{"id":203659,"date":"2007-03-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-03-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hbm-print-ltd-vs-scantrans-india-pvt-ltd-on-29-march-2007"},"modified":"2018-12-26T21:40:11","modified_gmt":"2018-12-26T16:10:11","slug":"hbm-print-ltd-vs-scantrans-india-pvt-ltd-on-29-march-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hbm-print-ltd-vs-scantrans-india-pvt-ltd-on-29-march-2007","title":{"rendered":"Hbm Print Ltd vs Scantrans India Pvt. Ltd on 29 March, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Hbm Print Ltd vs Scantrans India Pvt. Ltd on 29 March, 2007<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: B . K.G.<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: K.G. Balakrishnan<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nArbitration Petition  17 of 2005\n\nPETITIONER:\nHBM PRINT LTD\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSCANTRANS INDIA PVT. LTD\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 29\/03\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nK.G. BALAKRISHNAN\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>O   R   D    E   R<br \/>\nK.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe petitioner herein has filed an application under<br \/>\nSection 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.  The<br \/>\npetitioner, a company incorporated  under the laws of<br \/>\nSingapore is carrying on business at No. 745, Toa Payoh<br \/>\nLorong 5, Singapore, 1231, now known as SHC CAPITAL<br \/>\nLIMITED, 302 Orchard Road, # 10-01 Singapore 238862. The<br \/>\nrespondent company, Scantrans India Pvt. Ltd. was<br \/>\nincorporated  under the Companies Act, 1956, having its<br \/>\nregistered Office at 425, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai-<br \/>\n600008.  The petitioner alleges  that petitioner and respondent<br \/>\nentered into a joint venture agreement on 15-12-1993 for<br \/>\nsetting up a manufacturing unit in Chennai and to carry on<br \/>\nthe business of printing and colour separation.  The Reserve<br \/>\nBank of India (RBI) granted permission to the joint venture<br \/>\ncompany and the joint venture agreement  was executed on<br \/>\n15-12-1993.  The Sale Deed was executed on 26-4-1995.  A<br \/>\ndispute arose between the parties under Clause 8 of the Sale<br \/>\nDeed relating to Arbitration. Clause 8 reads as follows  :-<br \/>\n &#8220;8.1Any dispute arising out of or<br \/>\nin connection with this Sale Deed,<br \/>\nincluding any question regarding its<br \/>\nexistence, validity or termination,<br \/>\nshall be referred to and finally<br \/>\nresolved by arbitration in India in<br \/>\naccordance with the Arbitration<br \/>\nRules in the Indian Republic for the<br \/>\ntime being in  force which rules are<br \/>\ndeemed to be incorporated by<br \/>\nreference into this Clause&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe petitioner issued a notice for appointment of an<br \/>\narbitrator  on 1-3-2000 and the respondent replied that the<br \/>\npetitioner cannot resort to Arbitration Proceedings alongwith<br \/>\nthe winding up proceedings and the agreement does not<br \/>\nprovide for more than one Arbitrator. Thereafter, on 5-6-2000,<br \/>\nthe petitioner filed an application before the Chief Justice of<br \/>\nHigh Court of Madras for appointment of an Arbitrator. This<br \/>\napplication was withdrawn by the petitioner on 26-8-2004 as<br \/>\nthe Chief Justice of Madras High Court had no jurisdiction as<br \/>\nonly the Chief Justice of India or his nominee could appoint<br \/>\nan Arbitrator. Thereafter on 31-1-2005 the present application<br \/>\nwas filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation<br \/>\nAct, 1996 seeking appointment of an Arbitrator.  As the matter<br \/>\nhas been assigned to me, I heard the parties on either side.<br \/>\nThe respondent filed detailed objection wherein it is contended<br \/>\nthat the application filed under Section 11 of the Act is barred<br \/>\nby limitation.  The main contention urged by the respondent is<br \/>\nthat the notice was served on the respondent by the petitioner<br \/>\non 25-3-2000 and the application for appointment of the<br \/>\nArbitrator should have been filed on or before 25-4-2003 and<br \/>\nas the present application  was filed only on 31-1-2005, it is<br \/>\nbarred by time.  The petitioner on the other hand contended<br \/>\nthat though he bona fide believed  that the Chief Justice of the<br \/>\nHigh Court of Madras was the competent authority to appoint<br \/>\nthe Arbitrator, but only after the filing of the  application, he<br \/>\nrealized  that this being a dispute under an  International<br \/>\nCommercial  Agreement would fall under  the domain of<br \/>\nSection 2(f) of the  Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.  The<br \/>\nChief Justice of India is the appropriate  authority to appoint<br \/>\nthe Arbitrator. Therefore,  the application filed before the Chief<br \/>\nJustice of the High Court  of Madras was withdrawn  and filed<br \/>\nbefore this Court.  It is prayed that under Section 14 of the<br \/>\nLimitation Act,  the petitioner is entitled to exclude the period<br \/>\nduring which the petitioner&#8217;s application was pending before<br \/>\nthe  Chief Justice of the High Court of Madras.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tI find force in the contention urged by the petitioner.<br \/>\nPetitioner filed the application before the Chief Justice of the<br \/>\nHigh Court of Madras thinking that the Chief Justice of that<br \/>\ncourt  was the competent authority to appoint an Arbitrator,<br \/>\nbut later realized that in respect of International Commercial<br \/>\nAgreement,  Chief Justice of India was the competent<br \/>\nauthority and, therefore,  filed the instant application under<br \/>\nSection  11 of the Arbitration Act.  Section 14 of the Limitation<br \/>\nAct has wider amplitude and provides that the time spent in<br \/>\nprior proceedings is liable to be excluded provided the<br \/>\nproceedings relating to the same matter were in issue and<br \/>\nprosecuted  in good faith in the  court which from the<br \/>\ndefinition of the jurisdiction   either because of like nature was<br \/>\nunable to entertain it. I find no reason  to hold that the earlier<br \/>\nproceedings before the Chief Justice of the High Court of<br \/>\nMadras  were not  filed in good faith. The petitioner might have<br \/>\nrealized  later that the application is to be filed under Section<br \/>\n11 of the Act before the Chief Justice of India.  The respondent<br \/>\nhas not pointed anything to show that there was willful<br \/>\nnegligence  or lack of good faith on the part of the petitioner in<br \/>\nhaving filed the application before the Chief Justice of Madras<br \/>\nHigh Court.  Therefore,  the contention raised by the<br \/>\nrespondent as to limitation is only to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>Another strange contention has been advanced by the<br \/>\nrespondent that if under Section 42 of the Arbitration Act once<br \/>\nan application has been filed before particular court,   that<br \/>\ncourt has got jurisdiction  over the  arbitral proceedings  and<br \/>\nalso all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement<br \/>\nshall be filed in that court.  Section 42 of the Arbitration  and<br \/>\nConciliation Act, 1996 reads as follows :-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;42. Jurisdiction.-Notwithstanding anything<br \/>\ncontained  elsewhere in this Part or in any other<br \/>\nlaw for the time being in force, where with respect<br \/>\nto an arbitration agreement any application<br \/>\nunder this Part has been made in a Court, that<br \/>\nCourt alone shall have jurisdiction  over the<br \/>\narbitral proceedings and all subsequent<br \/>\napplications arising out of that agreement and<br \/>\nthe arbitral proceedings shall be made in that<br \/>\nCourt and in no other Court&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tSection 42 has no application to the fact of the present<br \/>\ncase. Section 42 is applicable in a case where the party has<br \/>\nsubmitted to the jurisdiction of a particular court and has filed<br \/>\nan application before that court.  All subsequent proceedings<br \/>\nin such a case shall be initiated only in that court.  The<br \/>\nArbitration agreement if any arbitral proceedings applicable on<br \/>\nappointment was filed before the Chief Justice of the High<br \/>\nCourt and subsequently any modification or anything is to be<br \/>\nrequired or in any  matter relating the award itself comes for<br \/>\ndecision, the party can file application only in that court and<br \/>\nin no other court.  In the present case,  the Chief Justice of<br \/>\nthe Madras High Court had no jurisdiction but appointment of<br \/>\nArbitrator in the matter being  a dispute between the parties<br \/>\nrelated to International Commercial Agreement and under<br \/>\nSection 11 Chief Justice of India alone or any other person or<br \/>\ninstitution designated by him alone has jurisdiction to appoint<br \/>\nthe Arbitrator.  Therefore,  the contention raised as to Section<br \/>\n42 of the Act also is without any basis.\n<\/p>\n<p> In the result, the matter is to be referred to the<br \/>\nArbitrator and out of the names as suggested by the parties,  I<br \/>\nhereby appoint Mr. Justice P. Shanmugam a retired Judge of<br \/>\nMadras High Court as an Arbitrator.  The dispute between the<br \/>\nparties is referred to the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator is requested<br \/>\nto pass a reasoned award within eight months from this Order.<br \/>\nThe remuneration of the Arbitrator shall be fixed by the<br \/>\nArbitrator in consultation with the parties.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Hbm Print Ltd vs Scantrans India Pvt. Ltd on 29 March, 2007 Author: B . K.G. Bench: K.G. Balakrishnan CASE NO.: Arbitration Petition 17 of 2005 PETITIONER: HBM PRINT LTD RESPONDENT: SCANTRANS INDIA PVT. LTD DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29\/03\/2007 BENCH: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT O R D E R K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, [&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-203659","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Hbm Print Ltd vs Scantrans India Pvt. Ltd on 29 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hbm-print-ltd-vs-scantrans-india-pvt-ltd-on-29-march-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Hbm Print Ltd vs Scantrans India Pvt. Ltd on 29 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hbm-print-ltd-vs-scantrans-india-pvt-ltd-on-29-march-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-26T16:10:11+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hbm-print-ltd-vs-scantrans-india-pvt-ltd-on-29-march-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hbm-print-ltd-vs-scantrans-india-pvt-ltd-on-29-march-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Hbm Print Ltd vs Scantrans India Pvt. Ltd on 29 March, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-26T16:10:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hbm-print-ltd-vs-scantrans-india-pvt-ltd-on-29-march-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1224,\"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\\\/hbm-print-ltd-vs-scantrans-india-pvt-ltd-on-29-march-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hbm-print-ltd-vs-scantrans-india-pvt-ltd-on-29-march-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hbm-print-ltd-vs-scantrans-india-pvt-ltd-on-29-march-2007\",\"name\":\"Hbm Print Ltd vs Scantrans India Pvt. Ltd on 29 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-26T16:10:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hbm-print-ltd-vs-scantrans-india-pvt-ltd-on-29-march-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hbm-print-ltd-vs-scantrans-india-pvt-ltd-on-29-march-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hbm-print-ltd-vs-scantrans-india-pvt-ltd-on-29-march-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Hbm Print Ltd vs Scantrans India Pvt. Ltd on 29 March, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Hbm Print Ltd vs Scantrans India Pvt. Ltd on 29 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hbm-print-ltd-vs-scantrans-india-pvt-ltd-on-29-march-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Hbm Print Ltd vs Scantrans India Pvt. Ltd on 29 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hbm-print-ltd-vs-scantrans-india-pvt-ltd-on-29-march-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-26T16:10:11+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hbm-print-ltd-vs-scantrans-india-pvt-ltd-on-29-march-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hbm-print-ltd-vs-scantrans-india-pvt-ltd-on-29-march-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Hbm Print Ltd vs Scantrans India Pvt. Ltd on 29 March, 2007","datePublished":"2007-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-26T16:10:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hbm-print-ltd-vs-scantrans-india-pvt-ltd-on-29-march-2007"},"wordCount":1224,"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\/hbm-print-ltd-vs-scantrans-india-pvt-ltd-on-29-march-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hbm-print-ltd-vs-scantrans-india-pvt-ltd-on-29-march-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hbm-print-ltd-vs-scantrans-india-pvt-ltd-on-29-march-2007","name":"Hbm Print Ltd vs Scantrans India Pvt. Ltd on 29 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-26T16:10:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hbm-print-ltd-vs-scantrans-india-pvt-ltd-on-29-march-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hbm-print-ltd-vs-scantrans-india-pvt-ltd-on-29-march-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hbm-print-ltd-vs-scantrans-india-pvt-ltd-on-29-march-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hbm Print Ltd vs Scantrans India Pvt. Ltd on 29 March, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/203659","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=203659"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/203659\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=203659"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=203659"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=203659"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}