e9ctnaas- ofi the
\nJudgment and decree hpassed din Q s.NO.94\/2002
\non the file o\u00a3_AddlH$\ufb01i\u00a7il_d\ufb01dee% (Sr.Dn.) &
\nCJM, Tumh\ufb01r}dtai\u00a7}\u00e93%@Q\u00a7 is ealled in question
\nby
\n '  was plaintiff in the<\/p>\n
Sui\ufb01}\u00a5'Th\u00e9~$ui\u00a3 has instituted for recovery of<\/p>\n
' wWR$3g}\u00a75,23$\/wito\ufb01ards the damage caused to the<\/p>\n
d.\u00a7lainti\ufb01fdfand another sum of Rs.88,000\/–<\/p>\n
towards~_b\ufb01tstanding bills payable by the<\/p>\n
d"uWrealisation.\n<\/p>\n
3. The facts leading to this case are<\/p>\n
hereunder: \u00e9%\/<\/p>\n
The plaintiff is a registered contractor.
\nPursuant to the tender invited by
\ndefendant for construction of a hridgeMi\u00a7:?M>
\nHemavathi canal, he submitted his tenderto. ”
\nconstruct a bridge in a plecehknown as M \ufb01aiii
\nGadi Bridge. His tender was accepted and Qsigig
\norder was issued vide agreement Mo i720p0;2001
\ndt .11 . 4 . 2000 at  .  902\u00ab-\u00ab-10
\nps. The work was agreed to be cognleted within
\nsix monthsg from rthef date “cit handing over<\/p>\n
possessionibf the site. The site in question<\/p>\n
was handed over to the tlaintiff on 22.4.2000<\/p>\n
and he commenced the work. According to him,
\n,, g”\ufb01\/g .\n<\/p>\n
LmbE~<\/p>\n
_, he had” caused slab of the bridge and slab was<\/p>\n
\u00bbrequiredgto_be cured for a period of 26 days<\/p>\n
from the date of c ‘<\/p>\n
Cw\ufb01aw $\/
\n. He had used 370<\/p>\n
Centering sheets and poles for supporting and<\/p>\n
2*,otherN materials like, iron sheets, wood,<\/p>\n
aplates, runners, etc., on both the sides.<\/p>\n
u\ufb02i\ufb01nfortunately on 11.7.2000 Irrigation<\/p>\n
Department had released the water in the
\nHemavathy canal as a result of the velocity of<\/p>\n
8\/<\/p>\n
‘\\.\n<\/p>\n
6\/.\n<\/p>\n
the water force, centering sheets along with<\/p>\n
the poles were washed away and as a result of<\/p>\n
which he claimed damage by issuingj'”a\u00ab’Qjlegavl’~.A<\/p>\n
notice to the defendants. He also elaieed au.h<\/p>\n
sum of Rs.80,000\/- tO:’\u00bb’:fa1′:d..’S,’A:. F;;;a;’.1.’an’\u00a2e’~..egg_”daft’<\/p>\n
outstanding bill by issuingTnctice\u00a7 a\ufb02on the 3<\/p>\n
ground that his claim \ufb01es not honoured, the
\nsuit was filed ,te -recoV\u00a7h[,the aforesaid
\namount. __ emit; i<\/p>\n
4. ;’.Ehe_\u00ab\u00ab._V::’de_fe11da;nts'”_ ‘\u00e9zmztested the suit
\naccepting *thehhtender ofw the plaintiff and
\nentrusting the jw\u00a2r\u00a3~.o\u00a3 construction of the<\/p>\n
bridge b\u00a7_ the hplaintiff\u00e9 for a cost of
\n‘ 3’ if 2 Law”-\n<\/p>\n
.~Wrg3;\u00a7)23,9g2_2Oh\ufb01sr According to hem, there was<\/p>\n
1,no.water”faree aid since Irrigation Department<\/p>\n
has4’1’rg1.\u00a2”a.s\u00e9d only 3.32 quesex and that 270<\/p>\n
VVcentering sheets each weighing 29 kgs. cannot<\/p>\n
h\ufb01flo\ufb01fin the water on account of the velocity<\/p>\n
rwwsmof the water force. Therefore, the defendants<\/p>\n
denied ‘the loss caused ‘to ‘the plaintiff on
\naccount of release of the water. It was also<\/p>\n
contended that the defendants are not liable<\/p>\n
\u00abV<\/p>\n
to pay any amount. In the circumstances they<\/p>\n
request the court to dismiss the sqit:.jfj% ”<\/p>\n
5. Based on the above’ pleadings,3 thei<\/p>\n
following issues were framed; by ‘the fconrt<\/p>\n
below:\n<\/p>\n
1) Whether plaintiff r_proves that” defts,
\nnegligently .\ufb01ithohtp’enyfhinformation to
\nplaintiff have released water to the canal
\non 11.7.2000 due ” to”a which centering
\nmaterialsawashed”e\ufb02ayaand caused damage?<\/p>\n
2) Whethefg iplaintiff ;”proves the alleged<\/p>\n
negligent “act Vof *the} officials of the
\ndefts?,f~V “V “\u00ab_,_=<\/p>\n
efts,W proves that by the time<\/p>\n
3) whether b\ufb02<\/p>\n
plaintiff ‘tried “to remove the centering
\nsheets at the time they were fallen down?<\/p>\n
4) $0 what relief the parties are entitled?<\/p>\n
l’n, 6.’.In” order to prove the respective<\/p>\n
\u00e9ehfenfieesg on behalf of the plaintiff, in<\/p>\n
VV_ all three nitnesses were examined. Among the<\/p>\n
.u”three witnesses, PW1 is the plaintiff, PW2 and<\/p>\n
P20. On behalf of the defendants, one<\/p>\n
<3"\n<\/p>\n
K.T.Govindaraju, Asst. Executive Engineer was<\/p>\n
examined. The Trial Court after considering<\/p>\n
the evidence, held issues-1 and”*i2eg:%nxp<\/p>\n
affirmative and issue–3 in\u00bb~_negativef<\/p>\n
Accordingly, the suit of the p.J.aint\u00bbiifAf’~.ceme’Vto<\/p>\n
be decreed for a su1nfo__\u00a3 Re_,.’s*,2o,e,o”bQ\/if <\/p>\n
interest at 12% p.a. fre\ufb01 the date of suit<\/p>\n
till the date of realisationgl This judgement<\/p>\n
. and decree is called. in_’\u00a7ueetion in this<\/p>\n
aPPeaJ.. _.\n<\/p>\n
7. iwe have heard the iearned counsel for
\nboth the parties; “I”\n<\/p>\n
8. The_nain contention of the appellants<\/p>\n
befere* us dis that the Trial Court has<\/p>\n
‘d\u00a7mitt\ufb01Qipaa serious error in holding that<\/p>\n
‘there was e loss of 370 centering sheets and<\/p>\n
‘V woodena poles worth Rs.60,000\/~ and further<\/p>\n
V’?qcommitted a serious error in granting a decree<\/p>\n
h for Rs.5,20,000\/- and also committed an error<\/p>\n
twin awarding interest at 12% p.a. ‘He further<\/p>\n
contends the Trial Court did not notice that<\/p>\n
the plaintiff did not prove that he had<\/p>\n
\u00e9\/,<\/p>\n
utilised 370 centering sheets as a supporting<\/p>\n
_ a, c d
\nmaterial to \u00e9%\u00a7gt’ the slab and he \ufb01urther<\/p>\n
contends that out of 370 Qenteringin\ufb01teriale<\/p>\n
270 sheets were supplied by the d\u00e9\u00a3e$aa\ufb01ts.to”<\/p>\n
the plaintiff. He further contends*tha\ufb02 pkg<\/p>\n
Trial Court also did net consider the value ofal<\/p>\n
each sheet as on the date \u00e9f the alleged loss
\nsaid to have been caused to the plaintiff. In
\nthe circumstances{Mne;reguestgdthe court to
\nset aside \u00bbthef:JnddmentdIendl decree as the
\nplaint_i..fV.fA to prove the
\nactual loss su%tai\u00a7\u00a7a_by him and the value of
\nthe centerinc”sheetsgi’<\/p>\n
.f{\u00a7;~ Per vcontra, the learned. counsel for<\/p>\n
\u00bbthe plaintiff, Mr.Basavaraj M. Mekki contends<\/p>\n
‘that lthe_fdefendants have denied the loss<\/p>\n
causedp to the plaintiff and similarly the<\/p>\n
‘r,defendants also did not question the value of<\/p>\n
“thei centering sheets or the value of the<\/p>\n
hmvooden poles which were erected to support the<\/p>\n
slab of the bridge. In the circumstances he<\/p>\n
requests the court to dismiss the appeal.<\/p>\n
\u20ac’-\u00bb\/<\/p>\n
10. Having heard the counsel for the
\nparties, the following points are to The<\/p>\n
considered by us in this appeal:<\/p>\n
1)Whether the Trial Court is justified, inusd<\/p>\n
holding that the plaintiff haa_su\u00a7\u00a7aaad*a:<\/p>\n
loss of Rs.5,20,000\/W?\n<\/p>\n
2)Whether the Trial ‘court his gjusti\u00a3ied\u00a7 in– ”<\/p>\n
awarding interest at lit p,a.\u00a7<.g"'\n<\/p>\n
11. So fard ass the” first point is
\nconcerned, itv isg”not:VinQddis\u00a7ute that the<\/p>\n
constructi\ufb01iio\ufb01jthechridge was entrusted by<\/p>\n
the defendants to the plaintiff. It is also<\/p>\n
not in _disputetd\u00a3hat_ the plaintiff as a<\/p>\n
‘\u00b0.” ” rfadka\ufb01 .\n<\/p>\n
contractor had caused the slab of the bridge.<\/p>\n
“* The actual dis ute is whether there was loss<\/p>\n
d1 of 370 centering sheets and wooden poles worth<\/p>\n
of Rs.\ufb01Q}OQ\u00a7\/– on account of excess release of<\/p>\n
sgthe ~water by the Irrigation Department in<\/p>\n
‘d\ufb02eeavathy canal which resulted in washing away<\/p>\n
‘d the wooden poles along with the centering<\/p>\n
iv materials. So far as this point is concerned,<\/p>\n
it is an admitted fact that 270 sheets were<\/p>\n
supplied by the defendants, on account of the<\/p>\n
6\/<\/p>\n
release of excess water by the Irrigation<\/p>\n
Department into the Hemevathy Canal, at hest<\/p>\n
the plaintiff can contend. that there\u00bb is fnoa<\/p>\n
liability of him to return 270 ‘_+-.-:vie\u00abi<\/p>\n
defendants. Then the question\u00ab; <\/p>\n
there is a loss of centering sheets in exdessl\u00e9<\/p>\n
of 270, then what waVs\u00bb.,V:.V”t’.he V”val”u*e  the<\/p>\n
centering sheets \ufb01es jongitheiasaidiidate of<\/p>\n
“incident. Unfortunately hoth the \ufb01laintiff as<\/p>\n
well as the Ydefendants “did}~not focus their<\/p>\n
attention to the’acthalwregpirement of sheets<\/p>\n
considering the width and length of the roof<\/p>\n
of the Bridge end\ufb02also the authorities also<\/p>\n
__ did not foods the requirement of wooden poles<\/p>\n
ll toVsupport the width and length of the bridge.<\/p>\n
Similarlff the parties have also not let in<\/p>\n
— evidence in regard to the cost of the wooden<\/p>\n
kgpoles tor the cost of the centering materials.<\/p>\n
–llTho\ufb01gh the parties have not concentrated their<\/p>\n
‘g’cese on these points which are vital in nature<\/p>\n
in order to assess the loss of damages, the<\/p>\n
Trial Court has also not applied its mind<\/p>\n
A <%\/<\/p>\n
while decreeing the suit. Without any basis<\/p>\n
the Trial Court has come to the conclusion<\/p>\n
there was an actual loss of 370 <\/p>\n
sheets and wooden poles worth <\/p>\n
and awarded a sum of  as'<\/p>\n
Therefore, on this short dghround <\/p>\n
Judgment and decree   Court
\nrequired to be :vaivvir'1s.werin\u00a7;;VAvVpoint–1
\nin favour of V the  the
\nRespondent   <\/p>\n
3.2. in  findings on point-1,<\/p>\n
we not  proper for us to give<\/p>\n
our finding  2" point, namely, in<\/p>\n
 rega;\u00a2rdiA'to the.___a_warding of interest from the<\/p>\n
  ovf'.suVit___till the date of realisation.<\/p>\n
 circumstances, we are of the<\/p>\n
j opinizovna as there is no proper evidence let in<\/p>\n
 the parties, considering the actual<\/p>\n
  sustained by the Respondent–plaintiff,<\/p>\n
"the matter requires to be remanded to the<\/p>\n
Trial Court for fresh consideration.<\/p>\n
6\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court The Chief Engineer vs Amjathulla on 26 August, 2010 Author: K.L.Manjunath And B.Manohar 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 25″‘DAx or AUGUST, 2019; PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.L.MANJU\ufb01\ufb01THTS’R AND .” THE HON’BLE MR. JUsTIcE”D~\ufb01&NQH\u00a7\u00a7DVT57n R.F.A.No.1482}2OO3 BETWEEN: 1 THE CHIEF ENGINEER;”m*3 HEMAVATHI CANAL ZONEg’Vu KUNIGAL ROAD, Tumunsg […]<\/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-98520","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Chief Engineer vs Amjathulla on 26 August, 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-chief-engineer-vs-amjathulla-on-26-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Chief Engineer vs Amjathulla on 26 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chief-engineer-vs-amjathulla-on-26-august-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=\"2010-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-23T09:49:20+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-chief-engineer-vs-amjathulla-on-26-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-chief-engineer-vs-amjathulla-on-26-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Chief Engineer vs Amjathulla on 26 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-23T09:49:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-chief-engineer-vs-amjathulla-on-26-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1492,\"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-chief-engineer-vs-amjathulla-on-26-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-chief-engineer-vs-amjathulla-on-26-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-chief-engineer-vs-amjathulla-on-26-august-2010\",\"name\":\"The Chief Engineer vs Amjathulla on 26 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-23T09:49:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-chief-engineer-vs-amjathulla-on-26-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-chief-engineer-vs-amjathulla-on-26-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-chief-engineer-vs-amjathulla-on-26-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Chief Engineer vs Amjathulla on 26 August, 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 Chief Engineer vs Amjathulla on 26 August, 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-chief-engineer-vs-amjathulla-on-26-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Chief Engineer vs Amjathulla on 26 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chief-engineer-vs-amjathulla-on-26-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-23T09:49:20+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chief-engineer-vs-amjathulla-on-26-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chief-engineer-vs-amjathulla-on-26-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Chief Engineer vs Amjathulla on 26 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-23T09:49:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chief-engineer-vs-amjathulla-on-26-august-2010"},"wordCount":1492,"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-chief-engineer-vs-amjathulla-on-26-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chief-engineer-vs-amjathulla-on-26-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chief-engineer-vs-amjathulla-on-26-august-2010","name":"The Chief Engineer vs Amjathulla on 26 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-23T09:49:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chief-engineer-vs-amjathulla-on-26-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chief-engineer-vs-amjathulla-on-26-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chief-engineer-vs-amjathulla-on-26-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Chief Engineer vs Amjathulla on 26 August, 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\/98520","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=98520"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/98520\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=98520"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=98520"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=98520"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}