{"id":105322,"date":"2007-05-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-05-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-agricultural-co-op-vs-gains-trading-ltd-on-22-may-2007"},"modified":"2017-07-17T07:29:05","modified_gmt":"2017-07-17T01:59:05","slug":"national-agricultural-co-op-vs-gains-trading-ltd-on-22-may-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-agricultural-co-op-vs-gains-trading-ltd-on-22-may-2007","title":{"rendered":"National Agricultural Co-Op. &#8230; vs Gains Trading Ltd on 22 May, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">National Agricultural Co-Op. &#8230; vs Gains Trading Ltd on 22 May, 2007<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: R Raveendran<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: R. V. Raveendran<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nArbitration Petition  15 of 2006\n\nPETITIONER:\nNational Agricultural Co-op. Marketing Federation India Ltd\n\nRESPONDENT:\nGains Trading Ltd\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 22\/05\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nR. V. Raveendran\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThis petition under section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation<br \/>\nAct, 1996 (&#8216;Act&#8217; for short) is filed for appointing a sole arbitrator to<br \/>\nadjudicate upon the disputes between the petitioner and respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tThe petitioner alleges that the respondent entered into an agreement<br \/>\ndated 28.2.2005, agreeing to purchase from the petitioner 40,000 MT (plus<br \/>\nor minus 10%) of iron-ore fines at FOB price of US$ 50 per dry MT, subject<br \/>\nto the terms and conditions of the said agreement. Clause 17 of the said<br \/>\nagreement providing for settlement of disputes by arbitration is extracted<br \/>\nbelow :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;17. Arbitration: Any dispute arising out of or in this connection<br \/>\nwith this contract or the execution thereof shall, to the extent<br \/>\npossible, be settled amicably by negotiation and mutual agreement<br \/>\nbetween the Seller and the Buyer. If no settlement can be reached in<br \/>\nthis way, the matter in dispute shall then be referred to and finally<br \/>\nresolved by arbitration in Hong Kong in accordance with the<br \/>\nprovisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or any other<br \/>\nstatutory modification, enactment or amendment thereof for the time<br \/>\nbeing in force.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tThe petitioner alleges that respondent failed to nominate the vessel in<br \/>\nterms of the contract in spite of several reminders and ultimately refused to<br \/>\ntake delivery of the cargo; that in view of breach by the respondent, the<br \/>\npetitioner had to sell the cargo at Rs.1010\/- per MT (as against the contract<br \/>\nprice of Rs.2190\/-) incurring a loss of Rs.1180\/- per MT; that it had to incur<br \/>\nstorage charges for storing the cargo for more than five months; that it had to<br \/>\nincur freight charges for moving a part of the cargo from Karwar Port to<br \/>\nMangalore Port; that the amount invested in the cargo was locked up for<br \/>\nconsiderable period involving loss of interest on the value; and that as a<br \/>\nconsequence, respondent is liable to pay a sum of Rs.11,50,57,488\/-<br \/>\n(= US $26,27,568). The alleged refusal\/repudiation by the respondent gave<br \/>\nrise to a dispute and the petitioner by a notice dated 21.9.2005 through<br \/>\ncounsel, invoked the arbitration agreement and furnished a panel of three<br \/>\nnames to enable the respondent to give concurrence for appointment of any<br \/>\none of them as the sole arbitrator. The respondent sent a reply refusing to<br \/>\ncomply. This led to the filing of the present application under section 11(5)<br \/>\nof the Act, seeking appointment of the sole arbitrator.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tThe respondent has resisted the petition. The contentions of<br \/>\nrespondent in brief are :\n<\/p>\n<p>(a)\tIt had complied with its contractual obligation by nominating a vessel<br \/>\nto collect the cargo, but the petitioner failed to accept in time; that the<br \/>\nport was subsequently closed due to monsoon and therefore it was no<br \/>\nlonger feasible to continue the contract on FOB terms; and that at a<br \/>\nmeeting held at Shanghai on 25.4.2005, the representatives of parties<br \/>\nhad agreed to cancel the contract dated 28.2.2005 which was on FOB<br \/>\nterms and decided to enter into new negotiations for a fresh contract<br \/>\non CFR terms. As a result, the agreement dated 28.2.2005 including<br \/>\nthe arbitration agreement which is apart of it, is no longer in force and<br \/>\ntherefore, the petition for appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of the<br \/>\nclause 17 of the agreement was not maintainable.\n<\/p>\n<p>(b)\tPart I of the Act applies only where the place of arbitration is in India.<br \/>\nAs place of arbitration is Hong Kong, outside India, the provisions in<br \/>\nPart I including section 11 of the Act are inapplicable and this Court<br \/>\nhas no jurisdiction to appoint an arbitration. The arbitration agreement<br \/>\nrequires that the disputes to be referred and resolved at Hong Kong.<br \/>\nTherefore, the law of arbitration, as in force in Hong Kong, will<br \/>\ngovern the arbitration. Consequently, the reference to &#8220;Arbitration and<br \/>\nConciliation Act, 1996&#8221; in clause 17, is meaningless and redundant.<br \/>\nAs per the Hong Kong law, the Arbitrator can be appointed only by<br \/>\nthe Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tOn the aforesaid contentions, the following questions arise for<br \/>\nconsideration:\n<\/p>\n<p>(i)\tWhether an arbitration clause comes to an end, if the contract<br \/>\ncontaining such arbitration agreement, was abrogated?\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii)\tWhether section 11 of the Act is inapplicable in regard to the<br \/>\narbitrations which are to take place outside India?\n<\/p>\n<p>(iii)\tWhether the appointment of the Arbitrator, and the reference<br \/>\narbitration are governed by the laws in force in Hong Kong and not by<br \/>\nthe Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?\n<\/p>\n<p>Re : Point (i)<\/p>\n<p>6.\tRespondent contends that the contract was abrogated by mutual<br \/>\nagreement; and when the contract came to an end, the arbitration agreement<br \/>\nwhich forms part of the contract, also came to an end. Such a contention has<br \/>\nnever been accepted in law. An arbitration clause is a collateral term in the<br \/>\ncontract, which relates to resolution disputes, and not performance. Even if<br \/>\nthe performance of the contract comes to an end on account of repudiation,<br \/>\nfrustration or breach of contract, the arbitration agreement would survive for<br \/>\nthe purpose of resolution of disputes arising under or in connection with the<br \/>\ncontract. [Vide :  Heymen vs. Darwins Ltd &#8211; 1942 (1) All ER 337, <a href=\"\/doc\/1391279\/\">Union of<br \/>\nIndia vs. Kishori Lal Gupta &amp; Bros.<\/a> &#8211; AIR 1959 SC 1362 and <a href=\"\/doc\/1144263\/\">The Naihati<br \/>\nJute Mills Ltd. vs. Khyaliram Jagannath<\/a> &#8211; AIR 1968 SC 522]. This position<br \/>\nis now statutorily recognized. Sub-section (1) of section 16 of the Act makes<br \/>\nit clear that while considering any objection with respect to the existence or<br \/>\nvalidity of the arbitration agreement, an arbitration clause which forms part<br \/>\nof the contract, has to be treated as an agreement independent of the other<br \/>\nterms of the contract; and a decision that the contract is null and void shall<br \/>\nnot entail ipso jure the invalidity of the arbitration clause. The first<br \/>\ncontention is, therefore, liable to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>Re : Points (ii) and (iii) <\/p>\n<p>7.\tPart I of the Act deals with Arbitration.  Part-II deals with<br \/>\nenforcement of certain foreign awards. Sub-section (2) of section 2 provides<br \/>\nthat Part I of the Act dealing with Arbitration shall apply where the place of<br \/>\narbitration is in India. Section 11 dealing with appointment of arbitrators is<br \/>\ncontained in Part I. As the venue of arbitration is outside India, it is<br \/>\ncontended by respondent that entire Part I including section 11 will not<br \/>\napply and therefore neither the Chief Justice of India nor his designate will<br \/>\nhave the jurisdiction to appoint the arbitrator.\n<\/p>\n<p>Such a contention is already considered and negatived by this Court in<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/110552\/\">Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading S.A.<\/a> [2002 (4) SCC 105]. This Court<br \/>\nhas held:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Sub-section (2) of section 2 provides that Part I would apply where<br \/>\nthe place of arbitration is in India. To be immediately noted, that it is<br \/>\nnot providing that Part I shall not apply where the place of<br \/>\narbitration is not in India. It is also not providing that Part I will<br \/>\n&#8220;only&#8221; apply where the place of arbitration is in India (emphasis<br \/>\nsupplied). Thus the legislature has not provided that Part I is not to<br \/>\napply to arbitrations which take place outside India. The use of the<br \/>\nlanguage is significant and important. The legislature is emphasizing<br \/>\nthat the provisions of Part I would apply to arbitrations which take<br \/>\nplace in India, but not providing that the provisions of Part I will not<br \/>\napply to arbitrations which take place out of India. The wording of<br \/>\nsub-section (2) of Section 2 suggests that the intention of the<br \/>\nlegislature was to make provisions of Part I compulsorily applicable<br \/>\nto an arbitration, including an international commercial arbitration,<br \/>\nwhich takes place in India. Parties cannot, by agreement, override or<br \/>\nexclude the non-derogable provisions of Part I in such arbitrations.<br \/>\nBy omitting to provide that Part I will not apply to international<br \/>\ncommercial arbitrations which take place outside India the effect<br \/>\nwould be that Part I would also apply to international commercial<br \/>\narbitrations held out of India. But by not specifically providing that<br \/>\nthe provisions of Part I apply to international commercial<br \/>\narbitrations held out of India, the intention of the legislature appears<br \/>\nto be to allow parties to provide by agreement that Part I or any<br \/>\nprovision therein will not apply.. Where such arbitration is held<br \/>\nin India the provisions of Part I would compulsorily apply and<br \/>\nparties are free to deviate only to the extent permitted by the<br \/>\nderogable provisions of Part I. In cases of international commercial<br \/>\narbitrations held out of India provisions of Part I would apply unless<br \/>\nthe parties by agreement, express or implied, exclude all or any of its<br \/>\nprovisions. In that case the laws or rules chosen by the parties would<br \/>\nprevail. Any provision, in Part I, which is contrary to or excluded by<br \/>\nthat law or rules will not apply.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tLet me now examine whether the arbitration procedure and<br \/>\nappointment of arbitrator is governed by the Act, or by the laws in Hong<br \/>\nKong. This depends on the interpretation of the arbitration clause in<br \/>\nparticular the following words : &#8220;the matter in dispute shall then be referred<br \/>\nto and finally resolved by arbitration in Hong Kong in accordance with the<br \/>\nprovisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.&#8221;  The respondent<br \/>\nwants to read this provision thus :\n<\/p>\n<p>(i)\tthe matter in dispute shall be referred to arbitration at Hong Kong;\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii)\tthe matter in dispute shall be finally resolved by arbitration at Hong<br \/>\nKong; and<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">0<\/span><br \/>\nThe respondent wants to ignore the words &#8220;in accordance with the<br \/>\nprovisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1976 or any other statutory<br \/>\nmodification, enactment or amendment thereof for the time being in force&#8221;<br \/>\nin clause 17 as a meaningless addition. The use of the words &#8216;referred to and<br \/>\nfinally resolved by arbitration in Hong Kong&#8217;, according to respondent,<br \/>\nshows an intention that the arbitration has to take place in Hong Kong in<br \/>\naccordance with Hong Kong Laws.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\tThe rules of interpretation require the clause to be read in the ordinary<br \/>\nand natural sense, except where that would lead to an absurdity. No part of a<br \/>\nterm or clause should be considered as a meaningless surplusage, when it is<br \/>\nin consonance with the other parts of the clause and expresses the specific<br \/>\nintention of parties. When read normally, the arbitration clause makes it<br \/>\nclear that the matter in dispute shall be referred to and finally resolved by<br \/>\narbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and<br \/>\nConciliation Act, 1996 (or any statutory modification, enactment or<br \/>\namendment thereof) and the venue of arbitration shall be Hong Kong. This<br \/>\ninterpretation does not render any part of the arbitration clause, meaningless<br \/>\nor redundant. Merely because the parties have agreed that the venue of<br \/>\narbitration shall be Hong Kong, it does not follow that Laws in force in<br \/>\nHong Kong will apply. The arbitration clause states that the Arbitration and<br \/>\nConciliation Act, 1996 (an Indian Statute) will apply. Therefore, the said Act<br \/>\nwill govern the appointment of arbitrator, the reference of disputes and the<br \/>\nentire process and procedure of arbitration from the stage of appointment of<br \/>\narbitrator till the award is made and executed\/given effect to.\n<\/p>\n<p>Conclusion <\/p>\n<p>10.\tAs none of the objections of the respondent has any merit, this<br \/>\npetition deserves to be allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.\tThe petitioner has suggested three names in its letter dated<br \/>\n21.12.2005. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in view of the<br \/>\nbona fide objections raised by the respondent, it had not suggested any one<br \/>\nfor being appointed as Arbitrator. He also submitted that the respondent was<br \/>\nnot willing for any of the persons suggested by the petitioner being<br \/>\nappointed as Arbitrator. He stated that an independent arbitrator may be<br \/>\nappointed as the sole Arbitrator, keeping in view sub-section (9) of section<br \/>\n11 which provides that in the case of appointment of a sole arbitrator in an<br \/>\ninternational commercial arbitration, the Chief Justice of India or his<br \/>\ndesignate may appoint an arbitrator of a nationality other than the nationality<br \/>\nof the parties if the parties belong to different nationalities.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.\tFor the reasons stated above, this petition is allowed. Let this matter<br \/>\nbe listed on 24.5.2007 for appointment of the Arbitrator. The parties may<br \/>\nalso, if possible, suggest the name of a person finding mutual acceptance, by<br \/>\nthat date for appointment as arbitrator.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India National Agricultural Co-Op. &#8230; vs Gains Trading Ltd on 22 May, 2007 Author: R Raveendran Bench: R. V. Raveendran CASE NO.: Arbitration Petition 15 of 2006 PETITIONER: National Agricultural Co-op. Marketing Federation India Ltd RESPONDENT: Gains Trading Ltd DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22\/05\/2007 BENCH: R. V. Raveendran JUDGMENT: J U D G [&hellip;]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-105322","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>National Agricultural Co-Op. ... vs Gains Trading Ltd on 22 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/national-agricultural-co-op-vs-gains-trading-ltd-on-22-may-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"National Agricultural Co-Op. ... vs Gains Trading Ltd on 22 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-agricultural-co-op-vs-gains-trading-ltd-on-22-may-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-05-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-17T01:59:05+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-agricultural-co-op-vs-gains-trading-ltd-on-22-may-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-agricultural-co-op-vs-gains-trading-ltd-on-22-may-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"National Agricultural Co-Op. &#8230; vs Gains Trading Ltd on 22 May, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-05-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-17T01:59:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-agricultural-co-op-vs-gains-trading-ltd-on-22-may-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2022,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-agricultural-co-op-vs-gains-trading-ltd-on-22-may-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-agricultural-co-op-vs-gains-trading-ltd-on-22-may-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-agricultural-co-op-vs-gains-trading-ltd-on-22-may-2007\",\"name\":\"National Agricultural Co-Op. ... vs Gains Trading Ltd on 22 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-05-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-17T01:59:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-agricultural-co-op-vs-gains-trading-ltd-on-22-may-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-agricultural-co-op-vs-gains-trading-ltd-on-22-may-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-agricultural-co-op-vs-gains-trading-ltd-on-22-may-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"National Agricultural Co-Op. &#8230; vs Gains Trading Ltd on 22 May, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"National Agricultural Co-Op. ... vs Gains Trading Ltd on 22 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/national-agricultural-co-op-vs-gains-trading-ltd-on-22-may-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"National Agricultural Co-Op. ... vs Gains Trading Ltd on 22 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-agricultural-co-op-vs-gains-trading-ltd-on-22-may-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-05-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-17T01:59:05+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-agricultural-co-op-vs-gains-trading-ltd-on-22-may-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-agricultural-co-op-vs-gains-trading-ltd-on-22-may-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"National Agricultural Co-Op. &#8230; vs Gains Trading Ltd on 22 May, 2007","datePublished":"2007-05-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-17T01:59:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-agricultural-co-op-vs-gains-trading-ltd-on-22-may-2007"},"wordCount":2022,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-agricultural-co-op-vs-gains-trading-ltd-on-22-may-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-agricultural-co-op-vs-gains-trading-ltd-on-22-may-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-agricultural-co-op-vs-gains-trading-ltd-on-22-may-2007","name":"National Agricultural Co-Op. ... vs Gains Trading Ltd on 22 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-05-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-17T01:59:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-agricultural-co-op-vs-gains-trading-ltd-on-22-may-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-agricultural-co-op-vs-gains-trading-ltd-on-22-may-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-agricultural-co-op-vs-gains-trading-ltd-on-22-may-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"National Agricultural Co-Op. &#8230; vs Gains Trading Ltd on 22 May, 2007"}]},{"@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\/105322","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=105322"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/105322\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=105322"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=105322"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=105322"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}