{"id":175182,"date":"2011-07-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-07-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ial-logistics-india-a-division-of-vs-quantum-international-on-28-july-2011"},"modified":"2018-02-15T12:01:33","modified_gmt":"2018-02-15T06:31:33","slug":"ial-logistics-india-a-division-of-vs-quantum-international-on-28-july-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ial-logistics-india-a-division-of-vs-quantum-international-on-28-july-2011","title":{"rendered":"Ial Logistics India (A Division Of … vs Quantum International on 28 July, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Ial Logistics India (A Division Of … vs Quantum International on 28 July, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: Anoop V.Mohta<\/div>\n
                                          1                             sj-112-10.sxw\n\n\n    dgm\n               IN THE  HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                            \n                   ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                                                    \n                 SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.112  OF 2010\n                                 IN\n                    SUMMARY SUIT NO. 3068  OF 2008\n\n\n\n\n                                                   \n    IAL Logistics India (a Division of IAL\n    Container Line (India) Ltd.                              ....   Plaintiff s\n          vs\n\n\n\n\n                                        \n    1 Quantum International \n    2 Mr. Jayant A. Gidwani\n    3 East West Freight Carriers Pvt.Ltd.                    ...     Defendants\n                          \n    Mrs.   Bharati   Narichania   with   Ms.   Vijaya   Bane   i\/by   M\/s.Vibha \n    Jurisconsult Co. for the Plaintiffs.\n    Mr. U. J. Makhija with Mr. Amin Kherada  for Defendants 1 and 2. \n          \n\n\n                                  CORAM:   ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.\n       \n\n\n\n                            RESERVED ON :   July  15, 2011\n                       PRONOUNCED ON:  July  28, 2011\n\n    JUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
            The present Summons for Judgment is taken out by the Plaintiffs <\/p>\n
    in a Summary Suit for recovery of unpaid freight and other incidental <\/p>\n
    charges by the Defendants in a sum of  ` 8,33,656\/- with interest at <\/p>\n
    the rate of 18% per annum from 1 January 2006 upto 25 September <\/p>\n
    2008.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n    2       The Plaintiffs carry on a business as Consolidators and Freight \n\n\n\n                                                    ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:34:02 :::<\/span>\n                                                  2                               sj-112-10.sxw\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
    Forwarders.  Defendant no.1 is the sole proprietary concern and doing <\/p>\n
    a business as exporters of garments.  Defendant no.2 is also carrying <\/p>\n
    on business of the same nature.  Defendant no.3 is an internationally <\/p>\n
    approved Freight Forwarding Agents for carriage of goods by Air and <\/p>\n
    stated to be the authorised agent of the carriers of the consignments in <\/p>\n
    question.     Defendants 1 and 2 were the owner of the consignments <\/p>\n
    consisting   of   cotton   woven   garments   which   were   entrusted   to   the <\/p>\n
    Plaintiffs for effecting shipment to New York. No   relief   is   claimed <\/p>\n
    against Defendant no.3.\n<\/p>\n
    3      The   Plaintiffs   effected   the   carriage   by   Air   of   the   four <\/p>\n
    consignments to New York.  The Airway bills (The bills) reflect,  apart <\/p>\n
    from number and date, Defendant no.1- M\/s. Quantum International <\/p>\n
    as the consignees.    The bills were signed by the Plaintiffs for and on <\/p>\n
    behalf   of   Defendant   no.3   as   Agents.     As   per   the   Plaintiffs,   it   was <\/p>\n
    mutually agreed that the bills would be marked as “Freight pre-paid”;\n<\/p>\n
    and Defendants 1 and 2 would be allowed thirty days credit to pay the <\/p>\n
    Plaintiffs   dues.     The   Plaintiffs,   therefore,   based   upon   an   oral <\/p>\n
    assurance, as alleged, delivered the goods and expected the payment <\/p>\n
    from the Defendants to them or to their counter part in Dubai.\n<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:34:02 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                3                               sj-112-10.sxw\n\n\n    4      The   Plaintiffs'   case   is   that   Defendant   no.3   had   issued   Master \n\n\n\n\n                                                                                   \n<\/pre>\n
    Airway   bills   on   behalf   of   the   Airline   i.e.   Swiss   World   Cargo <\/p>\n
    corresponding to the Airway bills which were also endorsed “Freight <\/p>\n
    pre-paid” and the Plaintiffs were named as “shippers”.  As alleged, the <\/p>\n
    Plaintiffs   had   already   paid   freight   payable   in   respect   of   the   said <\/p>\n
    consignment in advance to Defendant no.3 as Agents for the carriers <\/p>\n
    of Airline, therefore, has filed the present recovery Suit for the due <\/p>\n
    freight   charges   from   Defendants   1   and   2.     The   Plaintiffs   had   also <\/p>\n
    issued four invoices aggregating to ` 5,58,404\/- in respect of the said <\/p>\n
    freight   and   other   charges   payable   on   the   four   consignments   which <\/p>\n
    were   delivered   at   the   destination   to   the   consignee,     M\/Quantum <\/p>\n
    International   Trade,     a   sister   concern   of   Defendants   1   and   2.\n<\/p>\n
    Defendants 1 and 2, inspite of repeated reminders, oral,  as well as,  in <\/p>\n
    writing, failed to make the payment.   The Plaintiffs had filed similar <\/p>\n
    Suits against Defendants 1 and 2 for the other consignments.  A legal <\/p>\n
    notice dated 19 June 2006 was also remained unreplied.   Therefore, <\/p>\n
    this Suit, based upon the four invoices and the bills.   Defendant no.2 <\/p>\n
    has filed the reply and resisted the claim on various grounds.\n<\/p>\n
    5      Admittedly the Defendants had entrusted the six consignments <\/p>\n
    for shipment to USA and Dubai along with the relevant documents.\n<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:34:02 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                               4                              sj-112-10.sxw<\/p>\n
    Five  consignments of USA were delivered to the consignee at USA.\n<\/p>\n
    One   consignment   of   Quantum   International   LLC,   Dubai   was   not <\/p>\n
    delivered.   It was accordingly recorded by e-mail dated 25 December <\/p>\n
    2005.  The withholding of goods is a  basic objection,  as it causes loss <\/p>\n
    of business, profit and reputation.   There is an e-mail on record to <\/p>\n
    show   that  the  Plaintiffs  communicated  their  inability  to  release  the <\/p>\n
    consignment for want of non-payment of overdue invoices.\n<\/p>\n
    6     The   Plaintiffs     by  notice   dated  10   May   2006   called  upon   the <\/p>\n
    Defendants   to   pay   the   freight   charges   in   respect   of   all   six <\/p>\n
    consignments   though   the   last   consignment   valued   about     US   $ <\/p>\n
    9788.60 was not delivered.\n<\/p>\n
    7     The   Plaintiffs   have   filed   the   present   Suit   for   four <\/p>\n
    consignments\/invoices,   and       Suit   No.3069\/08   for   remaining   one.\n<\/p>\n
    Suit   No.3426\/2008   is   for   the   freight   and   other   charges   of   Dubai <\/p>\n
    consignment.\n<\/p>\n
    8     It  is  clear that  the  Plaintiffs  by a composite  notice   demanded <\/p>\n
    freight   charges   of   six   consignments,   though   they   withhold   last <\/p>\n
    consignment of Dubai of US $ 9788.60.    The Plaintiffs’ action of non-\n<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:34:02 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                  5                                sj-112-10.sxw<\/p>\n
    delivery caused loss of business, profit and reputation as Defendants <\/p>\n
    customers   cancelled   the   orders   also.       The   Plaintiffs’   Agent\/Dubai <\/p>\n
    Office,   even   otherwise   being   bailee   ought   not   to  have   retained  the <\/p>\n
    consignment on the ground of non-payment of freight charges as done <\/p>\n
    in the present case.   The said retention\/withholding of the goods by <\/p>\n
    the Plaintiffs Agent at Dubai, in the present facts and circumstances of <\/p>\n
    the case, just cannot be overlooked.   The right of defence to set off <\/p>\n
    their loss against the plaintiffs’ claim is also relevant factor.\n<\/p>\n
    9      The bills show that the amounts\/freight were pre-paid.  The case <\/p>\n
    of   the   Plaintiffs   that   it   was   mutually   agreed   that   the   Airway   bills <\/p>\n
    would be marked as freight pre-paid; and Defendants 1 and 2 would <\/p>\n
    be   allowed   thirty   days   credit   to   pay   the   Plaintiff’s   dues;     and   the <\/p>\n
    assurance   that   they   would   make   the   payment   after   effecting   the <\/p>\n
    carriage and upon the receipt of the Plaintiffs invoices, in Dubai, for <\/p>\n
    want   of   written   documents,   just   cannot   be   accepted   at   this   stage.\n<\/p>\n
    Such oral contract, even if any, unless substantiated by the Plaintiffs, <\/p>\n
    in   my   view,   it   is   not   the   case   to   grant   Summons   for   judgment   as <\/p>\n
    prayed. <\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n    10     11     The scheme and purpose of Order XXXVII of th Code of \n\n\n\n                                                              ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:34:02 :::<\/span>\n                                                 6                               sj-112-10.sxw\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
    Civil Procedure (CPC) can be summarised as under :\n<\/p>\n
    The purpose & the basic of summary suit:\n<\/p>\n
    (a)    A Plaintiff, if chooses to invoke the provisions of Order XXXVII <\/p>\n
    for recovery of amount, the basic obligations and elements as required <\/p>\n
    need to be fulfilled.   The summary suit so filed must fall within the <\/p>\n
    four corner of Order XXXVII for getting judgment\/decree summarily.\n<\/p>\n
    (b)    As   per   Rule   227   of   the   Bombay   High   Court   (Original   Side) <\/p>\n
    Rules,   1980,   the   Plaintiff   must   take   out   an   appropriate   proceeding <\/p>\n
    within six months once such Suit is instituted, though it is subject to <\/p>\n
    condonation of delay, if case is made out.\n<\/p>\n
    (c)    The object of Order XXXVII is to recover the crystalised dues, <\/p>\n
    liquidated,   admitted,   acknowledged   debt\/monetary   claim     by   a <\/p>\n
    summary   procedure,   without   long   trial,     principally   based   upon   a <\/p>\n
    written document executed in the   course of business, in accordance <\/p>\n
    with   law.         It   is   a   supportive   measure   for     recovery   of   unpaid <\/p>\n
    debt\/amount covering all the negotiable instruments as contemplated <\/p>\n
    under   the   Negotiable   Instrument   Act,   apart   from   a   valid,   written <\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:34:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                               7                              sj-112-10.sxw<\/p>\n
    contract\/receipt\/acknowledgment.   It may be an express term or an <\/p>\n
    implied   term,   based   upon   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case, <\/p>\n
    considering the practice, trade and usage of the commerce and the <\/p>\n
    trade.     This   also   covers   apart   from   principal   amount,   express   or <\/p>\n
    implied terms of the interest.\n<\/p>\n
    The Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s respective obligations:\n<\/p>\n
    (d)   A   Plaintiff   having   once   instituted   a   summary   suit   is   under <\/p>\n
    obligation firstly, to serve the Defendant,  a summons for appearance <\/p>\n
    by providing copy of plaint and annexures.  The Defendant, upon such <\/p>\n
    service, needs to appear within 10 days from the date of the service <\/p>\n
    either in person or through an Advocate.   If the appearance is made, <\/p>\n
    either in person or through the Advocate, the Plaintiff is required to <\/p>\n
    serve the summons for judgment on the given address.\n<\/p>\n
    (e)   The Defendant is entitled to file a reply and\/or an application <\/p>\n
    for grant of leave to defend the Suit,   within 10 days of service of <\/p>\n
    summons with the averments and the supporting documents entitling <\/p>\n
    him leave to defend the Suit.  Such application or affidavit reply shall <\/p>\n
    be supported by an affidavit.\n<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:34:02 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                               8                               sj-112-10.sxw<\/p>\n
    (f)   If the Defendant fail to enter appearance inspite of the service, <\/p>\n
    the   Plaintiff’s   averments\/allegation,   if   supported   by   due <\/p>\n
    documents\/material, shall be deemed to be admitted and entitled for <\/p>\n
    a judgment\/decree for the amount so prayed.    The Defendant though <\/p>\n
    filed appearance but failed to file reply or defence or remained absent <\/p>\n
    inspite   of   filing  of   service,   the   Court   may  pass  judgment\/decree   as <\/p>\n
    prayed in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
    The Court needs to exercise the discretion judicially:\n<\/p>\n
    (g)   Though basic burden lies upon the Plaintiff to prove and satisfy <\/p>\n
    the Court that the claim so raised and prayed for decree falls within <\/p>\n
    the ambit and scope of the summary procedure in question.       Once <\/p>\n
    the Court comes to a conclusion that Plaintiff has made out a case for <\/p>\n
    summons   for   judgment   or   the   Defendant   has   made   out   a   case   for <\/p>\n
    unconditional   or   conditional   leave,   after   considering   the   facts   and <\/p>\n
    circumstances of the case, need to exercise discretion in either way <\/p>\n
    based upon the settled position of law.\n<\/p>\n
    (h)   The Defendant is able to demonstrate through the affidavit in <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:34:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                                   9                                sj-112-10.sxw<\/p>\n
    defence and\/or averments made in application\/affidavit for leave to <\/p>\n
    defend that the Plaintiff has not made out a bonafide and clear case <\/p>\n
    and on the contrary the defence so raised is bonafide reasonable and <\/p>\n
    good defence and raises the plausible \/triable issues the Defendant is <\/p>\n
    entitled to unconditional leave to defend.\n<\/p>\n
    (i)    But, after the defence so raised by the Defendant and the Court <\/p>\n
    is   satisfied   that   the   Defendant   may   at   the   trial   able   to   establish   a <\/p>\n
    defence and\/or there is material placed on record, though not fully <\/p>\n
    supportive,   the   Court   may   grant   conditional   leave,   directing   the <\/p>\n
    Defendant to deposit the amount in the Court in full and\/or in part <\/p>\n
    and\/or to furnish the security by possible permitted modes   pending <\/p>\n
    the trial.\n<\/p>\n
    The   grant   of   Decree   or   Summons   for   Judgment   with   agreed
\n    interest:\n<\/p>\n
    (j)    The Court, if,     comes to a conclusion that there is no defence <\/p>\n
    and\/or   it   is   sham,   bogus,   illusory   and   moonshine,   the   Court   may <\/p>\n
    refuse to grant leave to defend and pass\/grant summons for judgment <\/p>\n
    or decree as prayed by the Plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:34:02 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                               10                              sj-112-10.sxw\n\n\n    The Interest:\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                  \n<\/pre>\n
    (k)   The Court needs to consider the aspect of agreed rate of interest <\/p>\n
    on the principal amount so claimed and the future interest also.\n<\/p>\n
    The   condition   should   be   reasonable,   practicable   and   not   be
\n    onerous or burdensome:\n<\/p>\n
    (l)   It is also necessary for the Court while exercising a jurisdiction <\/p>\n
    to see that while granting leave to defend, contention should not be <\/p>\n
    unduly onerous that results into depriving and\/or unable to defend <\/p>\n
    the   defence   so   raised.     The   Court,   therefore,   needs   to   exercise <\/p>\n
    discretion   cautiously   and   carefully   while   passing   the   conditional   or <\/p>\n
    any such order in summary suits.\n<\/p>\n
    11    In the present case though there are invoices\/Airway bills are <\/p>\n
    the foundation for the summary suit, yet, in view of the fact that the <\/p>\n
    case is also  based upon the oral agreement or promise, unless decided <\/p>\n
    by the evidence cannot be the foundation to grant the decree at this <\/p>\n
    stage.       The   Plaintiffs   Agent   has   admittedly   retained\/withhold   the <\/p>\n
    Dubai  consignment worth of  US $ 9788.60,  which is definitely more <\/p>\n
    than the amount claimed in the Suit and as demanded through the <\/p>\n
    composite notice,  as referred above.\n<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:34:02 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                 11                               sj-112-10.sxw\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                     \n    12     There was no question of claim of interest at 18% per annum on \n\n\n\n\n                                                             \n<\/pre>\n
    the freight charges so raised as there was no such agreement.  On the <\/p>\n
    contrary, the case of the Defendants is that the payment to be made, if <\/p>\n
    any, after 90 days and not 30 days as claimed.    The claim of interest <\/p>\n
    at the rate of 18% per annum from 1 January 2006 to 25 September <\/p>\n
    2008 on the aggregate sum of ` 8,33,656\/- based upon four invoices <\/p>\n
    and further 18% from the date of filing of the Suit till realisation is <\/p>\n
    also a matter of debate.\n<\/p>\n
    13     The Plaintiffs have filed different Suits as recorded above and <\/p>\n
    thereby separated the claims of freight charges even of non-delivery of <\/p>\n
    goods\/consignment at Dubai.  The composite notice\/demand so raised <\/p>\n
    and considering the invoice and the averments made in the present <\/p>\n
    plaint,     in   my   view,   the   facts   and   documents   of   the   Suits   are <\/p>\n
    interlinked   and   interconnected.     All   in   all   triable   issues   for   detail <\/p>\n
    consideration are raised.\n<\/p>\n
    14     The Airway bills were signed by the Plaintiffs for and on behalf <\/p>\n
    of Defendant no.3 as Agents.  Defendant no.3 had issued last Airway <\/p>\n
    bill on behalf of the Airlines.  The same was marked “freight pre-paid”.\n<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:34:02 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                   12                               sj-112-10.sxw<\/p>\n
    The Plaintiffs were named as shippers.   The Suit, at the instance of <\/p>\n
    Plaintiffs as Agents itself raises issues about the maintainability of the <\/p>\n
    Suit itself.\n<\/p>\n
    15     The4refore, the Plaintiffs claim, even if any, cannot be stated to <\/p>\n
    be without any security.   In my view, apart from other grounds, the <\/p>\n
    amount is already secured by the Plaintiffs.  The defence so raised by <\/p>\n
    the Defendants therefore cannot be stated to be sham, bogus or false <\/p>\n
    and\/or with an intent to delay the payment or avoid the payment.\n<\/p>\n
    The   Defendants   therefore   have   made   out   a   case   for   unconditional <\/p>\n
    leave to defend.\n<\/p>\n
    16     Resultantly, the Defendants are entitled to unconditional leave to <\/p>\n
    defend   the   Suit.     The   Defendants   to   file   written   statement   within <\/p>\n
    thirty   days   from   the   date   of   receipt   of   copy   of   this   order.       The <\/p>\n
    Summons for judgment is disposed of accordingly.  There shall be no <\/p>\n
    order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                         (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:34:02 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Ial Logistics India (A Division Of … vs Quantum International on 28 July, 2011 Bench: Anoop V.Mohta 1 sj-112-10.sxw dgm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.112 OF 2010 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 3068 OF 2008 IAL Logistics India (a Division of IAL […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-175182","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nIal Logistics India (A Division Of ... vs Quantum International on 28 July, 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\/ial-logistics-india-a-division-of-vs-quantum-international-on-28-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ial Logistics India (A Division Of ... vs Quantum International on 28 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ial-logistics-india-a-division-of-vs-quantum-international-on-28-july-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=\"2011-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-15T06:31:33+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ial-logistics-india-a-division-of-vs-quantum-international-on-28-july-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ial-logistics-india-a-division-of-vs-quantum-international-on-28-july-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ial Logistics India (A Division Of … vs Quantum International on 28 July, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-15T06:31:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ial-logistics-india-a-division-of-vs-quantum-international-on-28-july-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2100,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ial-logistics-india-a-division-of-vs-quantum-international-on-28-july-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ial-logistics-india-a-division-of-vs-quantum-international-on-28-july-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ial-logistics-india-a-division-of-vs-quantum-international-on-28-july-2011\",\"name\":\"Ial Logistics India (A Division Of ... vs Quantum International on 28 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-15T06:31:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ial-logistics-india-a-division-of-vs-quantum-international-on-28-july-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ial-logistics-india-a-division-of-vs-quantum-international-on-28-july-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ial-logistics-india-a-division-of-vs-quantum-international-on-28-july-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ial Logistics India (A Division Of … vs Quantum International on 28 July, 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:\\\/\\\/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":"Ial Logistics India (A Division Of ... vs Quantum International on 28 July, 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\/ial-logistics-india-a-division-of-vs-quantum-international-on-28-july-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ial Logistics India (A Division Of ... vs Quantum International on 28 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ial-logistics-india-a-division-of-vs-quantum-international-on-28-july-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-15T06:31:33+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ial-logistics-india-a-division-of-vs-quantum-international-on-28-july-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ial-logistics-india-a-division-of-vs-quantum-international-on-28-july-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ial Logistics India (A Division Of … vs Quantum International on 28 July, 2011","datePublished":"2011-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-15T06:31:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ial-logistics-india-a-division-of-vs-quantum-international-on-28-july-2011"},"wordCount":2100,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ial-logistics-india-a-division-of-vs-quantum-international-on-28-july-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ial-logistics-india-a-division-of-vs-quantum-international-on-28-july-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ial-logistics-india-a-division-of-vs-quantum-international-on-28-july-2011","name":"Ial Logistics India (A Division Of ... vs Quantum International on 28 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-15T06:31:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ial-logistics-india-a-division-of-vs-quantum-international-on-28-july-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ial-logistics-india-a-division-of-vs-quantum-international-on-28-july-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ial-logistics-india-a-division-of-vs-quantum-international-on-28-july-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ial Logistics India (A Division Of … vs Quantum International on 28 July, 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:\/\/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\/175182","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=175182"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/175182\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=175182"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=175182"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=175182"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}