{"id":149918,"date":"2010-09-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-nitco-roadways-ltd-vs-ms-h-m-t-international-ltd-on-16-september-2010"},"modified":"2017-11-01T18:24:41","modified_gmt":"2017-11-01T12:54:41","slug":"ms-nitco-roadways-ltd-vs-ms-h-m-t-international-ltd-on-16-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-nitco-roadways-ltd-vs-ms-h-m-t-international-ltd-on-16-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"M\/S Nitco Roadways Ltd vs M\/S H M T International Ltd on 16 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S Nitco Roadways Ltd vs M\/S H M T International Ltd on 16 September, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: K.L.Manjunath And B.Manohar<\/div>\n
E\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT 0? KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\nDATED THIS THE 16\" DAY or SEPT\u00a3MBER, 2010\nPRESENT d\nTHE aom'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.L. MANq\ufb01\ufb01AT\u00a7Qfn_f_\n\nAND\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTTCE E MAmoHAR *=\nREGULAR FIRST AppE\u00a7L,No.\u00e93\/2004 (Mom) j\nBETWEEN:\n\nM\/s. NITCO ROADWAYS2\ufb02TD;,:fV LA\nA Company incorporated und\u00e9r_cdi\nThe Companies Act having its _'\nRegd. office'atf\"NTTco_HouSE\ufb01\ufb01V j\nJammum180_QQ2, and 3 Epancng \"W\nAt No.2122,,\u00a7%VCross},c ' T\n\nH.Siddaiah*Road,VBangalo\u00a7c--2W.\n\nR\/by ins Area_ManagaTM,~\nK.Sunil Singh{'_'.\"_j\u00bb .. APPELLANT\n\n(\ufb01yvAdvocatevSri.Y.V.Parthasarathy)\n\n1.=M#s HLM T; International Ltd.,\nA wholly owned subsidiary of\nEMT Ltd , a company incorporated\n\u00bb Undo; the Companies Act having\n3.. its office at No.17, Ali Askar\nd,*Road, Bangalore~52.\n\ni\",2,fM\/s United India Insurance\n\nCo. Ltd., a Pubiic Sector\nCompany, having its office at\n\n;\u20ac'<'a \n3% )'\n\n\n\n'3\n\nNo.24, Whites Road, Madras~l4.\n\nAnd one of its bivisional Offices\n\nAt No.2, Indian Mutual Building, ,_\nN.R.Square, Bangalore--2. .. RESPQNDENTS\n\n(Respondents .. served)\n\nThis Regular First Appeai is fiied gnder sec 951\n\nof CPC against the judgment land 'decree "dated\n22.3.2003 passed in O.S.No;3889?l993 on the file of\nthe xxx Addl. City ciyil $udge;g'2Banga1ore,\ndecreeing the suit for recovaty of money. i\n\nThis Appeal is caning on for final hearing this\nday, MANJUNATH J. delive'red.t:he__& fo'1,l'owing:\n\n'gegiigz\u00e9 M E-Ear-\n\nThe legality an\ufb01loorsectness of the judgment\n\nand decree Qasseeatyrg\ufb02x Addl. City Civil Judge,\n\nv_Bangalose* dated _22,8.2003 in O.S.No.3889\/1993 is\n\nVcalledpinkqpestion in this appeal. Appellant was\n\nthe eefeneant and respondents were the gdaintiffs\n\n in the stiitj\n\n=. 3:3 'Facts<\/pre>\n
 leading to this case are as hereunder:<\/p>\n
uail\ufb01 plaintiff EMT International Ltd. is a<\/p>\n
ui*._ *\u00a7\ufb01$1ic sector undertaking. 2″‘ plaintiff is a<\/p>\n
:43<\/p>\n
\u00a7 ?M..\n<\/p>\n
General Insurance Corporation engaged in the<\/p>\n
business of insurance. 1″‘ plaintiff entrusted<\/p>\n
consignment for transportation of HMT “automatic<\/p>\n
Plastic Injection Moulding Machine to the defendant’<\/p>\n
on 24.3.1991 to transport the same from g\u00e9ngaIo\u00a3\u00e9;’<\/p>\n
to Bombay Vida lorry receipt dated 25:3.l93l;r from
\nBombay machine was required to be sent to Russia in
\nonward shipment with 3\/5 AvicE\u00a3pors,aMosco, Russia.
\nConsignment of the 3}tgplaihtif\ufb01fwas carried in a
\ntruck bearing .\u00a7\u00a7,ED\u00a3 m\u00e95E8_ hp; the, defendant, which
\ntruck met ;\ufb01ithk~an’ accident pnear Sion Circle,<\/p>\n
Bombay.  As  \ufb01hich injection moulding<\/p>\n
machine has _ completely damaged. In the<\/p>\n
_gircumstances’g1# plaintiff requested the defendant<\/p>\n
ito\u00bbp\u00bbdeliv\u00a7\u00a5,_ damaged machine at Bangalore.
\nAccordingl\u00a7.’damaged machine was delivered to the<\/p>\n
T\ufb01t plaintiff at Bangalore. Since consignment was<\/p>\n
d”completely damaged, 1″ plaintiff made a claim<\/p>\n
.1jefcr’eAAthe 2″” plaintiff. 1″ plaintiff had obtained<\/p>\n
.R”.__ Fa “policy with the Zmi plaintiff. 2M1 plaintiff<\/p>\n
Q<\/p>\n
\u00a33
\nconducted survey twice and based on the ourvey<\/p>\n
report of the 2″” plaintiff, claim of the 3.”<\/p>\n
plaintiff was settled by the 2″ plaint”i–:f_’f. “.,.gnd<\/p>\n
subsequently after obtaining a a<\/p>\n
suit was instituted by the pl’a-.i.nt:3g’.ff “” ‘;.:,?=,;;.~.o’+..:e\u00a7g ”<\/p>\n
amount of Rs.6,05,853\/- whioh’b’1’.far\u00e9{n”‘[paLi:_~1t’  <\/p>\n
plaintiff to the 1″ p1ainLi:–:3_._f\u00a3\u00bbgt with’ ir}t’e2\u00a7\u00e9=;\u00e9tV;V  Suit<\/p>\n
was resisted by the ,defenVdantf. on vafivons\/3 grounds.
\nThe main ground of att’a_tok” ‘the person who
\n%i”‘\u00a7\\\u00bbW,.;a
\nhas serft pleadgzings has ‘n<;_ 'authority to sign the
\nsame, suit is  and the Court of
\nBangaloro-.._Ahas  to entertain the suit<\/p>\n
and no daz'\u00a3i'ag\u20ac= _  worth Rs . 6, 05, 853\/– as<\/p>\n
_o3.aime.d\u00a7{  tho "V–\u00a3riev_fendant. In the oizcoumstanoes,<\/p>\n
Adafan'dantVAs:e=;{it1"e$ted the court to dismiss the suit.<\/p>\n
    above pleadings, following issues '<\/p>\n
w-'~:-.-re ft"am\u00e9d  the court below:<\/p>\n
2  Wiiether 1% p}.a:i.nti':f:'f proves that ho had
\nV 'fentrusted one HM? Automatic plastic
\nAinjection nmulding machine model No_R 496
\nunder G? No.2~O935020049 dated.24.8.l991 to<\/p>\n
tha defendant to carry the same from<\/p>\n
5';\n<\/p>\n
T’!<\/p>\n
Bangalore to Bombay and for onward shipment
\nto M\/s Avi Exports, Mosco, Russia?<\/p>\n
2. Whether plaintiffs prove thete”p the
\nconsignment suffered extensive”. damages
\nwhich was brought back by the “defendant<\/p>\n
vide G.C.Note No.771063 dated 3.4 i99l\ufb02as_<\/p>\n
directed by the plaintiff~i?p”~adu<\/p>\n
3. Whether the defendant pro\ufb01esp the Vpersonsd<\/p>\n
signed the plaint are not authorized to do
\nSo? “‘ ‘ ‘ edit 4 M it<\/p>\n
4. Whether the defendant proves that there is
\nno cause of action for”the suit? *<\/p>\n
5. Whether the suit is batted by limitation?<\/p>\n
6. Whether the suit is properi\ufb01 valued?<\/p>\n
7. Whether the defendant proves that the suit
\n,is ‘net_ maintainable as stated at paras
\n119a),. {5\u00a7,”.(c)}– id) and (e) of written
\nstatement?\u00a7a”A”<"\n<\/p>\n
8, whether -the. plaintiff proves that the<\/p>\n
\u00bb; defendantv is liable to pay a sum of<\/p>\n
‘Rs.6,0S,8S3i~ with interest at 18% p.a. as
\neieipea?\n<\/p>\n
tt9;g foe what reliefs are ‘the parties entitled
\nfor?}A<\/p>\n
V”\u00bb 10. what order or decree?\n<\/p>\n
“In order to prove the contentions of the parties,<\/p>\n
t”on_Eehalf of the plaintiff one Joseph was examined<\/p>\n
xt=as Pwwl and relied upon Exs.Pw1 to 16. Trial<\/p>\n
(3<\/p>\n
court, after considering the evidence let in by the
\nplaintiffs as the defendant did not step into the<\/p>\n
witness box, held issue NO.1 holding that these is<\/p>\n
no dispute between the parties and ltxeeted Zthe”,<\/p>\n
defendant as a career of the[consignment;ent;u\u00a7ted7x<\/p>\n
by ‘the 1%’ plaintiffs, issees f2,’ 6 end; gt ind the
\naffirmative, issues 3 to  “lit negative
\nand ultimately suit case to he decreed on 22.8.2003
\ndirecting the appellantfdefendaeg \u00a3\u00a7 fay ea sum of<\/p>\n
Rs.6,O5,853\/mfnithVihtetest,et”l\u00a3% p.a. from the<\/p>\n
date of suit fig; the \u00a2gte’\u00a2: realization. This<\/p>\n
judgment is caiiee it q\ufb01estion in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
3. Though “sevefei.*gfo\ufb01nds are urged by the<\/p>\n
appellant in {the iap\ufb01eal memo, Mr.Parthasarathy<\/p>\n
‘\u00a7P\u00a7eat;5q* for t\ufb01\u00e9” appellant, at the time of<\/p>\n
asgueents\ufb01y \ufb02esh\u00bb urged the following grounds:<\/p>\n
1″ Accofding to him, plaintiffs have failed to prove<\/p>\n
” [the surVey’report since the surveyor has not been<\/p>\n
ienamined. before the court. He further contends<\/p>\n
ufthet the person who has signed the pleadings has no<\/p>\n
e-e<\/p>\n
7<\/span>
\nauthority to file the suit and that the machine was<\/p>\n
not damaged as claimed by the plaintiffs and that<\/p>\n
the defendant is not liable to pay ;n\u00a3\u00e9g\u00e9\u00e9ef*a\u00a7,<\/p>\n
awarded by the court below. in the cironmsta\ufb01cesf’<\/p>\n
he requests the court to allow “the ,a\u00a7\u00a7eaiV and<\/p>\n
reverse the findings of the txial oourtit fxw<\/p>\n
4. Though respondentse a\u00a7\u00e9’\u00bb served, d”they are
\nunrepresented. In the ciro\ufb01\ufb01stanoes; we have heard
\nthe counsel for the appellant alone and perused the<\/p>\n
records of the trial co\ufb01ft\u00a7V :\n<\/p>\n
5. Having heard the oonnsel for the parties, this<\/p>\n
court has to”-r411co;v1s\u00a7’5._s\u00e9~_\u00a5  following points in this<\/p>\n
appea1:.ia<\/p>\n
.1; Whether the person who has signed the plaint
\n“__wag authorized to sign the pleadings of the
\nKpresent\ufb01suit?\n<\/p>\n
2.”whe\u00a7he\u00a3 the survey report has been proved by
\nthepplaintiffs?\n<\/p>\n
“el3g Whether the Clal\ufb01l of” Rs.6,05,853\/- by’ the
\n” ‘plaintiffs has to be honoured by the<\/p>\n
defendant?\n<\/p>\n
\ufb01t<\/p>\n
S<\/p>\n
4. Whether the defendant is not liable to pay
\ninterest at 12% p.a.? Wu<\/p>\n
K .’-g <\/p>\n
5. We have seen the evidence of Jo5e\ufb01h}t\ufb02g gr.<\/p>\n
plaintiff EMT International Lt\u00a2n_has is\u00e9gga Power’<\/p>\n
of attorney as per Ex.P–1 autheriiingi\ufb02nite\ufb02iln\ufb01ia<\/p>\n
Insurance Company to file the suit on behal\ufb01 of theal<\/p>\n
1″ plaintiff, Ex.P-2 is the letter bf suhrogation
\nwhich is executed his the fetfeieeneral Manager
\n(Finance), HMT  international\u00a3 ttdlv on 9.2.1993,
\nExs.P-3 & -4 are \u00a3\ufb01e~ig;g\u00a7,e\u00a2\u00a7\u00a7ip\u00a3s, Ex.P*5 is a
\nletter addresse\ufb01g%_hyi:itheiWLnefendant to HMT
\nInternational’ aoknowlea\u00e9ingi the receipt of the
\nletter dated 13?4:l\u00a7\u00a7l_ issued by the HMT and
\nreoeived\u00e9hhy the. aefendant, Ex.P–6 is the letter<\/p>\n
dated 5.3.1991 addressed b the 1″ laintiff to the<\/p>\n
13s defendant olaiming an amount of Rs.6,29,164\/- based<\/p>\n
F one thek surrey report, Ex.P-8 is the damage<\/p>\n
 issued by the defendant in respect of<\/p>\n
lgthe naehinary in question, Ex.P–l1 is the receipt<\/p>\n
wh’,_i$sued for having collected transportation charges<\/p>\n
$9<\/p>\n
9}<\/p>\n
and Ex.P–12 is the survey report. PW-~1 Asst.
\nDivisional Manager on oath has deposed that  has<\/p>\n
been authorized to depose on behalf” <\/p>\n
plaint iffs. While cross\u00bb-examining PW-l”-.’:..it.   not if V<\/p>\n
suggested to him that Divisiojn’a1″‘Manager’;’.who–.fha–s<\/p>\n
signed the pleadings is not an anthorired signatory<\/p>\n
to institute the suit on behalf ofx.th=egfgsliavintiffstii<\/p>\n
Admittedly, 1″ plaintiff  e’\u00a7;ecute’d”A j\ufb01ower of
\nattorney in favour of  the’ \u00a7?’J$’na”5$ntiff . 2″‘
\nplaintiff is a:.. 3~31i15jlic;:;A_ s\u00a7e\u00a7:tQr”\u00ab…i{;ndertaking company.<\/p>\n
A Company cianre\u00a7\u00a7re”senteVd.–‘by its manager.<\/p>\n
Therefore},  to be answered against<\/p>\n
the appellarit of the respondents.<\/p>\n
fair. as the\u00ab””dazvnage caused to the maehine is<\/p>\n
conc:_e’:neVd,__\u00b0’\u00bb.surve\u00a7: has been conducted twice. First<\/p>\n
Evsiirvey._was. . oexiducted at Bombay and second survey<\/p>\n
 eondi;a.-sted in Bangalore. Admittedly, damaged<\/p>\n
 been delivered to the 1″ plaintiff by the<\/p>\n
iidefendant by opening the consignment in Bangalore.<\/p>\n
 nature of damage caused to the machinery is<\/p>\n
pa.\n<\/p>\n
H}<\/p>\n
known to the defendant. is’ plaintiff as per Ex.P–6
\ncalled upon the plaintiffs to pay a sum.\u00bb of<\/p>\n
Rs . 6, 29, 164\/—- based on the recommendation <\/p>\n
surveyor by M\/s R.A.Rajagopal. ‘1’hough”‘<'.__:EIx "  <\/p>\n
the receipt of the defendant,fNsa'n'.ey_ '-\u00abhas<\/p>\n
disputed. The contents of suVi=vey_ re1.:fo1:t'v <\/p>\n
seriously challenged in  cross~e:<a1\ufb01infation.V<\/p>\n
When the defendant has"'*:i_eli.'\\fe"'r'eLd; the darnag\u00e9d goods,
\nvalue of the machinery   was worth
\nmore than   ificaused to the<\/p>\n
machinery has  =Rs.6 lacs and odd<\/p>\n
which  "f satisfied by the 2""\n<\/p>\n
plaintiff t’::___ the’ _i’\u00b0’.’? \u00bb~ .\ufb011.aintiff, same is not in
\nd\ufb01ispute\ufb01g it Therefore, ‘we do not see any reason to<\/p>\n
accept”-._Vth:e\u00ab.Agaksgument of the counsel for the<\/p>\n
 appellant  survey report has not been<\/p>\n
Vjyproyved  claim of the 1″ plaintiff as per<\/p>\n
; not been questioned by the appellant.<\/p>\n
 we answer the said point: against the<\/p>\n
h  ‘  aipgoeviflant . 5%,.\n<\/p>\n
:*et\u00bb\u00a2\u00e92o91o<\/p>\n
I I<\/p>\n
7. So far as awarding of interest is concerned,
\nthough 2″ plaintiff has satisfied the claim of the<\/p>\n
1″ plaintiff much prior to the institution of the<\/p>\n
suit, trial court has not awarded any: interest.<\/p>\n
prior to the institution of the suit and what has’<\/p>\n
A,<\/p>\n
been awarded by the court below is rrom the date of<\/p>\n
the suit till the date of reaiization, faanitp\u00e9a1y,i*<\/p>\n
it is a comercial transaction} ‘Business of the 2nd
\nplaintiff insurance com@anyL\u00a7is “a’x\u00e9ommercial one.
\nIn a commercial “transaction. if 112%’ interest is
\nawarded, same~ cannot” be’ considered as on higher
\nside. Therefore,’fa-._A’said.i_'”poi’nt is also answered<\/p>\n
against the appellant; \u00bbf*<\/p>\n
8i ‘.:n the result, \ufb01e do not see any merits in this<\/p>\n
apneaissh\ufb02oeordingly, the appeal is dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court M\/S Nitco Roadways Ltd vs M\/S H M T International Ltd on 16 September, 2010 Author: K.L.Manjunath And B.Manohar E IN THE HIGH COURT 0? KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 16″ DAY or SEPT\u00a3MBER, 2010 PRESENT d THE aom’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.L. MANq\ufb01\ufb01AT\u00a7Qfn_f_ AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTTCE E MAmoHAR *= […]<\/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":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-149918","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S Nitco Roadways Ltd vs M\/S H M T International Ltd on 16 September, 2010 - 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-nitco-roadways-ltd-vs-ms-h-m-t-international-ltd-on-16-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S Nitco Roadways Ltd vs M\/S H M T International Ltd on 16 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-nitco-roadways-ltd-vs-ms-h-m-t-international-ltd-on-16-september-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-09-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-01T12:54:41+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=\"9 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-nitco-roadways-ltd-vs-ms-h-m-t-international-ltd-on-16-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-nitco-roadways-ltd-vs-ms-h-m-t-international-ltd-on-16-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S Nitco Roadways Ltd vs M\\\/S H M T International Ltd on 16 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-01T12:54:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-nitco-roadways-ltd-vs-ms-h-m-t-international-ltd-on-16-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1562,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-nitco-roadways-ltd-vs-ms-h-m-t-international-ltd-on-16-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-nitco-roadways-ltd-vs-ms-h-m-t-international-ltd-on-16-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-nitco-roadways-ltd-vs-ms-h-m-t-international-ltd-on-16-september-2010\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S Nitco Roadways Ltd vs M\\\/S H M T International Ltd on 16 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-01T12:54:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-nitco-roadways-ltd-vs-ms-h-m-t-international-ltd-on-16-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-nitco-roadways-ltd-vs-ms-h-m-t-international-ltd-on-16-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-nitco-roadways-ltd-vs-ms-h-m-t-international-ltd-on-16-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S Nitco Roadways Ltd vs M\\\/S H M T International Ltd on 16 September, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"M\/S Nitco Roadways Ltd vs M\/S H M T International Ltd on 16 September, 2010 - 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-nitco-roadways-ltd-vs-ms-h-m-t-international-ltd-on-16-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S Nitco Roadways Ltd vs M\/S H M T International Ltd on 16 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-nitco-roadways-ltd-vs-ms-h-m-t-international-ltd-on-16-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-01T12:54:41+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-nitco-roadways-ltd-vs-ms-h-m-t-international-ltd-on-16-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-nitco-roadways-ltd-vs-ms-h-m-t-international-ltd-on-16-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S Nitco Roadways Ltd vs M\/S H M T International Ltd on 16 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-01T12:54:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-nitco-roadways-ltd-vs-ms-h-m-t-international-ltd-on-16-september-2010"},"wordCount":1562,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-nitco-roadways-ltd-vs-ms-h-m-t-international-ltd-on-16-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-nitco-roadways-ltd-vs-ms-h-m-t-international-ltd-on-16-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-nitco-roadways-ltd-vs-ms-h-m-t-international-ltd-on-16-september-2010","name":"M\/S Nitco Roadways Ltd vs M\/S H M T International Ltd on 16 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-01T12:54:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-nitco-roadways-ltd-vs-ms-h-m-t-international-ltd-on-16-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-nitco-roadways-ltd-vs-ms-h-m-t-international-ltd-on-16-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-nitco-roadways-ltd-vs-ms-h-m-t-international-ltd-on-16-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S Nitco Roadways Ltd vs M\/S H M T International Ltd on 16 September, 2010"}]},{"@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\/149918","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=149918"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/149918\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=149918"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=149918"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=149918"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}