{"id":125903,"date":"2000-05-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-05-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/skypak-couriers-ltd-etc-etc-vs-tata-chemicals-ltd-etc-etc-on-12-may-2000"},"modified":"2018-02-18T17:21:57","modified_gmt":"2018-02-18T11:51:57","slug":"skypak-couriers-ltd-etc-etc-vs-tata-chemicals-ltd-etc-etc-on-12-may-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/skypak-couriers-ltd-etc-etc-vs-tata-chemicals-ltd-etc-etc-on-12-may-2000","title":{"rendered":"Skypak Couriers Ltd. Etc. Etc vs Tata Chemicals Ltd. Etc. Etc on 12 May, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Skypak Couriers Ltd. Etc. Etc vs Tata Chemicals Ltd. Etc. Etc on 12 May, 2000<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: G.B. Pattanaik, Doraiswamy Raju, S.N. Variava<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  2500 of 1994\n\nPETITIONER:\nSKYPAK COURIERS LTD. ETC. ETC.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTATA CHEMICALS LTD. ETC. ETC.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 12\/05\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nG.B. PATTANAIK &amp; DORAISWAMY RAJU &amp; S.N. VARIAVA\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>2000 Supp(1) SCR 324<\/p>\n<p>The following Order of the Court was delivered :\n<\/p>\n<p>All these Civil Appeals are being disposed of by this common Order. It is<br \/>\nclarified that at this stage this Court is not going into the facts of any<br \/>\ncase but is only dealing with the propriety of the procedure. Followed by<br \/>\nthe National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter for sake<br \/>\nof convenience called the &#8216;Commission&#8217;) in all these matters.\n<\/p>\n<p>With the Industrial Revolution and development in the International Trade &amp;<br \/>\nCommerce, there has been a substantial increase of business and trade,<br \/>\nwhich resulted in a variety of consumer goods appearing in the market to<br \/>\ncater to the needs of the consumers. The modern method of advertisement in<br \/>\nmedia, influence the mind of the consumers and notwithstanding the<br \/>\nmanufacturing defect or imperfection in the quality, a consumer is tempted<br \/>\nto purchase the goods. There has been possibility of deficiency in the<br \/>\nservices rendered. For the welfare of such consumer and to protect the<br \/>\nconsumers from the exploitation to provide protection of the interest of<br \/>\nthe consumers, the Parliament enacted the Consumer Protection Act, and the<br \/>\nAct itself makes provision for the establishment of Commissions for<br \/>\nsettlement of the consumer disputes and matters connected therewith. The<br \/>\nCommissions under the Act, are quasi judicial bodies and they are supposed<br \/>\nto provide speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes and for that<br \/>\npurpose, they have been empowered to give relief of a specified nature and<br \/>\nin an appropriate way, to award compensation. On a detailed scrutiny of the<br \/>\ndifferent provisions of the Act and bearing in mind the powers conferred on<br \/>\nthe Commissions it is indeed difficult to conceive that such Commissions<br \/>\nwould be authorised to refer the disputes for a consensual adjudication,<br \/>\nmerely because to arrive at a decision, it would be necessary to take<br \/>\nevidence in the proceedings. In the absence of any provision in the Act<br \/>\nitself, authorising the Commission to refer a pending proceeding before it,<br \/>\non receipt of a complaint from a consumer, for being settled through a<br \/>\nconsensual adjudication, the conclusion is irresistible that the<br \/>\nCommissions under the Consumer Protection Act do not have the jurisdiction<br \/>\nto refer the dispute for a consensual adjudication and then make the said<br \/>\ndecision of the so-called consensual arbitrator, an order of the Commission<br \/>\nitself. Even it there exists an arbitration clause in an agreement and a<br \/>\ncomplaint is made by the consumer, in relation to certain deficiency of<br \/>\nservice, then the existence of an arbitration clause will not be a bar to<br \/>\nthe entertainment of the complaint by the Redressal Agency, constituted<br \/>\nunder the Consumer Protection Act, since the remedy provided under the Act<br \/>\nis in addition to the provisions of any other law for the time being in<br \/>\nforce. Now let us see what procedure has been adopted by the Commission.\n<\/p>\n<p>In ail these matters the Commission has passed Orders referring the<br \/>\nconcerned matter to consensual adjudication by a retired Judge. For sake of<br \/>\nconvenience a typical Order (as passed in Civil Appeal No, 2500 of 1994) is<br \/>\nreproduced below:-\n<\/p>\n<p>ORDER<\/p>\n<p>After hearing both sides we suggested to parties that since evidence will<br \/>\nhave to be taken and the questions of facts determined after scrutiny of<br \/>\nvarious documents and the oral evidence, it is best that both sides agree<br \/>\nto the matter being adjudicated upon consensually by a retired Judge of the<br \/>\nSupreme Court Both parties have submitted before us that they are agreeable<br \/>\nto the course suggested by us. Accordingly both sides consented before us<br \/>\nthat the dispute forming the subject matter of this Original Petition may<br \/>\nbe referred to Mr. Justice V.D. Tulzapurkar, retired judge of the Supreme<br \/>\nCourt of India who is residing in Bombay. Both parties to this dispute have<br \/>\ntheir offices in Bombay and so it would be convenient to have the<br \/>\nadjudication conducted by a retired Judge who is in Bombay. The records of<br \/>\nthe case will be transmitted by the Registry to Mr. Justice V.D.<br \/>\nTulzapurkar at his address in Bombay in Samta Building, General Bhonsale<br \/>\nMarg, Near Sachivalaya, Bombay. Mr. Justice Tulzapurkar may stipulate the<br \/>\nterms and conditions to be completed by the parties as to his remuneration<br \/>\nand expenses of the adjudication proceedings. We make it clear that this is<br \/>\nnot an arbitration under the Arbitration Act, but only a consensual<br \/>\nadjudication which will be binding on both parties. The award of Mr.<br \/>\nJustice Tulzazpurkar will be sent to this Commission after the arbitration<br \/>\nproceedings are completed so that final orders in the matter may be passed<br \/>\nby this Commission in accordance with the terms of the said award.\n<\/p>\n<p>We request Mr. Justice Tulzapurkar to enter on the reference at his<br \/>\nearliest convenience and to complete the proceedings of adjudication<br \/>\npreferable within a period of three months from the date of his entering on<br \/>\nthe reference. Both the parties will be at liberty to adduce all their oral<br \/>\nand documentary evidence in the course of the adjudication proceedings.<br \/>\nPost this case after receipt of the original award from Mr. Justice<br \/>\nTulzapurkar.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>In some of these matters, it has been contended before us that such Orders<br \/>\nwere passed even though the parties did not consent. We, however, for the<br \/>\npurposes of this decision, are proceeding on the basis that all such Orders<br \/>\nwere consent Orders and had been agreed to by the parties. To be noted that<br \/>\nthe reference to a third person is not supposed to be an arbitration but a<br \/>\nconsensual adjudication.\n<\/p>\n<p>Section 22 of the Consumer Protection act provides that the Commission<br \/>\nshall have the powers of a Court. These powers would include the power to<br \/>\ncall for documents and take evidence either by itself or on Commission.<br \/>\nHowever, the final adjudication has to be by the Commission. For purposes<br \/>\nof this Order we will presume, without laying down any law in this behalf,<br \/>\nthat the Commission may even refer disputes to Arbitration\/Conciliation.<br \/>\nHowever, such reference to Arbitration could only be under the provisions<br \/>\nof the Arbitration Act, 1940 or me Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.<br \/>\nThere is no provision in law and we consider it an unhealthy practice for<br \/>\nCourts\/ Commission\/Tribunal to abdicate their duties and functions and to<br \/>\ndelegate adjudication of disputes before them to third parties. The<br \/>\nadjudication can only be by the concerned Court\/Commission\/Tribunal. For an<br \/>\neffective adjudication the Commission\/Court must address itself to the<br \/>\nevidence, documents., respective case of the parties, including submission<br \/>\non their behalf and then give a finding on that basis. Facts set out<br \/>\nhereafter shows\/ suggests that that has not happened.\n<\/p>\n<p>In all these matters awards have been given by the persons to whom the<br \/>\nmatters were referred. In some of these matters one or other of the parties<br \/>\nfiled objections to the award. In some cases objections were not filed and\/<br \/>\nor were not allowed to be filed. In all these cases the objections have not<br \/>\nbeen considered and the Commission has proceeded to pass orders based on<br \/>\nthe Award. For sake of convenience the Order passed in Civil Appeal No.<br \/>\n2500 of 1994, Which is typical of Orders passed, is reproduced<br \/>\nhereinbelow:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The dispute between the parties forming the subject matter of this<br \/>\ncomplaint petition was referred for consensual adjudication to Justice Sri<br \/>\nV.D. Tulzapurkar, former Judge of the Supreme Court of India with the<br \/>\nstipulation that the award passed by the adjudicator will be final and<br \/>\nbinding as between the parties. The award has been passed by Justice Sri<br \/>\nTulzapurkar and it has been forwarded to this Commission in accordance with<br \/>\nthe terms of our order wherein it was stated that after the completion of<br \/>\nthe adjudication proceedings the award may be forwarded to this Commission<br \/>\nfor its being incorporated into the Order of this Commission. We direct<br \/>\nthat there will be an order in the original petition in terms of the<br \/>\ndirections contained in the award.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr. Venugopal, for the Respondent in Civil Appeal No. 2500 of 1994, sought<br \/>\nto support this practice. He relied upon certain English authorities (which<br \/>\nneed not be reproduced) wherein it is held that parties could agree to<br \/>\nabide by the decision\/adjudication of a third person and that the opinion<br \/>\nof the third person would then be final and binding on the parties. There<br \/>\ncan be no dispute with such a proposition. However, if a party does not<br \/>\nabide by the decision then the only remedy would be to file a suit to<br \/>\nenforce the agreement of the parties and the decision. There is no<br \/>\nprovision in law nor could any authority be shown to us, that adjudication<br \/>\nof matters before a Court\/Commission\/Tribunal can be entrusted to a third<br \/>\nparty\/individual and the decision of the third person then made a decree or<br \/>\nOrder of a Court\/ Commission\/Tribunal. Of course, an Award made by an<br \/>\nArbitrator can be and is made a decree of a Court. But that is under the<br \/>\nprovisions of the Arbitration Act and not dehors the Act. As seen above the<br \/>\nCommission is referring matters to third persons for consensual<br \/>\nadjudication dehors the Arbitration Act. It is then making those awards the<br \/>\nrule of the Court by passing Orders based on the award. The Commission is<br \/>\nnot applying its own mind or adjudication on the disputes. It is merely<br \/>\nputting its impremanitive on decisions given by third parties. By doing<br \/>\nthis it is addicating its own functions and duties. Such a procedure is<br \/>\nunwarranted and unjustified. It cannot be allowed to continue. Accordingly<br \/>\nthe Commission is directed to forthwith discontinue with such a practice.\n<\/p>\n<p>The question then arises as to what is to happen in all these cases. As The<br \/>\nquestion then arises as to what is to happen in all these cases. As stated<br \/>\nabove, we have proceeded on the basts that all parties had consented to<br \/>\ntheir matters being referred to third persons. All parties have<br \/>\nparticipated in the proceedings before the third persons. Awards have been<br \/>\npassed. In our view, it would be inequitable to now set at naught all the<br \/>\nawards and relegate the parties back to the original proceedings. In our<br \/>\nview, the reference being by consent, must now be treated as reference to<br \/>\nArbitration under the Arbitration Act. The awards must be treated as awards<br \/>\nof Arbitrators.\n<\/p>\n<p>In such a situation, it will be open for parties to challenge the awards on<br \/>\nsuch grounds as are available under the Arbitration Act, 1940 and\/or the<br \/>\nArbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Thus, in our view, it would not be<br \/>\ncorrect for the Commission not to allow parties to file objections and\/or<br \/>\nnot to consider objections which had been filed.\n<\/p>\n<p>As stated above, in all these cases, the Commission has not considered the<br \/>\nobjections to the award or not allowed the parties to file objections. We,<br \/>\ntherefore, set aside the final orders of the Commission in all these<br \/>\nmatters and remit all these matters back to the Commission. We direct that<br \/>\nthe Commission shall permit the parties, who have not filed their<br \/>\nobjections, to file their objection to the award within a period of 4 weeks<br \/>\nfrom today. Replies, if any, to the objections to be filed within 4 weeks<br \/>\nthereafter. The Commission shall then consider the submissions\/objections<br \/>\nof the respective parties and then give a decision. With this direction all<br \/>\nthese Appeals stand disposed of.\n<\/p>\n<p>It is clarified that this order will not act as a precedent to reopen<br \/>\nmatters where parties have accepted or acted upon the final decision of the<br \/>\nCommission and\/or in cases where parties have not challenged the final<br \/>\norder of the Commission.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Skypak Couriers Ltd. Etc. Etc vs Tata Chemicals Ltd. Etc. Etc on 12 May, 2000 Bench: G.B. Pattanaik, Doraiswamy Raju, S.N. Variava CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2500 of 1994 PETITIONER: SKYPAK COURIERS LTD. ETC. ETC. RESPONDENT: TATA CHEMICALS LTD. ETC. ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12\/05\/2000 BENCH: G.B. PATTANAIK &amp; DORAISWAMY RAJU [&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-125903","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Skypak Couriers Ltd. Etc. Etc vs Tata Chemicals Ltd. Etc. Etc on 12 May, 2000 - 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\/skypak-couriers-ltd-etc-etc-vs-tata-chemicals-ltd-etc-etc-on-12-may-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Skypak Couriers Ltd. Etc. Etc vs Tata Chemicals Ltd. Etc. Etc on 12 May, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/skypak-couriers-ltd-etc-etc-vs-tata-chemicals-ltd-etc-etc-on-12-may-2000\" \/>\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=\"2000-05-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-18T11:51:57+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\/skypak-couriers-ltd-etc-etc-vs-tata-chemicals-ltd-etc-etc-on-12-may-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/skypak-couriers-ltd-etc-etc-vs-tata-chemicals-ltd-etc-etc-on-12-may-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Skypak Couriers Ltd. Etc. Etc vs Tata Chemicals Ltd. Etc. Etc on 12 May, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-05-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-18T11:51:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/skypak-couriers-ltd-etc-etc-vs-tata-chemicals-ltd-etc-etc-on-12-may-2000\"},\"wordCount\":1970,\"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\/skypak-couriers-ltd-etc-etc-vs-tata-chemicals-ltd-etc-etc-on-12-may-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/skypak-couriers-ltd-etc-etc-vs-tata-chemicals-ltd-etc-etc-on-12-may-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/skypak-couriers-ltd-etc-etc-vs-tata-chemicals-ltd-etc-etc-on-12-may-2000\",\"name\":\"Skypak Couriers Ltd. Etc. Etc vs Tata Chemicals Ltd. Etc. Etc on 12 May, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-05-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-18T11:51:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/skypak-couriers-ltd-etc-etc-vs-tata-chemicals-ltd-etc-etc-on-12-may-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/skypak-couriers-ltd-etc-etc-vs-tata-chemicals-ltd-etc-etc-on-12-may-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/skypak-couriers-ltd-etc-etc-vs-tata-chemicals-ltd-etc-etc-on-12-may-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Skypak Couriers Ltd. Etc. Etc vs Tata Chemicals Ltd. Etc. Etc on 12 May, 2000\"}]},{\"@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":"Skypak Couriers Ltd. Etc. Etc vs Tata Chemicals Ltd. Etc. Etc on 12 May, 2000 - 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\/skypak-couriers-ltd-etc-etc-vs-tata-chemicals-ltd-etc-etc-on-12-may-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Skypak Couriers Ltd. Etc. Etc vs Tata Chemicals Ltd. Etc. Etc on 12 May, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/skypak-couriers-ltd-etc-etc-vs-tata-chemicals-ltd-etc-etc-on-12-may-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-05-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-18T11:51:57+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\/skypak-couriers-ltd-etc-etc-vs-tata-chemicals-ltd-etc-etc-on-12-may-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/skypak-couriers-ltd-etc-etc-vs-tata-chemicals-ltd-etc-etc-on-12-may-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Skypak Couriers Ltd. Etc. Etc vs Tata Chemicals Ltd. Etc. Etc on 12 May, 2000","datePublished":"2000-05-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-18T11:51:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/skypak-couriers-ltd-etc-etc-vs-tata-chemicals-ltd-etc-etc-on-12-may-2000"},"wordCount":1970,"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\/skypak-couriers-ltd-etc-etc-vs-tata-chemicals-ltd-etc-etc-on-12-may-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/skypak-couriers-ltd-etc-etc-vs-tata-chemicals-ltd-etc-etc-on-12-may-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/skypak-couriers-ltd-etc-etc-vs-tata-chemicals-ltd-etc-etc-on-12-may-2000","name":"Skypak Couriers Ltd. Etc. Etc vs Tata Chemicals Ltd. Etc. Etc on 12 May, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-05-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-18T11:51:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/skypak-couriers-ltd-etc-etc-vs-tata-chemicals-ltd-etc-etc-on-12-may-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/skypak-couriers-ltd-etc-etc-vs-tata-chemicals-ltd-etc-etc-on-12-may-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/skypak-couriers-ltd-etc-etc-vs-tata-chemicals-ltd-etc-etc-on-12-may-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Skypak Couriers Ltd. Etc. Etc vs Tata Chemicals Ltd. Etc. Etc on 12 May, 2000"}]},{"@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\/125903","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=125903"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/125903\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=125903"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=125903"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=125903"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}