{"id":102556,"date":"2002-03-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-03-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashi-p-limited-vs-union-of-india-uoi-western-on-16-march-2002"},"modified":"2018-09-24T14:11:13","modified_gmt":"2018-09-24T08:41:13","slug":"ashi-p-limited-vs-union-of-india-uoi-western-on-16-march-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashi-p-limited-vs-union-of-india-uoi-western-on-16-march-2002","title":{"rendered":"Ashi (P) Limited vs Union Of India (Uoi) (Western … on 16 March, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Ashi (P) Limited vs Union Of India (Uoi) (Western … on 16 March, 2002<\/div>\n
Author: S Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: S Sinha, A Sikri<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
 S.B. Sinha, C.J.  <\/p>\n
 1. The petitioner herein in response to a tender floated by the respondents for
\nmanufacture and supply of 2,50,000 pre-stressed mono block concrete sleepers submitted
\nits offer pursuant whereto the parties entered into an agreement, which contained an
\narbitration clause. On or about 30.03.1992, the said, the said contract was terminated whereupon
\nthe petitioner herein by a demand notice dated 05.01.1995 called upon the respondents to
\npay a sum of Rs. 39,24,000\/- by way of damages. Again by a notice dated 18.03.1995,
\nthe petitioner called upon the respondents to appoint an Arbitrator.\n<\/p>\n
 2. By a letter dated 11.12.1995 the request for arbitration made by the
\npetitioner was rejected. The petitioner thereafter filed a suit under Section 20 of the
\nArbitration Act, 1940 (in short, ‘1940 Act’) on 25.05.1996, which was marked as Suit
\nNo. 1541 of 1996. However, the said suit was converted into an application under
\nSection 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short, ‘the Act’).\n<\/p>\n
 3. By reason of the impugned order dated 21.12.2000, the said application
\nhas been dismissed on the ground of being barred by limitation. This writ petition is
\ndirected against the said order.\n<\/p>\n
 4. Mr. Arvind Nigam, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
\npetitioner, would submit that having regard to the provisions contained in Article 137 of
\nthe Limitation Act, 1963, the learned Single Judge must b e held to have erred in
\ndismissing the said application.\n<\/p>\n
 5. The learned counsel would contend that a cause for filing an application
\nunder Section 11(6) of the Act would arise on the day when the request for appointment
\nof the Arbitrator was rejected and thus the period of limitation in this case would start
\nfrom 11.12.1995.\n<\/p>\n
 6. In support of the aforesaid contention, the learned counsel has placed
\nreliance on  Utkal Commercial Corporation v. Central Coal Fields Ltd.<\/a>  ,  Major (Retd.)
\nInder Singh Rekhi v. Delhi Development Authority   and  Konkan Railway Corporation
\nLtd. and Ors.<\/a> v. Mehul Construction Co.  .\n<\/p>\n
 7. Ms. B. Sunita Rao, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
\nrespondent, on the other hand, would submit that having regard to the fact that the
\nprocess for referring the matter to the Arbitrator was initiated prior to coming into force
\nof the Act, thus an application under Section 11(6) thereof must be held to be not
\nmaintainable.\n<\/p>\n
 8. The arbitration clause as mentioned in the aforesaid agreement is as
\nunder:-\n<\/p>\n
 “ARBITRATION:\n<\/p>\n
 a) In the event of any question, dispute or difference
\narising under these conditions or any special conditions of
\ncontract or in connection with this contract except as to any
\nmatters (the division of which is specially provided by these
\nor the special conditions) the same shall be referred to the
\nsole arbitration of a Gazetted Railway Officer appointed to
\nbe the Arbitrator, by the General Manager in the case of
\ncontracts entered into by the Zonal Railways and Production
\nUnits; by any member of the Railway Board, in the case of
\ncontracts entered into by the Railway Board; and by the
\nHead of the Organization in respect of contracts entered into
\nby the other organizations under the Ministry of Railways.
\nThe Gazetted Railway Officer to be appointed as Arbitrator,
\nhowever, will not be one of those who had an opportunity to
\ndeal with the matters to which the contract relates or who in
\nthe course of their duties as Railway servants have
\nexpressed views on all or any of the matters under dispute or
\ndifference. The award of the Arbitrator shall be final and
\nbinding on the parties to this contract.”\n<\/p>\n
 Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 reads thus:- <\/p>\n
\n\n   137.        Any other application        Three years          When the\n            for which no period of                            right to\n            limitation is provided                            apply\n            elsewhere in this                                 accrues.\"\n            Division. [1905-\n            Article 151] \n \n \n\n<\/pre>\n
 9. The petitioner herein by a letter dated 18.03.1995, as noticed hereinbefore,
\ncalled upon the respondent to appoint Arbitrator in terms of the arbitration clause referred
\nto hereinbefore in the following terms:-\n<\/p>\n
  “14. In view of the above, you are hereby requested to
\nappoint and nominate a Gazetted Railway Officer to be an
\nArbitrator within 15 days from the receipt of this notice and
\nrefer the above disputes and differences mentioned in para
\n12 above to the said Arbitrator for adjudication.”\n<\/p>\n
 10. The aforementioned letter was replied by the respondent by its letter dated
\n11.12.1995 stating as under:-\n<\/p>\n
“WESTERN RAILWAYS  <\/p>\n
 Head quarter office, <\/p>\n
Churchgate, Bombay, 20.\n<\/p>\n
 No. W634\/12\/2\/14  <\/p>\n
 Dt. 11.12.1995  <\/p>\n
M\/s. Ashi Private Ltd., <\/p>\n
 S-66, L.G. Floor, <\/p>\n
 Greater Kailash-I <\/p>\n
 New Delhi: 110048  <\/p>\n
Sub: Manufacture and supply of MG concrete sleepers
\nagainst contract No. W634\/12\/2\/14 Dt: 25.8.89.\n<\/p>\n
Ref: Shri. Sanjeev Ralli Advocate Delhi’s letter No. Nil
\nDated: 6.1.95 and dated: 18.3.95.\n<\/p>\n
 Your request for arbitration received through above
\nreferred letters from Shri. Sanjeev Ralli your advocate, has
\nbeen considered by Railway Administration (Western
\nRailway) and found that it is not justified and not tenable, as
\nsuch the demand for arbitration is regretted.\n<\/p>\n
[Chief Engineer (G)]  <\/p>\n
for General Manager”\n<\/p>\n
11. In the aforementioned situation, the said application under Section 20 of
\n1940 Act was filed.\n<\/p>\n
 Section 20 of 1940 Act reads thus:-\n<\/p>\n
“Section 20.  Application to file in Court arbitration agreement-\n<\/p>\n
(1) Where any persons have entered into an arbitration
\nagreement before the institution of any suit with respect to
\nthe subject-matter of the agreement or any part of it, and
\nwhere a difference has arisen to which the agreement applies
\nthey or any of them, instead of proceeding under Chapter II,
\nmay apply to a Court having jurisdiction in the matter to
\nwhich the agreement relates, that the agreement be filed in
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
 (2) The application shall be in writing and shall be
\nnumbered and registered as a suit between one or more of
\nthe parties interested or claiming to be interested as plaintiff
\nor plaintiffs and the remainder as defendant or defendants, if
\nthe application has been presented by all the parties, or, if
\notherwise, between the applicant as plaintiff and the other
\nparties as defendants.\n<\/p>\n
 (3) On such application being made, the Court shall
\ndirect notice thereof to be given to all parties to the
\nagreement other than the applicants, requiring them to show
\ncause within the time specified in the notice why the
\nagreement should not be filed.\n<\/p>\n
 (4) Where no sufficient cause is shown, the Court shall
\norder the agreement to be filed and shall make an order of
\nreference to the arbitrator appointed by the parties, whether
\nin the agreement or otherwise, or where the parties cannot
\nagree upon an arbitrator, to an arbitrator appointed by the
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
(5) Thereafter the arbitration shall proceed in accordance
\nwith, and shall be governed by, the other provisions of this
\nAct so far as they can be made applicable.”\n<\/p>\n
 12. However, the said suit was converted into an application under Section 11
\n(6) of the Act purported to be on a wrong notion.\n<\/p>\n
13. In absence of any specific provisions contained in the schedule appended
\nto the Limitation Act indisputably Article 137 thereof would be attracted.\n<\/p>\n
 In  Major (Retd.) Inder Singh Rekhi (Supra),  the Apex Court held:-\n<\/p>\n
“4. Therefore, in order to be entitled to order of
\nreference under Section 20, it is necessary that there should be an
\narbitration agreement and secondly, different must arise to
\nwhich this agreement applied. In this case, there is no
\ndispute that there was an arbitration agreement. There has
\nbeen an assertion of claim by the appellant and silence as
\nwell as refusal in respect of the same by respondent.
\nTherefore, a dispute has arisen regarding non-payment of
\nthe alleged dues of the appellant. The question is for the
\npresent case when did such dispute arise. The High Court
\nproceeded on the basis that the work was completed in 1980
\nand, therefore, the appellant became entitled to the payment
\nfrom that date and the cause of action under Article 137 arose
\nfrom that date. But in order to be entitled to ask for a
\nreference under Section 20 of the Act there must not only be an
\nentitlement to money but there must be a difference or a
\ndispute must arise. It is true that on completion of the work
\na right to get payment would normally arise but where the
\nfinal bills as in this case have not been prepared as appears
\nfrom the record and when the assertion of the claim was
\nmade on 28th Feb. 1983 and there was non-payment, the
\ncause of action arose from that date, that is to say, 28th of
\nFeb. 1983. It is also true that a party cannot postpone the
\naccrual of cause of action by writing reminders or sending
\nreminders but where the bill had not been finally prepared,
\nthe claim made by a claimant is the accrual of the cause of
\naction. A dispute arises where there is a claim and a denial
\nand repudiation of the claim. The existence of dispute is
\nessential for appointment of an arbitration under Section 8 or a
\nreference under Section 20 of the Act. Lee Law of Arbitration by
\nR.S. Bachawat, 1st Edition, page 354. There should be
\ndispute and there can only be a dispute when a claim is
\nasserted by one party and denied by the other on whatever
\ngrounds. Mere failure or inaction to pay does not lead to the
\ninference of the existence of dispute. Dispute entails a
\npositive element and assertion in denying, not merely
\ninaction to accede to a claim or a request. When in a
\nparticular case a dispute has arisen or not has to be found out
\nfrom the facts and circumstances of the case.”\n<\/p>\n
 14. Yet again in  Utkal Commercial Corporation (Supra),  it was held by the
\nApex Court:-\n<\/p>\n
“13. If the submission is that the claims filed before the
\narbitrator are barred by limitation, we cannot examine such a
\ncontention without the relevant particulars and details of the
\ndisputes between the parties being placed before us. These
\nparticulars and even the documents have not been filed
\nbefore us because such a contention has not been raised in
\nthese proceedings at all. One cannot assume that the cause
\nof action arose on the date of expiry of the contract. As
\npointed out by this Court in  Major (Retd.) Inder Singh Rekhi
\n case   in the passage cited above, cause of action can arise
\nlater, depending on the facts of the case. Whether the claims
\nwere or were not barred by limitation before the arbitrator
\ncan be examined only on the basis of the relevant material,
\nwhich material has not been produced. We, therefore,
\ndeclined to examine this contention.”\n<\/p>\n
 15. It is not in dispute that as the learned Single Judge exercised his
\njurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Act, a writ petition, therefore, is maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
 16. In  Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. and Ors. (Supra),  the Apex court held that
\nan order under Section 11(6) of the Act being administrative in nature, a writ petition
\nwould be maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
17. This aspect of the matter has been considered by a Division Bench of the
\nAndhra Pradesh High Court in  Union of India v. Vengamamaba Engineering Co. and
\nOrs.<\/a>  2001(4) ALT 45 (D.B.). The Division Bench considered the question as to when a writ petition would be
\nmaintainable and held thus:-\n<\/p>\n
 “17. In first Konkan Railways  case (1 supra), a three-judge
\nBench referring to various provisions of the said Act
\nobserved that when the legislative intent is clear, it would be
\nproper for the Chief Justice or his nominee just to appoint an
\narbitrator without wasting any time or without entertaining
\nany contentious issues raised at that stage, by a party
\nobjecting to the appointment of an arbitrator inasmuch as all
\nissues can be raised in the arbitral proceedings. But dealing
\nwith a contingency where the Chief Justice or his nominee
\nrefuses to make an appointment of arbitrator, it was held that
\nremedy by way of writ petition would lie. It was held that if
\nan order passed under Section 11(6) is construed to be a
\njudicial or quasi-judicial order, the same would be amenable
\nto judicial intervention and any reluctant party may frustrate
\nthe entire purpose of the Act by adopting dilatory tactics in
\napproaching a Court of law even against an order of
\nappointment of an arbitrator, which interpretation should be
\navoided with a view to achieve the basic objective for which
\nthe Parliament enacted the Act of 1996 adopting
\nUNICITRAL Model. It was held:\n<\/p>\n
  “If on the other hand, it is held that
\nthe order passed by the Chief Justice under
\nSection 11(6) is administrative in nature,
\nthen in such an event in a case where the
\nlearned Chief Justice or his nominee refuses
\nerroneously to make an appointment then an
\nintervention should be possible by a Court in
\nthe same way as an intervention is possible
\nagainst an administrative order of the
\nexecutive. In other words, it would be a case
\nof non-performance of the duty by the Chief
\nJustice or his nominee, and therefore, a
\nmandamus would life. If such an
\ninterpretation is given with regard to the
\ncharacter of the order that has been passed
\nunder Section 11(6) then in the event an
\norder of refusal is passed under Section 11(6)
\nit could be remedied by issuance of a
\nmandamus. We are persuaded to accept the
\nsecond alternative in as much as in such an
\neven there would not be inordinate delay in
\nsetting arbitral process in motion. But, as
\nhas been explained earlier in the earlier part
\nof this Judgment, the duty of the Chief
\nJustice or his nominee being to set the
\narbitral process in motion, it is expected that
\ninvariably the Chief Justice or his nominee
\nwould make an appointment of arbitrator or
\nso that the arbitral proceeding would start as
\nexpeditiously as possible and the dispute
\nitself could be resolved and the objective of
\nthe Act can be achieved.\n<\/p>\n
 18. However, we may notice that the correctness of the decision in Konkan
\nRailway Corporation Ltd. and Ors. (Supra) was doubted in   Konkan Railway Corporation
\nLtd. and Anr. v. Rani Construction Pvt. Ltd.<\/a>  2002 (1) SCALE 465, wherein the Constitution Bench of the
\nApex Court by a judgment dated 30.1.2000 held:-\n<\/p>\n
 “… There is nothing in Section 11 that requires the
\nparty other than the party making the request to be noticed.
\nIt does not contemplate a response from that other party. It
\ndoes not contemplate a decision by the Chief Justice or his
\ndesignate on any controversy that the other party may raise,
\neven in regard to its failure to appoint an arbitrator within
\nhe period of thirty days. That the Chief Justice or his
\ndesignate has to make the nomination of an arbitrator only
\nif the period of thirty days is over does not lead to the
\nconclusion that the decision to nominate is adjudicatory. In
\nits request to the Chief Justice to make the appointment the
\nparty would aver that this period has passed and, ordinarily,
\ncorrespondence between the parties would be annexed to
\nbear this out. This is all that the Chief Justice or his
\ndesignate has to see. That the Chief Justice or his designate
\nhas to take into account the qualifications required of the
\narbitrator by the agreement between the parties (which,
\nordinarily, would also be annexed to the request) and other
\nconsiderations likely to secure the nomination of an
\nindependent and impartial arbitrator also cannot lead to the
\nconclusion that the Chief Justice or his designate is
\nrequired to perform an adjudicatory function. That the
\nword ‘decision’ is used in the matter of the request by a
\nparty to nominate an arbitrator does not of itself mean that
\nan adjudicatory decision is contemplated.\n<\/p>\n
 As we see it, the only function of the Chief Justice
\nor his designate under Section 11 is to fill the gap left by a
\nparty to the arbitration agreement or by the two arbitrators
\nappointed by the parties and nominate an arbitrator. This is
\nto enable the arbitral tribunal to be expeditiously
\nconstituted and the arbitration proceedings to commence.
\nThe function has been left to the Chief Justice or his
\ndesignate advisedly, with a view to ensure that the
\nnomination of the arbitrator is made by a person occupying
\nhigh judicial office or his designate, who would take due
\ncare to see that a competent, independent and impartial
\narbitrator is nominated.\n<\/p>\n
 It might be that though the Chief Justice or his
\ndesignate might have taken all due care to nominate an
\nindependent and impartial arbitrator, a party in a given case
\nmay have justifiable doubts about that arbitrator’s
\nindependence or impartiality. In that event it would be
\nopen to that party to challenge the arbitrator under Section
\n12, adopting the procedure under Section 13. There is no
\nreason whatever to conclude that the grounds for challenge
\nunder Section 13 are not available only because the
\narbitrator has been nominated by the Chief Justice or his
\ndesignate under Section 11.\n<\/p>\n
 It might also be that in a given case the Chief
\nJustice or his designate may have nominated an arbitrator
\nalthough the period of thirty days had not expired. If so,
\nthe arbitral tribunal would have been improperly
\nconstituted and be without jurisdiction. It would then be
\nopen to the aggrieved party to require the arbitral tribunal
\nto rule on its jurisdiction. Section 16 provides for this. It
\nstates that the arbitral tribunal may rule on its own
\njurisdiction. That the arbitral tribunal may rule “on any
\nobjections with respect to the existence or validity of the
\narbitration agreement” shows that the arbitral tribunal’s
\nauthority under Section 16 is not confined to the width of
\nits jurisdiction, as was submitted by learned counsel for the
\nappellants, but goes to the very root of its jurisdiction.
\nThere would, therefore, be no impediment in contending
\nbefore the arbitral tribunal that it had been wrongly
\nconstituted by reason of the fact that the Chief Justice or his
\ndesignate had nominated an arbitrator although the period
\nof thirty days had not expired and that, therefore, it had no
\njurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
 The schemes made by the Chief Justice under
\nSection 11 cannot govern the interpretation of Section 11.
\nIf the schemes, as drawn, go beyond the terms of Section
\n11 they are bad and have to be amended. To the extent that
\nthe appointment of Arbitrators by the Chief Justice of India
\nScheme, 1996, goes beyond Section 11 by requiring, in
\nClause 7, the service of a notice upon the other party to the
\narbitration agreement to show cause why the nomination of
\nan arbitrator, as requested, should not be made, it is bad and
\nmust be amended. The other party needs to be given notice
\nof the request only so that it may know of it and it may, if it
\nso chooses, assist the Chief Justice or his designate in the
\nnomination of an arbitrator.\n<\/p>\n
 In conclusion, we hold that the order of the chief
\nJustice or his designate under Section 11 nominating an
\narbitrator is not an adjudicatory order and the Chief Justice
\nor his designate is not a tribunal. Such an order cannot
\nproperly be made the subject of a petition for special leave
\nto appeal under Article 136. The decision of the three
\nJudge Bench in   Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. and Ors.
\nv. Mehul Construction Co.<\/a>  is affirmed.\n<\/p>\n
 …..\n<\/p>\n
 In the result, the appeals are dismissed. No order as
\nto costs.”\n<\/p>\n
 See also  Narayan Prasad Lohia v. Nijunj Kumar Lohia and Ors.<\/a>  2002 (2) SCALE 232.\n<\/p>\n
19. In this view of the matter, the writ petition must be held to be
\nmaintainable.\n<\/p>\n
 20. However, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent
\nappears to be correct to the effect that Section 11(6) of the Act in this case would not
\napply.\n<\/p>\n
 21. In  Shetty’s Constructions Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Konkan Railway Construction and
\nAnr.<\/a>  , the Apex Court held as under:-\n<\/p>\n
  “4. A mere look at Sub-section (2)(a) of the Section 85
\nshows that despite the repeal of “Arbitration Act, 1940″, the
\nprovisions of the said enactment shall be applicable in
\nrelation to arbitration proceedings which have commenced
\nprior to the coming into force of the new Act. The new Act
\ncame into force on 26-1-1996. The question therefore,
\narises whether on that date the arbitration proceedings in the
\npresent four suits had commenced or not. For resolving this
\ncontroversy we may turn to Section 21 of the new Act which
\nlays down that unless otherwise agreed to between the
\nparties, the arbitration suit in respect of arbitration dispute
\ncommenced on the date on which the request for referring
\nthe dispute for arbitration is received by the respondents.
\nTherefore, it must be found out whether the request by the
\npetitioner for referring the disputes for arbitration were
\nmoved for consideration of the respondents on and after 26-1-1996
\nor prior thereto. If such requests were made prior to
\nthat date, then on a conjoint reading of Section 21 and
\nSection 85(2)(a) of the new Act, it must be held that these
\nproceedings will be governed by the old Act. As seen from
\nthe afore-noted factual matrix, it at once becomes obvious
\nthat the demand for referring the disputes for arbitration was
\nmade by the petitioners in all these cases months before 26-1-1996, in March and April 1995 and in fact thereafter all
\nthe four arbitration suits were filed on 24.8.1995. These
\nsuits were obviously filed prior to 26-1-1996 and hence they
\nhad to be decided under the old Act of 1940. This
\npreliminary objection, therefore, is answered by holding that
\nthese four suits will be governed by the Arbitration Act,
\n1940 and that is how the High Court in the impugned
\njudgments has impliedly treated them.”\n<\/p>\n
 22. In  Asia Resorts Ltd. v. Usha Breco Ltd.<\/a>  , the Apex Court held that the
\napplication under Section 20 of 1940 Act should have been filed within 3 years of the
\nreceipt of the reply to notice.\n<\/p>\n
 23. However, we may notice that recently in Union of India v. Popular
\nConstruction Co.<\/a> , the Apex Court has held that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
\n1966 is a special law in terms of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 providing a
\nlimitation period different from that prescribed under the Limitation Act.\n<\/p>\n
 24. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the matter should be
\nconsidered afresh by an appropriate Bench treating the application to be under Section 20
\nof 1940 Act for passing appropriate order(s).\n<\/p>\n
 25. Having regard to the fats and circumstances of this case, we would
\nrequest the appropriate Bench to consider the desirability of disposing of the matter at an
\nearly date.\n<\/p>\n
 26. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly without any orders as to cost.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Ashi (P) Limited vs Union Of India (Uoi) (Western … on 16 March, 2002 Author: S Sinha Bench: S Sinha, A Sikri JUDGMENT S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. The petitioner herein in response to a tender floated by the respondents for manufacture and supply of 2,50,000 pre-stressed mono block concrete sleepers submitted its […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-102556","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAshi (P) Limited vs Union Of India (Uoi) (Western ... on 16 March, 2002 - 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\/ashi-p-limited-vs-union-of-india-uoi-western-on-16-march-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ashi (P) Limited vs Union Of India (Uoi) (Western ... on 16 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashi-p-limited-vs-union-of-india-uoi-western-on-16-march-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-03-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-24T08:41:13+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashi-p-limited-vs-union-of-india-uoi-western-on-16-march-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashi-p-limited-vs-union-of-india-uoi-western-on-16-march-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ashi (P) Limited vs Union Of India (Uoi) (Western … on 16 March, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-03-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-24T08:41:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashi-p-limited-vs-union-of-india-uoi-western-on-16-march-2002\"},\"wordCount\":3684,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashi-p-limited-vs-union-of-india-uoi-western-on-16-march-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashi-p-limited-vs-union-of-india-uoi-western-on-16-march-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashi-p-limited-vs-union-of-india-uoi-western-on-16-march-2002\",\"name\":\"Ashi (P) Limited vs Union Of India (Uoi) (Western ... on 16 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-03-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-24T08:41:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashi-p-limited-vs-union-of-india-uoi-western-on-16-march-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashi-p-limited-vs-union-of-india-uoi-western-on-16-march-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashi-p-limited-vs-union-of-india-uoi-western-on-16-march-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ashi (P) Limited vs Union Of India (Uoi) (Western … on 16 March, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"Ashi (P) Limited vs Union Of India (Uoi) (Western ... on 16 March, 2002 - 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\/ashi-p-limited-vs-union-of-india-uoi-western-on-16-march-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ashi (P) Limited vs Union Of India (Uoi) (Western ... on 16 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashi-p-limited-vs-union-of-india-uoi-western-on-16-march-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-03-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-24T08:41:13+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashi-p-limited-vs-union-of-india-uoi-western-on-16-march-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashi-p-limited-vs-union-of-india-uoi-western-on-16-march-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ashi (P) Limited vs Union Of India (Uoi) (Western … on 16 March, 2002","datePublished":"2002-03-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-24T08:41:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashi-p-limited-vs-union-of-india-uoi-western-on-16-march-2002"},"wordCount":3684,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashi-p-limited-vs-union-of-india-uoi-western-on-16-march-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashi-p-limited-vs-union-of-india-uoi-western-on-16-march-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashi-p-limited-vs-union-of-india-uoi-western-on-16-march-2002","name":"Ashi (P) Limited vs Union Of India (Uoi) (Western ... on 16 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-03-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-24T08:41:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashi-p-limited-vs-union-of-india-uoi-western-on-16-march-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashi-p-limited-vs-union-of-india-uoi-western-on-16-march-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashi-p-limited-vs-union-of-india-uoi-western-on-16-march-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ashi (P) Limited vs Union Of India (Uoi) (Western … on 16 March, 2002"}]},{"@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\/102556","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=102556"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/102556\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=102556"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=102556"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=102556"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}