{"id":105992,"date":"2011-08-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-08-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-milkfood-ltd-vs-ms-gmc-ice-cream-p-ltd-on-4-august-2011"},"modified":"2016-10-04T07:02:15","modified_gmt":"2016-10-04T01:32:15","slug":"ms-milkfood-ltd-vs-ms-gmc-ice-cream-p-ltd-on-4-august-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-milkfood-ltd-vs-ms-gmc-ice-cream-p-ltd-on-4-august-2011","title":{"rendered":"M\/S Milkfood Ltd vs M\/S Gmc Ice Cream (P) Ltd on 4 August, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
M\/S Milkfood Ltd vs M\/S Gmc Ice Cream (P) Ltd on 4 August, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: R.V. Raveendran, A.K. Patnaik<\/div>\n
                                                                                         Reportable \n\n\n                     IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n\n                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n                        CIVIL APPEAL NO.6316 OF 2011\n\n                     [Arising out of SLP [C] No.15165\/2008]\n\n\n\n\n\nM\/s. Milkfood Pvt. Ltd.                                              ... Appellant\n\n\nVs.\n\n\nM\/s. GMC Ice Cream (P) Ltd.                                          ... Respondent\n\n\n\n\n\n                                   J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
R.V. RAVEENDRAN,J.\n<\/p>\n
       Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
2.     Under   an   agreement   dated   7.4.1992,   respondent   agreed   to <\/p>\n
manufacture   and   pack   appellant’s   product   (ice   cream)   as   per   the <\/p>\n
specifications   and   standards   of   the   appellant.   Clause   20   of   the   said <\/p>\n
agreement provided for settlement of disputes by arbitration. The said clause <\/p>\n
provided   that   the   venue   of   arbitration   should   be   Delhi   and   contract   was <\/p>\n
subject to Delhi jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
                                                       2<\/span><\/p>\n
3.      Respondent   filed   a   suit   (T.S.No.40\/1995)   in   the   court   of   learned <\/p>\n
Munsif,   Gaya   (Bihar)   for   an   injunction   to   restrain   the   appellant   from <\/p>\n
interfering with the manufacture and supply of ice cream by the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
On   being   served   with   the   notice   of   the   said   suit,   the   appellant   filed   an <\/p>\n
application   under section  34  of  Arbitration   Act, 1940  (`Act’  for  short)  for <\/p>\n
stay of proceedings in the suit on the ground that the contract between the <\/p>\n
parties provided for arbitration. The learned Munsif by order dated 3.8.1995 <\/p>\n
allowed the appellant’s application under section 34 of the Act and stayed <\/p>\n
further proceedings in the suit.\n<\/p>\n
4.      The respondent filed a revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil <\/p>\n
Procedure (`Code’ for short) before the Patna High Court against the order <\/p>\n
dated 3.8.1995. The High Court disposed of the said revision petition by the <\/p>\n
following order dated 6.5.1997 :\n<\/p>\n
        “Before this court parties have agreed that the dispute between them may <\/p>\n
        be referred, as per the agreement to Arbitrators chosen by the parties. The <\/p>\n
        plaintiff   has   chosen   Shri   Uday   Sinha   a   retired   judge   of   this   court   and <\/p>\n
        Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court, while the defendants have chosen <\/p>\n
        Shri Hari Lal Agrawal, Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court, a former <\/p>\n
        judge of this court and Chief Justice of Orissa High Court as Arbitrators. <\/p>\n
        The dispute between the parties is referred to arbitrator.<\/p>\n
        I   hope   that   the   learned   Arbitrators   will   dispose   of   the   arbitration <\/p>\n
        proceedings within three months of the entering the reference.<\/p>\n
        Let   a   copy   of   this   order   be   sent   to   both   Shri   Hari   Lal   Agarwal   at   his <\/p>\n
        address Nageshwar Colony, Boring Road, Patna-1 and Shri Uday Sinha at <\/p>\n
        his Patna address 308 Patliputra Colony, Patna.<\/p>\n
                                                   3<\/span><\/p>\n
       Parties are directed to appear before the Arbitrators within a month from <\/p>\n
       today.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n       Let   all   necessary   documents   be   filed   before   the   Arbitrators   within   four <\/p>\n
       weeks thereafter.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n       This application is disposed of.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
It may be mentioned that long before the disposal of the revision petition, by <\/p>\n
notice dated 14.9.1995 the appellant had appointed its arbitrator and called <\/p>\n
upon the respondent to concur in that appointment or alternatively nominate <\/p>\n
its   arbitrator.   When   respondent   also   appointed   its   arbitrator,   the   two <\/p>\n
arbitrators appointed an umpire. The arbitral tribunal made an award dated <\/p>\n
17.8.2004 in favour of the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
5.     The respondent filed a suit under section 14 (2) of the Act in the court <\/p>\n
of Sub-Judge, Gaya on 28.8.2004 praying that the award be made a rule of <\/p>\n
the   court.   The   appellant   entered   appearance   on   28.10.2004   and   made   an <\/p>\n
application under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code read with section 31(4) of the <\/p>\n
Act contending that only the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction to entertain <\/p>\n
the application and Gaya court did not have jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
6.     The   appellant   also   challenged   the   award   by   filing   a   petition   under <\/p>\n
sections 30 and 33 of the Act before Delhi High Court on 16.10.2004. On <\/p>\n
25.10.2005 the appellant’s petition under sections 30 and 33 of the Act was <\/p>\n
                                               4<\/span><\/p>\n
disposed of by Delhi High Court on the ground that the award had been filed <\/p>\n
before   the   learned   Sub-Judge,   Gaya,   prior   to   filing   of   the   petition   by   the <\/p>\n
appellant   under   sections   30   &   33   of   the   Act   and   since   the   matter   was <\/p>\n
pending in the Gaya court and the appellant had challenged the jurisdiction <\/p>\n
of that court, the Gaya court would decide whether it had jurisdiction; and if <\/p>\n
it came to the conclusion that it had no jurisdiction, that court could forward <\/p>\n
the   record   to   Delhi   High   Court,   in   which   event   the   appellant   could   seek <\/p>\n
revival of the petition under sections 30 and 33 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
7.      The Sub-Court Gaya heard and dismissed the application filed by the <\/p>\n
appellant   (for   return   of   the   plaint   to   the   respondent)   by   order   dated <\/p>\n
23.3.2006   holding   that   it   had   jurisdiction   to   entertain   and   decide   the <\/p>\n
application under section 14(2) of the Act. The said order was challenged by <\/p>\n
the   appellant   by   filing   a   revision   petition   before   the   Patna   High   Court.   A <\/p>\n
learned single Judge of the Patna High Court dismissed the revision petition, <\/p>\n
by the impugned order dated 25.5.2008. He noted that the parties had earlier <\/p>\n
consented   before   the   Patna   High   Court   for   referring   the   disputes   to <\/p>\n
arbitration and that Patna High Court had recorded the said agreement and <\/p>\n
referred the disputes to arbitration by order dated 6.5.1997. He held that the <\/p>\n
said order dated 6.5.1997 should be considered to be an order under section <\/p>\n
8 of the Act; and if so, the order dated 6.5.1997 would be the order in the <\/p>\n
                                                     5<\/span><\/p>\n
first application under the Act in the reference; and as Patna High Court did <\/p>\n
not   have   original   jurisdiction,   the   Sub-Judge,   Gaya   which   was   the <\/p>\n
corresponding   civil   court   having   original   jurisdiction   would   have <\/p>\n
jurisdiction   to   entertain   the   application   under   section   14(2)   of   the   Act, <\/p>\n
having regard to section 31(4) of the Act. The said order is challenged in this <\/p>\n
appeal by special leave.\n<\/p>\n
8.     On   the   contentions   urged,   the   only   question   that   arises   for <\/p>\n
consideration   is   whether   the   proceedings   under   section   14(2)   of   the   Act <\/p>\n
could have been initiated only in the Delhi High Court and not before the <\/p>\n
Sub-court, Gaya, having regard to section 31(4) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
9.     Section 31 of the Act deals with jurisdiction and the same is extracted <\/p>\n
below :\n<\/p>\n
       “31. Jurisdiction.–(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, an award may <\/p>\n
       be   filed   in   any   Court   having   jurisdiction   in   the   matter   to   which   the <\/p>\n
       reference relates.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time <\/p>\n
       being   in   force   and   save   as   otherwise   provided   in   this   Act,   all   questions <\/p>\n
       regarding   the   validity,   effect   or   existence   of   an   award   or   an   arbitration <\/p>\n
       agreement between the parties to the agreement or persons claiming under <\/p>\n
       them   shall   be   decided   by   the   Court   in   which   the   award   under   the <\/p>\n
       agreement has been, or may be, filed, and by no other Court. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            (3) All applications regarding the conduct of arbitration proceedings or <\/p>\n
       otherwise   arising   out   of   such   proceedings   shall   be   made   to   the   Court <\/p>\n
       where the award has been, or may be, filed, and to no other Court. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            (4) Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Act or in any  <\/p>\n
       other   law   for   the   time   being   in   force,   where   in   any   reference   any  <\/p>\n
                                                   6<\/span><\/p>\n
       application   under   this   Act   has   been   made   in   a   Court   competent   to  <\/p>\n
       entertain it, that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over the arbitration  <\/p>\n
       proceedings-,   and   all   subsequent   applications   arising,   out   of   that  <\/p>\n
       reference,   and   the   arbitration   proceedings   shall   be   made   in   that   Court  <\/p>\n
       and in no other Court.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                                      (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
Sub-section (4) of section 31 provides where any application under the Act, <\/p>\n
in any reference,  had been made  in a court competent  to entertain  it, then <\/p>\n
notwithstanding anything contained in the Act (or in any other law for the <\/p>\n
time   being   in   force),   that   court   alone   shall   have   jurisdiction   over   the <\/p>\n
arbitration   proceedings   and   all   subsequent   applications   arising   out   of   that <\/p>\n
reference and therefore all arbitration proceedings shall be made in that court <\/p>\n
alone and not in any other court. Sub-section (4) of section 31 of the old Act <\/p>\n
corresponds to section 42 of the new Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
10.    As   the   court   where   the   first   application   was   made   is   the   court <\/p>\n
competent   to   entertain   all   subsequent   applications   under   the   Act,   it   is <\/p>\n
necessary   to   decide   where   the   first   application   in   the   reference   was   made <\/p>\n
under the Act. In chronological order, the four applications in the reckoning <\/p>\n
for being considered as the first application in the reference under the Act, in <\/p>\n
a competent court are :\n<\/p>\n
                                               7<\/span><\/p>\n
    (i)      The   application   dated   19.6.1995   filed   by   the   appellant   under <\/p>\n
             section 34 of the Act, in the court of Munsif, Gaya (resulting in the <\/p>\n
             order dated 3.8.1995).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
    (ii)     The   revision   petition   dated   2.7.1996   filed   by   the   respondent <\/p>\n
             against the order dated 3.8.1995, under section 115 of the Code, in <\/p>\n
             the Patna High Court (resulting in the order dated 6.5.1997).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
    (iii)    The application made in April 1998 by the appellant under Section <\/p>\n
             33 of the Act, in the Delhi High Court (resulting in the order dated <\/p>\n
             13.10.1998).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
    (iv)     The   application   dated   16.8.2000  by   the  respondent   under   section <\/p>\n
             27 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 in the Delhi High Court <\/p>\n
             (resulting in the order dated 1.10.2000).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
The  appellant  contends  that the first  application  in the reference  was filed <\/p>\n
under   the   Act   in   Delhi   High   Court   in   April,   1998   and   therefore   all <\/p>\n
subsequent proceedings including the application under section 14(2) should <\/p>\n
be filed in Delhi High Court. The respondent contends that the application <\/p>\n
made either in the Gaya Court on 19.6.1995 or in the Patna High Court on <\/p>\n
2.7.1996 should be considered to be the first application in the reference in a <\/p>\n
competent   court;   and   as   that   Patna   High   Court   did   not   have   original   civil <\/p>\n
jurisdiction, the corresponding civil court namely the Sub-Judge, Gaya was <\/p>\n
                                               8<\/span><\/p>\n
the court where all applications, including an application under section 14(2) <\/p>\n
of the Act should be filed.\n<\/p>\n
11.     In  Kumbha   Mawji   vs.   Union   of   India<\/a>  –   1953   SCR   878,   this   Court <\/p>\n
explained that the words `in any reference’ would mean `in the matter of a <\/p>\n
reference to arbitration’. In Union of India vs. Surjeet Singh Atwal<\/a> – 1969 (2) <\/p>\n
SCC 211, this Court held that an application under section 34 of the Act is <\/p>\n
not   to   be   considered   as   an   application   under   the   Act   in   a   reference.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore, the application under section 34 of the Act filed by the appellant <\/p>\n
on 19.6.1995 cannot be considered to be the first application to a court in the <\/p>\n
reference to arbitration.   Let us next examine whether  the first application <\/p>\n
under  the  Act  in the  reference  was first  made   to the  Patna High  Court. A <\/p>\n
Revision   Petition   (C.R.No.1020\/1996)   was   filed   in   the   Patna   High   Court <\/p>\n
under section 115 of the Code, aggrieved by the order dated 3.8.1995 passed <\/p>\n
in   an   original   suit   filed   by   the   respondent.   The   order   dated   3.8.1995   was <\/p>\n
made   allowing   an   application   filed   by   respondent   for   stay   of   proceedings <\/p>\n
under section 34 of the Act. Therefore, the order dated 6.4.1997 appointing <\/p>\n
the arbitrators was made by Patna High Court, not in an application under <\/p>\n
the Act, but in a revision petition under section 115 of the Code. Further the <\/p>\n
said   revision   did   not   arise   out   of   arbitration   proceedings,   but   against   the <\/p>\n
rejection   of   an   application   under   section   34   of   the   Act   to   stay   the <\/p>\n
                                                9<\/span><\/p>\n
proceedings   in   a   civil   suit.   If   the   proceedings   in   which   the   order   dated <\/p>\n
6.5.1997 was made by the Patna High Court did not relate to an application <\/p>\n
under the Act in a reference, nor is it a revision arising from an application <\/p>\n
under   the   Act   in   a   reference,   it   is   not   possible   to   hold   that   the   first <\/p>\n
application   under   the   Act   in   a   reference   was   made   before   the   Patna   High <\/p>\n
Court.\n<\/p>\n
12.     At this juncture, it is necessary to notice the argument put forth by the <\/p>\n
respondent. The respondent contends that even though the revision petition <\/p>\n
did   not   arise   from   an   application   under   the   Act,   the   order   dated   6.5.1997 <\/p>\n
made  therein by the Patna High Court, recorded the consent of the parties <\/p>\n
that   the   disputes   may   be   referred   to   arbitrators   chosen   by   the   parties, <\/p>\n
recorded   the   names   of   the   arbitrators   appointed   by   them,   and   referred   the <\/p>\n
disputes  between   the  parties  to  arbitration.  According  to  the  respondent,  a <\/p>\n
court   can   appoint   an   arbitrator   either   under   section   20   or   section   8   of  the <\/p>\n
Act; as there was no application for filing the agreement under section 20 of <\/p>\n
the Act, the order dated 6.5.1997 should be deemed to have been made in an <\/p>\n
application   under   section   8   of   the   Act   to   the   High   Court.   The   respondent <\/p>\n
therefore   contends   that   the   Patna   High   Court   should   be   treated   as   a   court <\/p>\n
where first application under the Act was filed and therefore all subsequent <\/p>\n
applications   should   be   filed   in   that   court.   There   is   no   merit   in   this <\/p>\n
                                                  10<\/span><\/p>\n
contention.   Section   8   relates   to   the   power   of   civil   court   to   appoint   an <\/p>\n
Arbitrator or umpire. With reference to the facts of this case the power under <\/p>\n
section   8   of   the   Act   can   be   exercised   only   if   the   following   conditions <\/p>\n
mentioned in the section are fulfilled : (i) the parties did not concur in the <\/p>\n
appointments of arbitrators, when differences arose; (ii) one of the parties to <\/p>\n
the   arbitration   agreement   served   on   the     other   party   a   written   notice <\/p>\n
nominating   its   arbitrator   and   calling   upon   the   other   party   to   make   its <\/p>\n
nomination;  (iii) the other party did not appoint its arbitrator within 15 clear <\/p>\n
days after the service of such notice; and (iv) an application was made by the <\/p>\n
party who gave the notice under section 8 of the Act for appointment of the <\/p>\n
arbitrator.   The   order   dated   6.5.1997   of   the   Patna   High   Court   cannot   be <\/p>\n
considered   to   be   an   order   under   section   8   of   the   Act,   as   neither   an <\/p>\n
application   was   filed   under   section   8   of   the   Act   nor   the   conditions   for <\/p>\n
making an application under section 8 of the Act existed in this case.\n<\/p>\n
13.     As   noticed   above   the   said   order   was   made   in   a   revision   petition <\/p>\n
against   the   grant   of   an   application   under   section   34   in   a   suit   filed   by   the <\/p>\n
respondent.  All that  the  High Court did was to record  the submission  that <\/p>\n
both   parties   had   appointed   their   respective   arbitrators   and   therefore   the <\/p>\n
disputes stood referred to them. Such an order recording the nomination of <\/p>\n
arbitrators by consent and referring the disputes to arbitration, can be made <\/p>\n
                                                11<\/span><\/p>\n
in   any   suit   or   other   proceedings,   even   if   they   do   not   arise   under   the <\/p>\n
arbitration agreement or under the Act. If for example a civil suit is filed by <\/p>\n
a party against the other and there is no arbitration agreement between them, <\/p>\n
but   during   the   course   of   the   said   suit   both   parties   agree   that   the   matter <\/p>\n
should   be   referred   to   a   named   arbitrator   for   arbitration   and   the   court <\/p>\n
accordingly   refers   it   to   arbitration,   is   not   an   appointment   of   an   arbitrator <\/p>\n
under section 8 of the Act, but a consent order referring the disputes to the <\/p>\n
arbitrators already appointed by the parties. Therefore we can not accept the <\/p>\n
contention that the order dated 6.5.1997 of the Patna High Court should be <\/p>\n
treated as an order in a proceeding under section 8 of the Act. If the order <\/p>\n
dated   6.5.1997   is   not   an   order   made   in   an   application   under   the   Act   in   a <\/p>\n
reference, it follows that the question of making all subsequent applications <\/p>\n
arising out of the reference under the Act, to that court does not arise.\n<\/p>\n
14.     In this case the appellant filed an application (OMP No.94\/1998)   in <\/p>\n
the Delhi High Court under section 33 of the Act in April 1998 praying for a <\/p>\n
clarification   as   to   whether   the   arbitration   proceedings   between   the   parties <\/p>\n
would   be   governed   by   the   provisions   of   Arbitration   Act,   1940   or   by   the <\/p>\n
provisions   of   Arbitration   and   Conciliation   Act,   1996.   Thereafter   the <\/p>\n
respondent   made   an   application   (OMP   No.217\/2000)   to   Delhi   High   Court <\/p>\n
for summoning and examining one O.P.Singh as a witness in respect of the <\/p>\n
                                            12<\/span><\/p>\n
pending arbitration, to produce certain documents. Therefore the application <\/p>\n
(OMP No.94\/1998) made by the appellant under section 33 of the Act will <\/p>\n
have to be treated as the first application under the Act in the reference. If <\/p>\n
that is so all subsequent applications will have to be made in the High Court <\/p>\n
of Delhi.\n<\/p>\n
15.    Learned counsel for respondent submitted that the application filed by <\/p>\n
it   in   OMP   No.217\/2000   for   issue   of   summons   to   a   witness   to   produce <\/p>\n
documents, cannot be treated as an application under the Act as it was filed <\/p>\n
under section 27 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and not under <\/p>\n
the   provisions   of   section   43   of   Arbitration   Act,   1940.   OMP   No.217\/2000 <\/p>\n
was made for issue of processes for appearance of witness and production of <\/p>\n
documents, in a pending arbitration proceedings. When the application was <\/p>\n
filed in the year 2000, there was some confusion as to whether the new Act <\/p>\n
applied or the old Act applied. In fact that question was pending before the <\/p>\n
Delhi High Court in OMP NO.94\/1998 filed by the appellant. That issue was <\/p>\n
decided   by   Delhi   High   Court   on   13.10.1998   holding   that   the   matter   was <\/p>\n
governed   by   1996   Act,   but   that   order   was   reversed   by   the   order   dated <\/p>\n
5.4.2004 of this court in  Milkfood Ltd. Vs. GMC Ice Cream (P) Ltd. [2004 <\/p>\n
(7)   SCC   288]   holding   that   the   old   Act   applied   with   the   following <\/p>\n
observations : “For the reasons aforementioned, we are of the view that in <\/p>\n
                                               13<\/span><\/p>\n
this case, the 1940 Act shall apply and not the 1996 Act. …. The award shall <\/p>\n
be filed in the court having jurisdiction whereafter the parties may proceed <\/p>\n
in terms of the old Act.” Therefore OMP No.217\/2000 could be deemed to <\/p>\n
have   been   made   under   section   43   of   the   Act.   At   all   events   as   OMP <\/p>\n
No.94\/1998   has   to   be   treated   as   the   first   application   under   the   Act,   Delhi <\/p>\n
High   Court   alone   will   have   jurisdiction   to   entertain   any   subsequent <\/p>\n
applications and therefore the court at Gaya will not have jurisdiction.  It is <\/p>\n
also relevant to note that the Arbitration clause provides  that the venue of <\/p>\n
arbitration shall be Delhi and Delhi courts will have jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
16.     In   view   of   the   above   we   allow   this   appeal,   set   aside   the   impugned <\/p>\n
order of the Patna High Court as also the order of Sub-Court, Gaya and hold <\/p>\n
that all applications should be filed in Delhi High Court.\n<\/p>\n
17.     The respondent shall therefore obtain return of the application under <\/p>\n
section 14(2) of the Act from the Gaya court and file it before Delhi High <\/p>\n
Court within two months from today. If it is so filed, Delhi High Court shall <\/p>\n
entertain the same and dispose it of in accordance with law. We may note <\/p>\n
that when the matter had come up before this court in the first round, in the <\/p>\n
order dated 5.4.2004, this court had expressed the hope that the award will <\/p>\n
                                     14<\/span><\/p>\n
be made and all legal proceedings should come to an end within four months <\/p>\n
from the date of communication of that order. More than seven years have <\/p>\n
elapsed thereafter and the proceedings have not ended. We therefore request <\/p>\n
the High Court to dispose of the matter expeditiously.\n<\/p>\n
                                             ……………………………J.\n<\/p>\n
                                             (R V Raveendran)<\/p>\n
New Delhi;                                   ……………………………..J.\n<\/p>\n
August   4, 2011.                            (A K Patnaik)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India M\/S Milkfood Ltd vs M\/S Gmc Ice Cream (P) Ltd on 4 August, 2011 Bench: R.V. Raveendran, A.K. Patnaik Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6316 OF 2011 [Arising out of SLP [C] No.15165\/2008] M\/s. Milkfood Pvt. Ltd. … Appellant Vs. M\/s. GMC Ice Cream […]<\/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-105992","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S Milkfood Ltd vs M\/S Gmc Ice Cream (P) Ltd on 4 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-milkfood-ltd-vs-ms-gmc-ice-cream-p-ltd-on-4-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S Milkfood Ltd vs M\/S Gmc Ice Cream (P) Ltd on 4 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-milkfood-ltd-vs-ms-gmc-ice-cream-p-ltd-on-4-august-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-08-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-04T01:32:15+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-milkfood-ltd-vs-ms-gmc-ice-cream-p-ltd-on-4-august-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-milkfood-ltd-vs-ms-gmc-ice-cream-p-ltd-on-4-august-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\/S Milkfood Ltd vs M\/S Gmc Ice Cream (P) Ltd on 4 August, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-04T01:32:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-milkfood-ltd-vs-ms-gmc-ice-cream-p-ltd-on-4-august-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2989,\"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\/ms-milkfood-ltd-vs-ms-gmc-ice-cream-p-ltd-on-4-august-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-milkfood-ltd-vs-ms-gmc-ice-cream-p-ltd-on-4-august-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-milkfood-ltd-vs-ms-gmc-ice-cream-p-ltd-on-4-august-2011\",\"name\":\"M\/S Milkfood Ltd vs M\/S Gmc Ice Cream (P) Ltd on 4 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-04T01:32:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-milkfood-ltd-vs-ms-gmc-ice-cream-p-ltd-on-4-august-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-milkfood-ltd-vs-ms-gmc-ice-cream-p-ltd-on-4-august-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-milkfood-ltd-vs-ms-gmc-ice-cream-p-ltd-on-4-august-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\/S Milkfood Ltd vs M\/S Gmc Ice Cream (P) Ltd on 4 August, 2011\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M\/S Milkfood Ltd vs M\/S Gmc Ice Cream (P) Ltd on 4 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-milkfood-ltd-vs-ms-gmc-ice-cream-p-ltd-on-4-august-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S Milkfood Ltd vs M\/S Gmc Ice Cream (P) Ltd on 4 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-milkfood-ltd-vs-ms-gmc-ice-cream-p-ltd-on-4-august-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-08-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-04T01:32:15+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-milkfood-ltd-vs-ms-gmc-ice-cream-p-ltd-on-4-august-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-milkfood-ltd-vs-ms-gmc-ice-cream-p-ltd-on-4-august-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S Milkfood Ltd vs M\/S Gmc Ice Cream (P) Ltd on 4 August, 2011","datePublished":"2011-08-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-04T01:32:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-milkfood-ltd-vs-ms-gmc-ice-cream-p-ltd-on-4-august-2011"},"wordCount":2989,"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\/ms-milkfood-ltd-vs-ms-gmc-ice-cream-p-ltd-on-4-august-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-milkfood-ltd-vs-ms-gmc-ice-cream-p-ltd-on-4-august-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-milkfood-ltd-vs-ms-gmc-ice-cream-p-ltd-on-4-august-2011","name":"M\/S Milkfood Ltd vs M\/S Gmc Ice Cream (P) Ltd on 4 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-08-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-04T01:32:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-milkfood-ltd-vs-ms-gmc-ice-cream-p-ltd-on-4-august-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-milkfood-ltd-vs-ms-gmc-ice-cream-p-ltd-on-4-august-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-milkfood-ltd-vs-ms-gmc-ice-cream-p-ltd-on-4-august-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S Milkfood Ltd vs M\/S Gmc Ice Cream (P) Ltd on 4 August, 2011"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/105992","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=105992"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/105992\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=105992"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=105992"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=105992"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}