{"id":217618,"date":"2010-07-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-b-n-wadhwani-sole-prop-of-ms-vs-ms-calcom-electronics-ltd-ors-on-6-july-2010"},"modified":"2015-12-29T04:29:38","modified_gmt":"2015-12-28T22:59:38","slug":"sh-b-n-wadhwani-sole-prop-of-ms-vs-ms-calcom-electronics-ltd-ors-on-6-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-b-n-wadhwani-sole-prop-of-ms-vs-ms-calcom-electronics-ltd-ors-on-6-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Sh.B.N.Wadhwani Sole Prop. Of M\/S &#8230; vs M\/S Calcom Electronics Ltd. &amp; Ors. on 6 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Delhi High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Sh.B.N.Wadhwani Sole Prop. Of M\/S &#8230; vs M\/S Calcom Electronics Ltd. &amp; Ors. on 6 July, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Indermeet Kaur<\/div>\n<pre>*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n%                 Date of Judgment : 06.7.2010\n\n+            RSA No.42\/2005 AND CM No.2150\/2005\n\nSH.B.N.WADHWANI SOLE PROP. OF\nM\/S JEEWAN DIESELS (DELHI)       ...........Appellant\n              Through: Mr.D.D.Singh, Advocate.\n\n                   Versus\n\n1.   M\/S CALCOM ELECTRONICS LTD.\n2.   SHRI ARUN BHATIA\n3.   SHRI SUSHIL MALIK\n4.   M\/S SPECTRAL SERVICES &amp; CONSULTANTS(P) LTD.\n                                     ..........Respondents\n                 Through: Mr.V.K.Srivastva, Advocate for R-1 &amp;\n                          R-3.\n                          Mr.Rakesh Kumar Garg &amp;\n                          Ms.Noopur Singhal, Advs. for R-4.\n\nCORAM:\nHON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR\n\n     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to\n        see the judgment?\n\n     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?             Yes\n\n     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?\n                                                           Yes\n\nINDERMEET KAUR, J.(Oral)\n\n1.      Plaintiff M\/s Jeewan Diesels (Delhi) through its proprietor\n\nSh.B.N. Wadhwani had agreed to supply 750 KVA D.G. sets to\n\ndefendant no.1 to be installed at 23\/1, Wazirpur Industrial Area,\n\nDelhi-52. Advance payment of Rs.4,00,000\/- was received by the\n\nplaintiff on 29.3.1989 from defendant no.4.      Plaintiff placed an\n\norder for the supply of the said D.G. sets with its manufacturer\n\nnamely M\/s Kirloskar Cummins Ltd.        The D.G. Sets were to be\n\ncommissioned at the site by 30.4.1989.           In June 1989 the\n\nmanufacturer raised the prices of the D.G.sets by 10% with effect\n\nfrom 1.7.1989.     The said information was communicated by the\n\nplaintiff to the defendant. The enhanced price, however, was not\nRSA No.42\/2005                                             Page 1 of 5\n paid by the defendant to the plaintiff.      Suit for this amount i.e. a\n\nsum of Rs.1,45,000\/- along with interest was accordingly filed.\n\n2.      The Trial Court vide judgment dated 7.1.2004 dismissed the\n\nsuit.   Five issues have been framed. Ex.PW-1\/5 dated 22.2.1991\n\ni.e. the \u201eC\u201f Form issued by the defendant to the plaintiff had been\n\nconsidered as also the other documentary evidence including the\n\nletters Ex.PW-1\/7 to Ex.PW-1\/11 sent by the plaintiff to the\n\ndefendant.       The communication Ex.PW-1\/17 i.e. the purported\n\nletter sent by the plaintiff to the defendant informing him about\n\nthe increase in the price of the D.G.sets was held not proved.\n\nTrial Court had further held that the invoices depicting the price\n\nat which the plaintiff had purchased the D.G.sets from the\n\nmanufacturer have also not been placed on record.            In this view\n\nof the matter the suit of the plaintiff was not proved and was\n\naccordingly dismissed.\n\n3.      The first Appellate Court endorsed the finding of the Trial\n\nJudge. The appeal was disposed of on 2.11.2004. While disposing\n\nof the appeal the Appellate Court inter alia held as follows:-\n\n        \"The basic question involved in the present appeal is as to\n        whether the price hike of Diesel Generating Set by M\/s\n        Kirloskar Cumins was duly intimated to the respondent or\n        not. The appellant in this regard relied on letter Ex.PW-1\/7,\n        but failed to establish as to by which mode the said letter\n        was sent to the respondent.    Secondly, the appellant had\n        with-held the invoice by which the Generating Set was\n        allegedly purchased from M\/s Kirloskar Cumins.      Had the\n        said invoice been placed before the Court it would have\n        dispelled all the doubts concerning enhancement of the\n        price of the equipment.   The appellant thus with held the\n        vital evidence for which learned trial court rightly drew\n        adverse inference against the appellant.   I do not see any\n        reason to interfere with the order passed by learned Civil\n        Judge. Also, I do not find any perversity in the impugned\nRSA No.42\/2005                                                   Page 2 of 5\n       judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court. \"\n\n\n4.    Before this Court, it has been urged that a substantial\n\nquestion of law has arisen and which has been formulated in para\n\n10 of the appeal. It is submitted that the \u201eC\u201f Form Ex. PW-1\/5 was\n\nan admitted document which admits of the transaction between\n\nthe parties.     It had been issued by the defendant to the plaintiff\n\ndepicting a transaction of Rs.20,90,000\/- between the parties.\n\nThis document being an admitted document no further evidence\n\nwas required to be led before the Court as an admitted document\n\nis not required to be proved.\n\n5.    Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon 2002 II\n\nAD(Delhi) 335 Taneja Skins Co.Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bharath Skins\n\nCorporation.      This judgment recites the undisputed proposition\n\nthat where a document including a \u201eC\u201f Form is not disputed it may\n\nlend support to the claim of the plaintiff that an amount is due.\n\n6.    The question of law which has arisen and which has been\n\nformulated by this Court reads as follows:-\n\n      \"Whether the \u201eC\u201f Form Ex.PW-1\/5 dated 22.2.1991 was a\n\n      valid acknowledgment of the transaction between the\n\n      parties and was by itself sufficient to decree the claim of the\n\n      appellant\/plaintiff.\"\n\n7.    Perusal of the record shows that this question has to be\n\nanswered in the negative and against the appellant. Both the fact\n\nfinding Courts below have held that the plaintiff had failed to\n\nadduce evidence to prove his claim that he was entitled to the\n\nescalated amount of 10% in the increase in the price of the\n\nD.G.sets.      Apart from the fact that Ex.PW-1\/17 i.e. the letter\n\npurportedly issued by the plaintiff informing the defendant of the\nRSA No.42\/2005                                               Page 3 of 5\n escalated price, not having been proved, the plaintiff had also\n\nfailed to place on record the invoices which would have depicted\n\nthe price at which he had purchased the D.G.sets i.e. whether at\n\nthe old rate or whether they were purchased at the increased and\n\nenhanced rate i.e. 10% over and above the agreed rate. No such\n\nevidence had been led before the Courts below.\n\n8.    Ex.PW-1\/5 has been scrutinized. It has been relied upon by\n\nthe Trial Court while dealing with issue no.4. This document is an\n\nadmitted document. It merely depicts the sale transaction\n\nbetween two registered sale tax payees i.e. between the plaintiff\n\nand the defendant, both the entries are dated 11.1.1990. This\n\ndocument had been considered by both the Courts below. It does\n\nnot by itself in any manner prove the case of the plaintiff. The\n\ncase of the plaintiff was that he had to install the D.G.sets with the\n\ndefendant no.1 by 30.4.1989. Even as per his own showing the\n\nprice of the D.G.sets had been enhanced after 1.7.1989 i.e. much\n\nafter his contract period.           The transactions mentioned in\n\nEx.PW-1\/5 are dated 11.1.1990, which are again of a much later\n\npoint in time.\n\n9.    The \u201eC\u201f Form is only a form issued by Sales Tax Department\n\nto the registered sale tax payers.          If A, a registered    sales tax\n\npayer buys any goods from B ,another registered sale tax payer\n\nand issues a \u201eC\u201f Form to him; in such an eventuality the sale tax\n\nwill be collected and deposited by the issuer in the treasury of the\n\ngovernment       meaning   thereby    the    issuer   of   the   \u201eC\u201f   Form\n\nundertakes to pay the sales tax.\n\n10.   Claim of the plaintiff could not have been decreed on this\n\ndocument alone as has been urged before this Court.\n\nRSA No.42\/2005                                                    Page 4 of 5\n 11.   There is no discrepancy or fault in the findings of both the\n\nCourts below.    The substantial question of law is answered\n\naccordingly. Appeal is without merit. The appeal and the pending\n\napplication are dismissed.\n\n\n\n                                        INDERMEET KAUR, J.\n<\/pre>\n<p>JULY 06, 2010<br \/>\nnandan<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">RSA No.42\/2005                                           Page 5 of 5<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court Sh.B.N.Wadhwani Sole Prop. Of M\/S &#8230; vs M\/S Calcom Electronics Ltd. &amp; Ors. on 6 July, 2010 Author: Indermeet Kaur * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Judgment : 06.7.2010 + RSA No.42\/2005 AND CM No.2150\/2005 SH.B.N.WADHWANI SOLE PROP. OF M\/S JEEWAN DIESELS (DELHI) &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..Appellant Through: [&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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-217618","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Sh.B.N.Wadhwani Sole Prop. Of M\/S ... vs M\/S Calcom Electronics Ltd. &amp; Ors. on 6 July, 2010 - 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\/sh-b-n-wadhwani-sole-prop-of-ms-vs-ms-calcom-electronics-ltd-ors-on-6-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sh.B.N.Wadhwani Sole Prop. Of M\/S ... vs M\/S Calcom Electronics Ltd. &amp; Ors. on 6 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-b-n-wadhwani-sole-prop-of-ms-vs-ms-calcom-electronics-ltd-ors-on-6-july-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-07-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-28T22:59:38+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\\\/sh-b-n-wadhwani-sole-prop-of-ms-vs-ms-calcom-electronics-ltd-ors-on-6-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sh-b-n-wadhwani-sole-prop-of-ms-vs-ms-calcom-electronics-ltd-ors-on-6-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sh.B.N.Wadhwani Sole Prop. Of M\\\/S &#8230; vs M\\\/S Calcom Electronics Ltd. &amp; Ors. on 6 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-28T22:59:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sh-b-n-wadhwani-sole-prop-of-ms-vs-ms-calcom-electronics-ltd-ors-on-6-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":50,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sh-b-n-wadhwani-sole-prop-of-ms-vs-ms-calcom-electronics-ltd-ors-on-6-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sh-b-n-wadhwani-sole-prop-of-ms-vs-ms-calcom-electronics-ltd-ors-on-6-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sh-b-n-wadhwani-sole-prop-of-ms-vs-ms-calcom-electronics-ltd-ors-on-6-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Sh.B.N.Wadhwani Sole Prop. Of M\\\/S ... vs M\\\/S Calcom Electronics Ltd. &amp; Ors. on 6 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-28T22:59:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sh-b-n-wadhwani-sole-prop-of-ms-vs-ms-calcom-electronics-ltd-ors-on-6-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sh-b-n-wadhwani-sole-prop-of-ms-vs-ms-calcom-electronics-ltd-ors-on-6-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sh-b-n-wadhwani-sole-prop-of-ms-vs-ms-calcom-electronics-ltd-ors-on-6-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sh.B.N.Wadhwani Sole Prop. Of M\\\/S &#8230; vs M\\\/S Calcom Electronics Ltd. &amp; Ors. on 6 July, 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":"Sh.B.N.Wadhwani Sole Prop. Of M\/S ... vs M\/S Calcom Electronics Ltd. &amp; Ors. on 6 July, 2010 - 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\/sh-b-n-wadhwani-sole-prop-of-ms-vs-ms-calcom-electronics-ltd-ors-on-6-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sh.B.N.Wadhwani Sole Prop. Of M\/S ... vs M\/S Calcom Electronics Ltd. &amp; Ors. on 6 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-b-n-wadhwani-sole-prop-of-ms-vs-ms-calcom-electronics-ltd-ors-on-6-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-28T22:59:38+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\/sh-b-n-wadhwani-sole-prop-of-ms-vs-ms-calcom-electronics-ltd-ors-on-6-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-b-n-wadhwani-sole-prop-of-ms-vs-ms-calcom-electronics-ltd-ors-on-6-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sh.B.N.Wadhwani Sole Prop. Of M\/S &#8230; vs M\/S Calcom Electronics Ltd. &amp; Ors. on 6 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-28T22:59:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-b-n-wadhwani-sole-prop-of-ms-vs-ms-calcom-electronics-ltd-ors-on-6-july-2010"},"wordCount":50,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-b-n-wadhwani-sole-prop-of-ms-vs-ms-calcom-electronics-ltd-ors-on-6-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-b-n-wadhwani-sole-prop-of-ms-vs-ms-calcom-electronics-ltd-ors-on-6-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-b-n-wadhwani-sole-prop-of-ms-vs-ms-calcom-electronics-ltd-ors-on-6-july-2010","name":"Sh.B.N.Wadhwani Sole Prop. Of M\/S ... vs M\/S Calcom Electronics Ltd. &amp; Ors. on 6 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-28T22:59:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-b-n-wadhwani-sole-prop-of-ms-vs-ms-calcom-electronics-ltd-ors-on-6-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-b-n-wadhwani-sole-prop-of-ms-vs-ms-calcom-electronics-ltd-ors-on-6-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-b-n-wadhwani-sole-prop-of-ms-vs-ms-calcom-electronics-ltd-ors-on-6-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sh.B.N.Wadhwani Sole Prop. Of M\/S &#8230; vs M\/S Calcom Electronics Ltd. &amp; Ors. on 6 July, 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\/217618","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=217618"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/217618\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=217618"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=217618"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=217618"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}