{"id":236514,"date":"1995-05-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1995-05-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-and-managing-vs-contromix-pvt-ltd-by-its-on-12-may-1995"},"modified":"2016-04-11T08:39:20","modified_gmt":"2016-04-11T03:09:20","slug":"the-chairman-and-managing-vs-contromix-pvt-ltd-by-its-on-12-may-1995","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-and-managing-vs-contromix-pvt-ltd-by-its-on-12-may-1995","title":{"rendered":"The Chairman And Managing … vs Contromix Pvt.Ltd. By Its … on 12 May, 1995"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
The Chairman And Managing … vs Contromix Pvt.Ltd. By Its … on 12 May, 1995<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1995 AIR 1632, \t\t 1995 SCC (4) 595<\/div>\n
Author: S Agrawal<\/div>\n
Bench: Agrawal, S.C. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nTHE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,SIPCOT, MADRAS - 8 AND OR\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCONTROMIX PVT.LTD. BY ITS DIRECTOR(FINANCE) SEETHARAMAN, MAD\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT12\/05\/1995\n\nBENCH:\nAGRAWAL, S.C. (J)\nBENCH:\nAGRAWAL, S.C. (J)\nAHMAD SAGHIR S. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1995 AIR 1632\t\t  1995 SCC  (4) 595\n JT 1995 (6)   283\t  1995 SCALE  (3)717\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t    J U D G M E N T
\nS.C. Agrawal. J.:\n<\/p>\n
     Leave granted.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     We have heard learned counsel for the parties.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     This appeal  is directed  against the  Judgment of\t the
\nMadras High Court dated February 23, 1994 in Writ Appeal No.
\n97 of  1994 arising  out of  Writ Petition No. 18048 of 1993
\nfiled by Contromix Private Limited, respondent No. 1 herein.\n<\/p>\n
     Respondent\t No.  1,  a  company  registered  under\t the
\nCompanies Act,\t1956, is  engaged in  the  manufacturing  of
\nelectronic  instruments.   The\tState  Industries  Promotion
\nCorporation of\tTamil Nadu  Ltd. (for  short `SIPCOT’)\tis a
\nFinancial Corporation  established under  the provisions  of
\nthe State  Financial  Corporations  Act,  1950\t(hereinafter
\nreferred to as the Act). Respondent No. 1 applied for a term
\nloan  for   setting  up\t  a  project   for  manufacture\t  of
\nprogrammable logic  controllers, control  panels, electronic
\ntimer, temperature  scanners, etc.  On March 25, 1987 SIPCOT
\nsanctioned a  term loan\t of Rs.\t 38 lakhs. On June 16, 1987,
\nIDBI soft  loan\t of  Rs.  6.8  lakhs  was  also\t sanctioned.
\nRespondent No.1\t executed a  registered mortgage on July 29,
\n1987 and  created equitable  mortgage and has executed other
\nsecurity documents.  As per  the terms\tof securities of the
\nloan, respondent  No. 1\t was required to repay the term loan
\nin instalments from December 1, 1989 to June 1, 1994 and the
\nsoft loan was to be repaid in instalments from September 18,
\n1990 till March 18, 1994. Respondent No.1, did not adhere to
\nthe payment  schedule and  became a  defaulter in payment of
\nthe principal amount as well as the interest. At the request
\nof respondent  No. 1,  the repayment  of the  term loan\t was
\nrescheduled to June 1, 1990 to June 1, 1994 and it was again
\nrescheduled and\t respondent No. 1 was permitted to repay the
\nloan from  June 1, 1991 to June 1, 1994. Inspite of the said
\nrescheduling of the payment respondent No. 1 was not able to
\nadhere to  the revised\tschedule and  committed\t default  in
\npayment. On August 8, 1991 SIPCOT issued a Show Cause Notice
\nto respondent No. 1 whereupon respondent No. 1 paid a sum of
\nRs. 1,00,000\/-\tand promised to repay the entire dues within
\n2\/3 months. Thereafter, the matter was reviewed on September
\n3, 1991 and respondent No. 1 was asked to pay 50 per cent of
\nthe interest  overdues amounting  to about Rs. 3.23 lakhs by
\nDecember  31,\t1991  to   enable  SIPCOT  to  consider\t the
\nrescheduling of the payment of the loan but respondent No. 1
\ndid not\t make the  said payment.  On October 24, 1991 SIPCOT
\nissued a  notice under\tthe provisions\tof the Act recalling
\nthe entire dues amounting to Rs. 47,22,303\/-. After the said
\nnotice respondent No. 1 paid a sum of Rs. 1 lakh. In view of
\nthe  assurances\t  given\t by   respondent  No.\t1  that\t the
\noutstanding amount will be paid as early as possible, SIPCOT
\non February 2, 1992 agreed to modify the schedule of payment
\nand also  withdrew the\tforeclosure notice  by letter  dated
\nFebruary 26,  1992. Since respondent No.1 failed to abide by
\nthe assurances\ta Show Cause Notice was again sent by SIPCOT
\non May\t18, 1992  and the  loan was  foreclosed for a second
\ntime on\t June 17,  1992, when a foreclosure order was passed
\nrecalling the  sum of Rs. 56,13,406.20 p. outstanding on May
\n31, 1992.  By letter  dated August 17, 1992 respondent No. 1
\nwas informed  that the appellant will take possession of the
\nunit on\t August 26,  1992. Respondent No. 1 thereupon paid a
\nsum of\tRs.\t    4,00,000\/-. Thereafter Writ Petition No.
\n14479 of  1992 was filed in the Madras High Court and as per
\ndirections of  the High Court respondent No. 1 paid a sum of
\nRs. 3,00,000\/-\ton October  31, 1992. As regards the balance
\namount the High Court, by order dated December 7, 1992, gave
\ndirections fixing  the amount  of  the\tinstalment  and\t the
\nperiod for  payment of\tthe  same.  The\t entire\t amount\t was
\nrequired to  be paid by the end of August 1993 and the first
\ninstalment of  Rs. 2,00,000\/- was to be paid by December 31,
\n1992. The High Court also directed that if there was default
\nin any\tone of\tthe instalments,  it would  be open  to\t the
\nrespondent Corporation\tto take\t proceedings under the State
\nFinancial Corporations Act, 1951.\n<\/p>\n
     Respondent No. 1 did not make the payment of the sum of
\nRs. 2,00,000\/-\tby December 31, 1992 as per aforesaid order.
\nOn January  5, 1993  SIPCOT took possession of the mortgaged
\nassets of respondent No. 1. The mortgaged assets were valued
\nby SIPCOT at Rs. 36.44 lakhs. In February 1993 SIPCOT issued
\nan advertisement  inviting offers  for sale of the mortgaged
\nassets, but  no offer  was received  in response to the said
\nadvertisement. A  second advertisement\tissued by SIPCOT was
\npublished in the Indian Express on June 2, 1993. In response
\nto  the\t  said\tadvertisement\tETK  International  Ferrites
\nLimited, respondent  No. 2 herein, made an offer to purchase
\nthe assets  for a  sum of  Rs. 14.26  lakhs. Since  the said
\noffer was  too low,  SIPCOT negotiated with respondent No. 2
\nand as a result of such negotiations respondent No. 2 agreed
\nto revise  the offer  and to  pay a sum of Rs. 38 lakhs. The
\nsaid offer  of respondent  No. 2  was accepted by the SIPCOT
\nand respondent\tNo. 2 paid the entire amount of Rs. 38 lakhs
\nby September 15, 1993.\n<\/p>\n
     On September  19, 1993, respondent No. 1 filed the writ
\npetition giving rise to this appeal in the Madras High Court
\nwherein the  action of\tSIPCOT\tin  selling  the  assets  to
\nrespondent No.\t2 was  challenged on  the  ground  that\t the
\nmarket value  of the assets would be Rs. 72.60 lakhs and the
\nsale of\t the same  for Rs.  38 lakhs to respondent No. 2 was
\ninvalid in view of the law laid down by this Court in Mahesh
\nChandra v.  Regional Manager,  U.P. Financial  Corporation &
\nOrs.<\/a> 1993  (2) SCC 279. The writ petition was disposed of by
\na learned  single Judge\t of the High Court by Judgment dated
\nDecember 1, 1993. The learned single Judge has observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “A   perusal\t of   the   pleadings
\n     certainly shows that the Corporation had
\n     been very\tconsiderate in giving time to
\n     the  petitioner   company\t for   making
\n     payments. Certainly  I cannot  say\t that
\n     the Corporation  had acted\t in a  manner
\n     referred to  by  the  Supreme  Court  of
\n     India in Mahesh Chandra’s case.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The learned single Judge was, however, of the view that
\nSIPCOT had  acted in  haste and\t hurry, to  the prejudice of
\nrespondent No.\t1, in  taking  possession  of  the  unit  on
\nJanuary 5,  1993 and in selling the same and the said action
\nof the\tSIPCOT violated\t the directions\t of  this  Court  in
\nMahesh Chandra\tcase (supra).  The learned single Judge held
\nthat respondent\t No. 1 could not get any relief unless he is
\nwilling to  deposit the\t said sale  price of  Rs.  38  lakhs
\nwithin a  reasonable time.  Therefore,\tthe  learned  single
\nJudge quashed  the sale\t of the\t mortgaged assets by SIPCOT,
\nsubject to the following directions:\n<\/p>\n
     (i)  The\timpugned  proceedings\tdated
\n     6.9.93 shall  stand  set  aside  if  the
\n     petitioner\t company  deposits  with  the
\n     first respondent  a sum  of Rs. 20 lakhs
\n     on or  before 31.12.93 and a further sum
\n     of Rs. 18 lakhs on or before 20.1.94.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (ii) On  the petitioner  depositing  the
\n     said sum  of Rs.  38 lakhs\t on or before
\n     20.1.1994, or  at any  earlier point  of
\n     time,  the\t  respondents  1   to  3  are
\n     directed to  redeliver the\t unit back to
\n     the petitioner company.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (iii) In the event of the non-payment of
\n     any one  of the amounts on or before the
\n     dates above mentioned the impugned order
\n     dated 6.9.93  shall stand\tvalidated. It
\n     will then\tbe open\t to the respondents 1
\n     to 3 to hand over the unit to the fourth
\n     respondent.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (iv) The balance of amount payable under
\n     the loan  transaction shall be repaid in
\n     monthly  instalments  of  Rs.  3  lakhs,
\n     commencing from  February 1994,  payable
\n     on or  before 10.3.1994,  and so on till
\n     the entire payment is complete.
\n     The  default   of\t any   one   of\t  the
\n     instalments under clause (iv) it will be
\n     open to the respondent to take action in
\n     accordance with law.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Respondent No. 1 did not, however, comply with the said
\ndirections given by the learned single Judge. Respondent No.
\n1 filed\t an appeal  (W.A.No.97 of 1994) against the Judgment
\nof the learned single Judge. The said appeal was disposed of
\nby a  Division Bench  of the  High Court  by Judgment  dated
\nFebruary 23,  1994. The learned Judges were of the view that
\nthere was  failure on  the part\t of  SIPCOT  to\t follow\t the
\nguidelines laid\t down by  this Court  in Mahesh Chandra case
\n(supra) in  the matter\tof sale of the unit by tender and by
\nprivate negotiations.  The learned  Judges of the High Court
\nhave observed  that since  the financial agency had advanced
\nin all\tRs. 44.80 lakhs (Rs. 38 lakhs term loan and Rs. 6.80
\nlakhs soft loan) in the year 1987, it is clear that the unit
\nwas worth  more than  Rs. 44.80\t lakhs even in the year 1987
\nand, therefore, it could not have been sold in the year 1993
\nfor a  sum of  Rs. 38  lakhs only.  The learned\t Judges also
\nobserved that  instead of  imposing conditions on respondent
\nNo. 1  for setting  aside the sale by tender even though the
\nsaid sale  was found  illegal and opposed to the judgment in
\nMahesh Chandra\tcase (supra)  the learned single Judge ought
\nto have\t set aside  the sale  and directed the appellants to
\nput up\tthe unit  for sale  afresh by giving some reasonable
\ntime to\t respondent No.\t 1 to repay the amount, if possible.
\nAs regards  taking possession  of unit\tby the\tSIPCOT,\t the
\nlearned Judge observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “No grievance\t is  made  before  us
\n     that there\t was anything  illegal in the
\n     Financial Corporation  taking possession
\n     of the  unit, rightly  also, because the
\n     petitioner was  a defaulter. In spite of
\n     the fact that several opportunities were
\n     given to  it for  repaying the amount as
\n     per the instalments, it failed to repay.
\n     Therefore, after  setting aside the sale
\n     effected\tin    favour   of   the\t  4th
\n     respondent, the  Financial Agency has to
\n     take back the possession of the unit and
\n     continue to  keep it  in its possession.
\n     Thereafter, it  has  to  take  steps  to
\n     bring the unit for sale afresh.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The learned  Judges were  of the  view that  before the
\nunit was  brought for  sale afresh, a reasonable time should
\nbe given  to respondent\t No. 1 to make payment of the entire
\namount which  had become  due as  on January  1, 1994 and if
\nrespondent No.\t1 failed to pay the entire amount, which has
\nbecome due  as per the terms and conditions of the term loan
\nand soft  loan on  January 1,  1994,  within  the  specified
\nperiod, it  would be  open to  the appellants  to put up the
\nunit for  sale in  accordance with  law. The learned Judges,
\ntherefore, modified  the order\tpassed by the learned single
\nJudge and directed as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The\tsale   by  tender   held   by
\n     respondents 1  to\t3  and\tconfirmed  in
\n     favour of\trespondent No.4 is set aside.
\n     Respondents 1  to 3  shall take the unit
\n     into possession  on refunding the amount
\n     to\t the   4th  respondent.\t Accordingly,
\n     respondent\t No.   4  shall\t  hand\t over
\n     possession of  the unit to respondents 1
\n     to\t 3.   The   petitioner\/appellant   is
\n     granted time till the end of April, 1994
\n     to pay  the  entire  amount  that\twould
\n     become due\t on 1.1.1994 as per the terms
\n     of the  term loan and soft loan and also
\n     to pay the remaining amount on 1.6.1994.
\n     In the  event  the\t petitioner\/appellant
\n     pays  the\t amount\t as   per  the\tfirst
\n     condition on or before 30th April, 1994,
\n     respondents 1  to 3  shall hand over the
\n     unit to the petitioner\/appellant. In the
\n     event the\tpetitioner\/appellant fails to
\n     pay the  amount  as  per  the  aforesaid
\n     condition respondents 1 to 3 shall be at
\n     liberty to\t proceed to  put up  the unit
\n     for  sale\t by  auction   or  tender  in
\n     accordance with  law and in terms of the
\n     judgment of  the Supreme Court in Mahesh
\n     Chandra’s case (AIR 1993 SC 935).”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Feeling aggrieved\tby the\tsaid directions given in the
\nsaid Judgment  of the  Division Bench of the High Court, the
\nappellants have filed this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     At the  out set  it may  be stated that SIPCOT has been
\nquite accommodating  in the  matter of repayment of the dues
\nby respondent  No. 1  and has rescheduled the payment of the
\ninstalments a  number of times and the notice of foreclosure
\nwhich was  given on  October 24,  1991 was also withdrawn on
\nthe basis  of  the  assurance  given  by  respondent  No.  1
\nregarding  payment   of\t the   dues.  A\t  second  notice  of
\nforeclosure  had  to  be  issued  on  June  17,\t 1992  since
\nrespondent No.\t1 failed to abide by the assurances given by
\nit.  Respondent\t No.  1\t also  failed  to  comply  with\t the
\ndirections that\t were given  by the  High Court in its order
\ndated December\t7, 1992\t while disposing of the earlier Writ
\nPetition No.  14479 of\t1992 of\t by respondent\tNo. 1. It is
\nonly thereafter\t that SIPCOT  took possession of the unit of
\nrespondent No.\t1 on January 5, 1992 and started proceedings
\nfor the\t sale  of  the\tunit.  It  would  thus\tappear\tthat
\nsufficient latitude  was given by SIPCOT to respondent No. 1
\nto honour  its commitments in regard to the payment of loan,
\nbut respondent\tNo. 1  was  making  continuous\tdefaults  in
\ndischarging its\t obligations in\t that  regard.\tThe  learned
\nsingle Judge  has also\tfound  that  SIPCOT  had  been\tvery
\nconsiderate in\tgiving time  to respondent  No. 1 for making
\npayments and  it cannot\t be said that SIPCOT has acted in an
\narbitrary or unreasonable manner. So also the learned judges
\non the\tDivision Bench\tof the\tHigh Court  have found\tthat
\nrightly no  grievance had  been made that there was anything
\nillegal in  SIPCOT taking  possession of  the  unit  because
\ninspite of the fact that several opportunities were given to
\nrespondent  No.\t 1  for\t repaying  the\tamount\tas  per\t the
\ninstalments, it\t failed to  repay. The\tonly fault  that has
\nbeen found in the action taken by SIPCOT is in the matter of
\nthe procedure  followed for  sale of the mortgaged assets of
\nrespondent No.\t1. The\tlearned single\tjudge as well as the
\nDivision Bench\tof the\tHigh Court  have held  that the said
\nsale was  not conducted\t in accordance\twith the  guidelines
\nlaid down  by this  Court in  Mahesh  Chandra  case  (supra)
\ninasmuch as  (i) the  sale was\tnot held  by auction and was
\nheld by\t inviting tenders followed by negotiations; (ii) the
\nprice for  which the properties were sold was low; and (iii)
\nbefore\taccepting   the\t offer\tof  Rs.\t 38  lakhs  made  by
\nrespondent No.\t2, no intimation was given to respondent No.
\n1 so as to enable it to make a higher offer.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  matter of sale of public property, the dominant
\nconsideration is  to secure  the best price for the property
\nto be  sold. This can be achieved only when there is maximum
\npublic participation  in the  process of sale and every body
\nhas an\topportunity of making an offer. Public auction after
\nadequate publicity ensures participation of every person who
\nis interested  in  purchasing  the  property  and  generally
\nsecures the  best price.  But  many  times  it\tmay  not  be
\npossible to secure the best price by public auction when the
\nbidders join together so as to depress the bid or the nature
\nof the property to be sold is such that suitable bid may not
\nbe received  at public\tauction. In  that event,  the  other
\nsuitable mode  for selling  of property\t can be\t by inviting
\ntenders. In  order to  ensure  that  such  sale\t by  calling
\ntenders\t does\tnot  escape   attention\t of   an   intending
\nparticipant, it\t is essential that every endeavour should be
\nmade to\t give wide publicity so as to get the maximum price.
\nThese  considerations\twhich  govern  the  sale  of  public
\nproperty have  been held  to be\t applicable  to\t a  sale  of
\nproperty by  the State\tFinancial Corporations under section
\n29 of  the Act\tin Mahesh Chandra case (supra). In that case
\nthis  Court   has  held\t that  sale  by\t public\t auction  is
\nuniversally recognised\tto be  the best and most fair method
\nand is\tbeyond reproach\t and, if it is not possible to adopt
\nthe said  method, sale\tmay be held by inviting tenders, but
\nin that\t event every  endeavour should\tbe made to give wide
\npublicity to  get  the\tmaximum\t price.\t The  said  decision
\ncannot, therefore,  be construed  as laying down that a sale
\nby tender  is impermissible and invalid. The learned judges,
\nin that\t case, have  referred to the decisions of this Court
\nin Sachidananda Pandey v. State of West Bengal,<\/a> 1987 (2) SCR
\n223 and\t Haji T.M.  Hassan v.  Kerala Financial Corporation,<\/a>
\n1988 (1)  SCR 1079, wherein it has been held that one of the
\nmodes of securing the public interest, when it is considered
\nnecessary to  dispose of a property, is to sell the property
\nby  public  auction  or\t by  inviting  tenders.\t It  cannot,
\ntherefore, be  said that  a sale by inviting tenders is ipso
\nfacto invalid.\tThe validity  of such a sale will have to be
\nconsidered in  the light  of the  facts and circumstances of
\nthe particular case.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  facts and circumstances of this case, it cannot
\nbe said\t that the  failure on the part of SIPCOT to sell the
\nproperty by  public auction and selling it to respondent No.
\n2 by  inviting tenders\tis bad\tfor the reason that the said
\nproperty has  not received  the best price in the market. As
\nindicated earlier  in response to the first advertisement no
\noffer was  received from  anybody and  in  response  to\t the
\nsecond advertisement  also only\t one offer was received from
\nrespondent No.\t2 and that too was only for Rs. 14.26 lakhs.
\nThrough negotiations  SIPCOT was  able to  secure a  revised
\noffer of Rs. 38 lakhs, which was more than the amount of Rs.
\n36.44 lakhs,  at which\tthe unit had been valued. Respondent
\nNo. 1 had sufficient opportunity, during the pendency of the
\nmatter in the High Court as well as in this Court, to secure
\nan offer  higher than Rs. 38 lakhs made by respondent No. 2,
\nbut he\thas not\t been able to bring any higher offer. In the
\ncircumstances it  cannot be said that the price at which the
\nunit was sold was low. The sanction of the loan of Rs. 44.80
\nlakhs in  1987 cannot  afford a\t basis for  holding that the
\nvalue of  the unit  in 1993 could not be less than Rs. 44.80
\nlakhs. The  value of  the plant\t and  machinery\t could\thave
\nfallen on  account of  its being used during the period from
\n1987 to\t 1993 or  due to  the same  getting outdated. If the
\nvalue of the unit was higher than Rs. 38 lakhs it would have
\nbeen possible for respondent No. 2 to obtain a better offer.
\nHis failure  to do  so negatives the inference that the sale
\nprice of  Rs. 38 lakhs is low. Similarly, the failure on the
\npart of SIPCOT to give intimation to respondent No. 1 before
\naccepting the  offer of\t Rs. 38 lakhs made by respondent No.
\n2, is  of little  consequence in  the  facts  of  this\tcase
\nbecause respondent No. 1 has had sufficient opportunity both
\nbefore the  High Court\tas well as in this Court to obtain a
\nhigher offer, but he has failed to do so.\n<\/p>\n
     In these  circumstances no\t fault can be found with the
\naction of SIPCOT in selling the unit to respondent No. 2 for
\nRs. 38\tlakhs and the Judgment of the High Court, in setting
\naside the said sale cannot be upheld.\n<\/p>\n
     The appeal\t is, therefore, allowed. The Judgment of the
\nDivision Bench\tdated February 23, 1994 in Writ Petition No.
\n97 of 1994 as well as Judgment of learned single Judge dated
\nDecember 1,  1993 in Writ Petition No. 18048 of 1993 are set
\naside and  the said  writ petition filed by respondent No. 1
\nis dismissed.  Having regard to the facts and circumstances,
\nthere\t will\t  no\tbe     order\tas     to     costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India The Chairman And Managing … vs Contromix Pvt.Ltd. By Its … on 12 May, 1995 Equivalent citations: 1995 AIR 1632, 1995 SCC (4) 595 Author: S Agrawal Bench: Agrawal, S.C. (J) PETITIONER: THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,SIPCOT, MADRAS – 8 AND OR Vs. RESPONDENT: CONTROMIX PVT.LTD. BY ITS DIRECTOR(FINANCE) SEETHARAMAN, MAD […]<\/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-236514","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Chairman And Managing ... vs Contromix Pvt.Ltd. By Its ... on 12 May, 1995 - 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\/the-chairman-and-managing-vs-contromix-pvt-ltd-by-its-on-12-may-1995\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Chairman And Managing ... vs Contromix Pvt.Ltd. By Its ... on 12 May, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-and-managing-vs-contromix-pvt-ltd-by-its-on-12-may-1995\" \/>\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=\"1995-05-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-11T03:09:20+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-chairman-and-managing-vs-contromix-pvt-ltd-by-its-on-12-may-1995#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-chairman-and-managing-vs-contromix-pvt-ltd-by-its-on-12-may-1995\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Chairman And Managing … vs Contromix Pvt.Ltd. By Its … on 12 May, 1995\",\"datePublished\":\"1995-05-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-11T03:09:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-chairman-and-managing-vs-contromix-pvt-ltd-by-its-on-12-may-1995\"},\"wordCount\":3180,\"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\\\/the-chairman-and-managing-vs-contromix-pvt-ltd-by-its-on-12-may-1995#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-chairman-and-managing-vs-contromix-pvt-ltd-by-its-on-12-may-1995\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-chairman-and-managing-vs-contromix-pvt-ltd-by-its-on-12-may-1995\",\"name\":\"The Chairman And Managing ... vs Contromix Pvt.Ltd. By Its ... on 12 May, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1995-05-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-11T03:09:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-chairman-and-managing-vs-contromix-pvt-ltd-by-its-on-12-may-1995#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-chairman-and-managing-vs-contromix-pvt-ltd-by-its-on-12-may-1995\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-chairman-and-managing-vs-contromix-pvt-ltd-by-its-on-12-may-1995#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Chairman And Managing … vs Contromix Pvt.Ltd. By Its … on 12 May, 1995\"}]},{\"@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":"The Chairman And Managing ... vs Contromix Pvt.Ltd. By Its ... on 12 May, 1995 - 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\/the-chairman-and-managing-vs-contromix-pvt-ltd-by-its-on-12-may-1995","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Chairman And Managing ... vs Contromix Pvt.Ltd. By Its ... on 12 May, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-and-managing-vs-contromix-pvt-ltd-by-its-on-12-may-1995","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1995-05-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-11T03:09:20+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-and-managing-vs-contromix-pvt-ltd-by-its-on-12-may-1995#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-and-managing-vs-contromix-pvt-ltd-by-its-on-12-may-1995"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Chairman And Managing … vs Contromix Pvt.Ltd. By Its … on 12 May, 1995","datePublished":"1995-05-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-11T03:09:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-and-managing-vs-contromix-pvt-ltd-by-its-on-12-may-1995"},"wordCount":3180,"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\/the-chairman-and-managing-vs-contromix-pvt-ltd-by-its-on-12-may-1995#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-and-managing-vs-contromix-pvt-ltd-by-its-on-12-may-1995","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-and-managing-vs-contromix-pvt-ltd-by-its-on-12-may-1995","name":"The Chairman And Managing ... vs Contromix Pvt.Ltd. By Its ... on 12 May, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1995-05-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-11T03:09:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-and-managing-vs-contromix-pvt-ltd-by-its-on-12-may-1995#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-and-managing-vs-contromix-pvt-ltd-by-its-on-12-may-1995"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-and-managing-vs-contromix-pvt-ltd-by-its-on-12-may-1995#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Chairman And Managing … vs Contromix Pvt.Ltd. By Its … on 12 May, 1995"}]},{"@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\/236514","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=236514"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/236514\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=236514"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=236514"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=236514"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}