Dismissed

Ms Power Build Private Limited Authorized Signatories Anand Kishore Pandey v. Ms Project and Development India Ltd.

Jharkhand HC4 Nov 2022Arb. Appeal/11/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal contested an order upholding an arbitral award mandating refund of contract amount for machines. The court held that statutory weight and measure rules cannot override specific contract terms. The challenge was dismissed as the arbitrator was not negligent in applying the original purchase order specifications.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed with cost; I.A. No. 2707 of 2020 disposed of.

Ms Power Build Private Limited Authorized… — Company and Corporate | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Arbitration Appeal No. 11 of 2019

¶2

¶3

M/s Power Build Private Limited

¶4

… …. Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

M/s Project & Development India Ltd., Dhanbad

¶7

M/s Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Ltd., Dibrugarh

¶8

Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶10

¶11

For the Appellant : M/s Rahul Kr. Gupta & J.N. Upadhyay, Advocates For the Respondents : M/s Bibhash Sinha & Amit Sinha, Advocates

¶12

CAV ON 18.07.2022 PRONOUNCED ON 04 .11. 2022

¶13

The present appeal has been filed under Section 39(I)(vi) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for setting aside the order dated 28.03.2019 passed by the Sub-Judge-II, Dhanbad in Arbitration Case no. 23/1985 as well as the award dated 15.01.1997 passed by the learned Arbitrator.

¶14

Appellant is the Company against which the arbitral award has been made by the arbitrator and affirmed by the learned Court below. The arbitral Award is for refund of the amount with interest, for supply of the machines by the appellant which were found to be not as per the specification of the tender.

¶15

For convenience the parties shall be referred to as per their placement in this appeal.

¶16

The list of dates leading to the present appeal is as under :

¶17

14.11.1979 – The claimant/respondent.no.1 invited tenders for supply of automatic weighing cum tipping machines for Namrup III Expansion Project (Project 1025) for the weighing the fertilizer bags at their production lines. 07.02.1980 – In response to it the appellant company submitted its offer.

¶18

27.08.1980 – Prior to issuance of purchase order the claimant/respondent no.1 issued letter of intent dated 7.08.1980 for supply of 12 Automatic Weighing cum Tipping Machines as per specification sheet, engineering standard and electrical scope of supply for a total sum of Rs. 17,82,000/- only as per break up shown in the letter of Intent.

¶19

22.12.1980 – Purchase order issued by the claimant/respondent no.1 in favour of Principal appellant for supply of 12 Automatic Weighing cum Tipping Machines as per specification sheet, technical scope of supply, electrical scope of supply and other terms and conditions.

¶20

25.02.1982 – The appellant company supplied the machine through Road

¶21

¶22

Transport Corporation and forwarded the invoices and realized the amount through Bank .

¶23

27.9.1983 – It was agreed between the parties that the variation in any bags during the trial run should not be more than specified in the machine should give an overall average accuracy close to 0 (Zero), within tolerable limits if not exactly 0.

¶24

26.12.1983 and 27.12.1983 – A fresh trial run was conducted on 26.12.1983 and 27.12.1983 wherein the maximum error was found to be 200 gms– Annexure-6 series Para-13.

¶25

23.1.1985 – The claimant/respondent no.1 herein vide letter dated 23.1.1985 informed the appellant that since the required performance had not been achieved by the machines even after doing necessary rectifications, the claimant/respondent no.1 company exercise the rights under the terms of purchase order( Annexure 3) and asked the appellant to take back all the machines. It further claimed reimbursement of payments incurred by it.

¶26

20.07.1994 – Claimant/respondent no.1 moved the Court under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act for appointment of an Arbitrator and the learned Court below appointed Shri S.S. Gupta, Chief Engineer (Industrial Engineering), Fertilizer Corporation of India Limited, Sindri Unit, Sindri, Dhanbad as an Arbitrator. The said order was challenged in Civil Revision No. 410 of 1994 (R) and the Court appointed Justice S.K. Choudhuri as an Arbitrator vide order dated 05.07.1995. Both the sides had consented to the appointment of Justice S.K. Choudhuri in this case.

¶27

The following points were referred to the Learned Arbitrator for arbitration by Sub Judge 2^nd Court, Dhanbad vide order dated 26.9.1993:

¶28

A. Whether the specifications contained in the contract with regard to fulfilment of all the terms of guarantee in respect of the machines supplied against the purchase order had been complied with?

¶29

B. Whether the defendant is bound to refund the money received by them and take back machines at its own cost?

¶30

C. Whether the defendant has made a breach of the contract and liable to pay damages and risk purchase difference?

¶31

15.1.1997 – Learned Arbitrator passed the award in the following terms:

¶32

i. The Appellant was required to reimburse the cost of 12 machines supplied by them along with the freight charges realized from the claimant i.e. cost of charges paid Rs.23,86,063.68 + Rs.75,272/- = Rs.24,61,335.68.

¶33

¶34

ii. Refund of this amount of Rs.24,61,335.68 only payable by the Appellant to the claimant/ respondent no.1.

¶35

iii. Interest of 15% per annum payable by the Appellant to the claimant of Rs.24,61,335.68 from 23.01.1985 the date of (Exhibit) Annexure-13 till the date of award. It will be open for the claimant to claim future interest before the Court till payment, if advised.

¶36

iv. As against the claim for costs, a consolidated sum of Rs.30,000/- only payable by the Appellant to the claimant/respondent no.1.

¶37

v. The counter claim filed by the appellant was rejected.

¶38

23.4.2001 – The challenge to the award filed under section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 before the learned Sub Judge II, Dhanbad was rejected on the ground that arbitrator was not bound to give reasoned award and since the award was non-speaking the Court had no power to set aside the award.

¶39

3.1.2019 – The said order was challenged by the appellant before the High Court by filing arbitration appeal. The High Court by its order dated 3.1.2019 passed in arbitration appeal no.2 of 2001 set aside the order dated 23.4.2001 of the sub- judge and remanded the matter back to the learned court below.

¶40

After the remand, the learned Court below has again rejected the appeal preferred against the award by judgment and order dated 28.3.2019. Hence this appeal.

¶41

The appeal has been preferred on the following grounds:

¶42

I. Appellant company was expert in manufacturing of automatic weighing cum tipping machines and supplied to various customers including PSUs. All such were certified by Commissioner, Weights and Measure Department, Ministry of Industry, including the machines supplied to the claimant/respondent herein. II. The technical specification mentioned in the purchase order was as under:

¶43

Clause 3.0 Specific requirements

¶44

i. Clause 3.1 The complete equipment shall be supplied strictly in accordance with the enclosed specification sheets, suitable for filling 50 kg bags and with provision for filling 25 kg bags also (with slight modification) at a later date if required.

¶45

ii. Clause 3.2: The accuracy of the weighing cum tipping machine shall be + 100 gms in each weighment of 50 kg bag and + 0 gm for any 20 consecutive weighments.

¶46

iii. Performance Guarantee – 7.1.1 – The performance of weighing cum tipping machine together with bag holder shall be guaranteed to give the

¶47

¶48

specified rated capacity and accuracy while working continuously for 24 hours per day for the conditions specified in the specification sheet.

¶49

Clause 11 . 2.1 provided that the contractor shall guarantee that the performance of the Equipment supplied under the ORDER shall be strictly in conformity with the specifications and shall perform the duties under the ORDER.

¶50

Clause 30 – Provided that no variation of the order shall be made unless the amendment to the order is issued in writing.

¶51

III. The 12 machines which were to be supplied by the appellant to the respondent no.1 was to be inspected by the inspecting authority of the respondent no.1. The inspecting authority conducted trial run and after such trial run, all the machines were found fit and were cleared for dispatch. It was only after verification and satisfaction of inspecting authority, the machines were supplied to respondent no.1. All the 12 machines supplied by appellant were duly inspected by the Weights and Measures Department, Ahmedabad and checked the calibration and issued certificate no.73 dated 7.01.1982 for 6 machines and certificate no.90 dated 8.1.1980 for 6 machine. Minor errors were found by the inspecting authority of the respondent no.1, but the said errors were within tolerable limits and the inspecting authority had cleared the machines for dispatch. Thus, on 25.2.1982 the appellant supplied the machines to road transportation.

¶52

IV. Out of the 12 machines supplied, two machines were tested by Hindustan Fertilizer and Company Ltd, respondent no.2 and it was found that the specification was not in accordance with the specifications contained in the purchase order. Several trial runs were conducted during the month of June 1983 and the errors were found which were over and above the tolerable limits. However, it was agreed between the parties that a fresh trial run would be conducted.

¶53

V. Thereafter on 27.9.1983 it was agreed between the parties that variation in any bags during the trial run should not be more than a specified and machine should give overall average accuracy close to 0, within tolerable limits if not exactly 0.

¶54

VI. In accordance with the said decision a fresh trial run was conducted on 26.12.1983 and 27.12.1983 wherein the maximum error found was 200gms.

¶55

VII. The matter of packaged commodities comes within the purview of, Standard of Weights and Measures Act 1976. In accordance with the said Act,

¶56

¶57

the standards of weights and measures rules 1977 been framed. The said Rules contains maximum permissible error for different commodities. The first schedule contains a list of commodities and the limit up to which the error is permissible. Such errors varies with different types of commodity. The maximum permissible error goes up to 8%. Since the machines were for intended for fertilisers, the same was covered by the second schedule in the rules 1977. The permissible error which has been mentioned is 1%. Since the accuracy of weighing and tipping machine was for 50 KG bag, this 1% of 50 KG was the limit for maximum permissible error which comes to 500 gms. The chart of trial runs go to show that the maximum variation was up to 200 gms. The said 200 gm error was only once, rest errors were either 50 gm or 100 gms. Thus, does the said aforesaid errors were quite below the statute will recognize permissible error.

¶58

VIII. The errors were within the tolerable limits, the respondent no.1 by letter dated 13.4.1984 informed the appellant that accuracy achieved even after visit of the engineers twice was not acceptable to them and therefore they would go for alternative arrangement at latter’s risk and cost clause as contained in clause 7 (1)(3).

¶59

IX. The said letter was responded by the appellant by its letter dated 4.6.1984 wherein it was maintained that the weighing machines were dispatched only after inspection.

¶60

X. The Claimant/Respondent no.1 by letter dated 23.1.1985 informed the appellant that since the required performance had not been achieved by the machines even after doing necessary rectification, the claimant company exercise the rights under the terms of purchase order and asked the appellant herein to take all the machines.

¶61

XI. In the claim petition before the arbitrator, the claimant/respondent no.1 claimed:

¶62

i. Rs. 70,11, 107.95 as per amount given in schedule A below.

¶63

ii. Pendent lite and future interest in the date of payment at the rate of 18% per annum.

¶64

iii. Cost of proceeding Rs. 45,000/-

¶65

Schedule A

¶66

Amount on account of the price of material supplied – Rs. 2,386,063.00

¶67

Amount of freight charges paid Rs. 75,272.00

¶68

¶69

Interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 23.1.85 to 5.7.95

¶70

…………..Rs. 45, 29,772.27

¶71

Total- Rs 70, 11, 107.95

¶72

Appellant in its statement of defence, counterclaim, denied the claim of the claimant/respondent no.1 and also prayed for dismissal of the same and also claimed a sum of Rs. 2 lakh by way of cost.

¶73

The main plea of the appellant is two folds. The first is that before the dispatch of the consignment of the machines, the office from the company of respondent no.1 visited factory/manufacturing site and conducted inspection of the machines. Random inspection of automatic weighing machine was conducted on 21.01.1982. The inspection report finds reference at page 20 of the award.

¶74

The second limb of the argument is based on the record note of the discussion between M/s Power Build & HFC Ltd. held on 26.09.1983. By citing this note, it is argued that original terms of contract regarding technical specification was varied as per the notes. It was recorded in the note “It was further expressed, HFC would not be in a position to afford to spare unlimited time for trial runs on the machine and Power Build should take the minimum possible time for doing the same. It was further expressed that the variation in the any bags during the trial runs should not be given than specified and machine should give an overall average accuracy close to 0 (zero) within tolerable limits if not exactly 0 (zero). However, Power Build was very much confident that they will be able to demonstrate the performance of machine within its acceptable limit if given another chance as agreed earlier”.

¶75

It is further submitted that the Weight and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 the maximum permissible error in weighing is provided in the second Schedule for commodities such as fertilizer covered under Table 1, Entry 9 of the Schedule II. It is submitted that before this Schedule, the maximum permissible error, in excess or in deficiency, in the net quantity by weight or volume of any commodity not specified in First Schedule is provided to be 1% that will work out to 500 gm. available to 1% on more than 15,000/gm. This will work out to maximum permissible error of 500 gm on a package of 50 kg.

¶76

¶77

Lastly, it is pointed out that vide letter dated 23.01.1985, the letter was sent by respondent no.1 invoking the risk clause stating therein that they were left no other remedy but to purchase the machine from other sources at the cost of appellant but no evidence has been led to show that such a purchase was made.

¶78

With regard to arbitral award, it is pointed out that the main plea which was raised by them in the Civil Revision that the original technical specification, it was impermissibly to meet the original technical specification, therefore, in view of the notes dated 26.09.1983, it was agreed between both sides that the performance should be within tolerable limits but this aspect was not considered by the Hon’ble Arbitrator in the award and finding was recorded whether machine met original specification or note.

¶79

It is submitted on behalf of respondents that the scope of interference while hearing an arbitration appeal is a limited one. Reliance has been placed on (2022) 3 SCC 739 wherein inter alia it has been held that the challenge cannot be allowed only on the ground that the Arbitrator has drawn his own conclusion or failed to appreciate the relevant facts. Nor can the Court substitute its own view on the conclusion of law or facts as against those drawn by the Arbitrator, as if it is sitting in appeal. As long as Arbitrator has taken a possible view, which may be a plausible view, simply because different view from that taken in the award, is possible based on the same evidence, would also not be a ground to interfere in the award.

¶80

Coming to the fact of the present case, it is submitted that in view of the technical specifications (Clause 3.2) the accuracy of the weighing-cum-tipping machine was + 100 gms in each weighment of 50 kg bag and + zero gm for any 20 consecutive weighments.

¶81

Two trial runs were held. One trial run was held in the manufacturing unit on 24.01.1982, jointly by the Engineer of HFC as well as that of the supplier company-Power Build Corporation (Appellant). This test was also jointly held by Engineers of both the companies. After test, it was held that above six machines were randomly checked.

¶82

Machines inspected as per the requirements to the purchase order, the checking of calibration on six machines selected at random and its results were found to be satisfactory. It is argued in this respect that since machine performed as requirement, therefore, the purchase order was placed on 22.12.1980 and the appellant company supplied the machines on 30.1.1981.

¶83

¶84

Sri Bibhas Sinha learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent will argue that this point of application of Packaging Rules has been raised for the first time and was not permissible in view of the terms and conditions specifically provided in the contract for supply of the machines. The matter remains that the machines supplied did not meet the technical specifications and therefore was rejected by the respondent company. The arbitrator after having considered all the points raised has ordered for refund of the amount for the machines which were supplied by the appellant.

¶85

After having considered the rival submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides it appears from the record notes of discussions between M/s Power Build & HFC Ltd dated 27.9.83 that various trial runs conducted earlier by two of the service engineers of Power Build during the period 10^th June 1983 to 14^th August 1983 and the appellant company was of the view that with further adjustments it would be possible to get the desired results. HFC expressed that the results obtained were wide varying and machines gave maximum variation of 450 g for machine no.1 and that for machine no.to it was 325 g between any two bags. As per the opinion of HFC these variations were not acceptable and the HFC was not in a position to spare unlimited time for trial runs on the machines and the appellant company should take minimum possible time for the same. It was further expressed that the variation in any bag during the trial runs should not be more than specified in the machines should achieve overall average accuracy close to 0 (zero) if not exactly 0 (Zero). However, power build was very much confident that they will be able to demonstrate the performance of the machine within acceptable limit if given another chance as agreed earlier.

¶86

Subsequently, the pretrial run was held on 26.12.1983 after supply of two machines and the error margin as will be evident from one of the machine appears at serial Nos.6, 9 & 10; 200 gm, 150 gm and 150 gm. which was against the technical specification of the purchase order. Thereafter, another machine was put on trial on 27.12.1983 at 11.30 and it also could not meet the technical specification as laid down in the supply order.

¶87

The point assiduously raised in appeal on behalf of the appellant is that in the subsequent minutes of the meeting of 26.9.19 83 between M/s Power Build (Appellant) and HFC Ltd(Respondent) modified the term of agreement to the extent of tolerable limits. The tolerable limits as per the Standard of Weights and Measurements Act, 1976 under which the relevant rules of 1977 have been

¶88

¶89

framed provides differently scales for permissible error considering the nature of the commodity supplied. According to it 1% was permissible error which will work out to 500 gm for a 50 KG bag. Taking this into account the errors found in the weighment was below the permissible error.

¶90

The power of the Court while hearing an appeal against an arbitral award has been exposited in Atlanta Ltd. v. Union of India , (2022) 3 SCC 739 in the following words :

¶91

“17. The consistent view taken in several judicial pronouncements is that the Court does not sit in appeal over an award passed by an arbitrator and the only grounds on which it can be challenged are those that have been specified in Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, namely, when there is an error on the face of the award or when the learned arbitrator has misconducted himself or the proceedings. In this context, we may usefully refer to Kwality Mfg. Corpn. v. Central Warehousing Corpn. [ Kwality Mfg. Corpn. v. Central Warehousing Corpn. , (2009) 5 SCC 142 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 406] , where it has been observed as follows : (SCC pp. 146-47, para 10)

¶92

“ 10 . At the outset, it should be noted that the scope of interference by courts in regard to arbitral awards is limited. A court considering an application under Section 30 or 33 of the Act, does not sit in appeal over the findings and decision of the arbitrator. Nor can it reassess or reappreciate evidence or examine the sufficiency or otherwise of the evidence . The award of the arbitrator is final and the only grounds on which it can be challenged are those mentioned in Sections 30 and 33 of the Act. Therefore, on the contentions urged, the only question that arose for consideration before the High Court was, whether there was any error apparent on the face of the award and whether the arbitrator misconducted himself or the proceedings.”

¶93

(emphasis supplied)

¶94

It is also a well-settled principle of law that challenge cannot be laid to the award only on the ground that the arbitrator has drawn his own conclusion or failed to appreciate the relevant facts. Nor can the Court substitute its own view on the conclusion of law or facts as against those drawn by the arbitrator, as if it is sitting in appeal. This aspect has been highlighted in State of Rajasthan v. Puri Construction Co. Ltd. [ State of Rajasthan v. Puri Construction Co. Ltd. , (1994) 6 SCC 485], where it has been observed thus: (SCC pp. 500-501, para 26)

¶95

¶96

“ 26 . The arbitrator is the final arbiter for the dispute between the parties and it is not open to challenge the award on the ground that the arbitrator has drawn his own conclusion or has failed to appreciate the facts. In Sudarsan Trading Co. v. State of Kerala [ Sudarsan Trading Co. v. State of Kerala , (1989) 2 SCC 38] it has been held by this Court that there is a distinction between disputes as to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator and the disputes as to in what way that jurisdiction should be exercised. There may be a conflict as to the power of the arbitrator to grant a particular remedy. One has to determine the distinction between an error within the jurisdiction and an error in excess of the jurisdiction. Court cannot substitute its own evaluation of the conclusion of law or fact to come to the conclusion that the arbitrator had acted contrary to the bargain between the parties . Whether a particular amount was liable to be paid is a decision within the competency of the arbitrator. By purporting to construe the contract the court cannot take upon itself the burden of saying that this was contrary to the contract and as such beyond jurisdiction. If on a view taken of a contract, the decision of the arbitrator on certain amounts awarded is a possible view though perhaps not the only correct view, the award cannot be examined by the court. Where the reasons have been given by the arbitrator in making the award the court cannot examine the reasonableness of the reasons . If the parties have selected their own forum, the deciding forum must be conceded the power of appraisement of evidence. The arbitrator is the sole judge of the quality as well as the quantity of evidence and it will not be for the court to take upon itself the task of being a Judge on the evidence before the arbitrator.”

¶97

(emphasis in original and supplied)”

¶98

In K.V. Mohammed Zakir v. Regional Sports Centre , (2009) 9 SCC 357 it has been held :

¶99

6. It is equally well settled, where the arbitrator acts within jurisdiction, “the reasonableness of the reasons” given by the arbitrator is not open to scrutiny by courts. However, if the reasons are such as no person of ordinary prudence can ever approve of them or if the reasons are so “outrageous in their defiance of logic” that they shock the conscience of the court, then it is a different situation. And in an appropriate case the court may interfere. However, the degree of such unreasonableness must be greater than the standard in a certiorari proceeding.

¶100

¶101

In M.P. Housing Board v. Progressive Writers & Publishers , (2009) 5 SCC 678 it has been held

¶102

30. Interpretation of a contract, it is trite, is a matter for the arbitrator to determine. Even in a case where the award contained reasons, the interference therewith would still be not available within the jurisdiction of the court unless, of course, the reasons are totally perverse or award is based on wrong proposition of law.

¶103

“ 4 . … An error apparent on the face of the records would not imply closer scrutiny of the merits of documents and materials on record. Once it is found that the view of the arbitrator is a plausible one, the court will refrain itself from interfering….”

¶104

(See Sudarsan Trading Co. v. Govt. of Kerala [(1989) 2 SCC 38] and State of U.P. v. Allied Constructions [(2003) 7 SCC 396] at SCC p. 398, para 4.)

¶105

Reference to arbitration was made on 26.9.93 and therefore The Arbitration Act, 1940 will apply. Section 30 provides that an award shall not be set aside except under the grounds. The main ground of challenge is that the arbitrator has misconducted himself in the proceeding. The expression ‘ misconduct’ in Section 30 (a) of the Act has been interpreted to mean legal misconduct, when the arbitrator was found to to have on the face of the award to have arrived at a decision by ignoring the very material and relevant document which throw abundant light on the controversy to help a just and fair decision or arrived at an inconsistent conclusion on his own finding. The error apparent on the face of Award contemplated under Section 16 (1) (c) and Section 30 (c) of the Act is an error of law apparent on the face of the award and not an error of fact and that the arbitrator cannot ignore law or misapply it in order to do what he thinks is just and reasonable.

¶106

Within the four corners of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court the two related questions raised at Bar needs to be decided is whether the record note of discussions between both sides on 26.9.83 varied or amended the technical specifications of the purchase order and secondly whether the maximum permissible error provided under the second schedule of the (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 can be considered to vary the specification as provided in the purchase order.

¶107

This court is of the view that Standards of Weight and Measurement Act, 1976 and the rules for packaging framed under it cannot be imported to determine

¶108

¶109

and alter the technical specification as per the purchase order and the terms of agreement. Merely because the notes of discussion between both the sides on 26.9.83 referred to the tolerable limits of variation, it did not ipso facto alter the technical specifications as set out in the purchase order, so as to import the permissible error as per the second schedule of the Packaging of Commodities Rules 1977. These are the issues which were beyond the point of reference made by the learned court below at the time of appointment of Arbitrator. In view of the express terms of technical specification, the learned Arbitrator cannot be faulted for following the technical specification of purchase order, and not the standards as laid down under the Packaging Rules. In any case, it was within the domain of the Arbitrator to interpret the terms of contract.

¶110

It is apparent that the 12 machines supplied by the Appellant Company were not as per the technical specification of the relevant clause of the purchase order. The arbitrator ordered the refund of the purchase amount with interest as the machines failed to meet the technical specification.

¶111

I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the learned Court below.

¶112

The appeal stands dismissed with cost.

¶113

Consequently, I.A. No. 2707 of 2020 also stands disposed of.

¶114

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 04^th November, 2022

¶115

AFR /AKT

¶116

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)

Ms Power Build Private Limited Authorized Signatories Anand Kishore Pandey v. Ms Project and Development India Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Power Build Private Limited Authorized Signatories Anand Kishore Pandey v. Ms Project and Development India Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kashi Nath Singh Vs Prof Bari Cooperative House Construction Society Limited through Its Secretary

Bhagwati Prasad Agrawal Alias Tamakkuwala Vs the State of Jharkhand

Gazo Mahto Vs Milu Mahto

Ms Associated Estate Enterprises through Its Authorized Signatory Namely Shiba Prasad Banerjee Vs Sunil Kumar Singh

MD Saif Raza Vs MD Ishaque

Sheo Dayal Mahto And Anr. Vs Babu Lal Mahto