{"id":270360,"date":"1996-11-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-11-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dutta-associates-pvt-ltd-vs-indo-merchatiles-pvt-ltd-ors-on-18-november-1996"},"modified":"2015-09-27T05:28:46","modified_gmt":"2015-09-26T23:58:46","slug":"dutta-associates-pvt-ltd-vs-indo-merchatiles-pvt-ltd-ors-on-18-november-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dutta-associates-pvt-ltd-vs-indo-merchatiles-pvt-ltd-ors-on-18-november-1996","title":{"rendered":"Dutta Associates Pvt.Ltd vs Indo Merchatiles Pvt.Ltd &amp; Ors on 18 November, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Dutta Associates Pvt.Ltd vs Indo Merchatiles Pvt.Ltd &amp; Ors on 18 November, 1996<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: B Reddy<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: B.P. Jeevan Reddy, Suhas C. Sen<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">           PETITIONER:\nDUTTA ASSOCIATES PVT.LTD.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nINDO MERCHATILES PVT.LTD &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t18\/11\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nB.P. JEEVAN REDDY, SUHAS C. SEN\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">\t\t      J U D G M E N T<br \/>\n     B.P.JEEVAN REDDY, J.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">     Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">     Inexplicable indeed  are the ways of the rulers on some<br \/>\noccasions &#8211;  and this is one such instance. The Commissioner<br \/>\nof Excise,  Assam called for tenders for wholesale supply of<br \/>\nrectified  spirit  [Grade-1]  to  the  Excise  Warehouse  at<br \/>\nTinsukia for  the period  May 16,  1994 to May 15, 1996. The<br \/>\ntender was  floated on\tMay 28,\t 1993. As  many as seventeen<br \/>\ntenders mentioned  below  were\treceived  quoting  the\trate<br \/>\nmentioned against each person`s name:<\/p>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">\n1. M\/s. Himangsu Enterprises\nRK Bardoloi Road, Dibrugarh\t\t\t Rs. 9.20\n2. Shri Jitendra Nath Saikia\nChowkidinghee, Dibrugarh\t\t\t Rs. 10.48\n3. M\/s. Dutta Associate Pvt. ltd.\nChowkidinghee, Dibrugarh\t\t\t Rs. 11.14\n4. Shri Pradip Kumar Dutta\nChowkidinghee, Dibrugarh\t\t\tRs. 11.75\n5. M\/s. Civiliyar Enterprises\nRajgarh, Guwahati\t\t\t\t Rs. 12.57\n6. M\/s Onash Enterprises\nGS Road, Guwahati\t\t\t\t Rs. 13.20\n7. Shri Umesh Chandra Bora\nLaukuli, Tinsukia\t\t\t\t Rs. 13.69\n8. M\/s. North East Trade Agency\nAthgaon, Guwahati\t\t\t\t Rs. 13.99\n9. M\/s. Aco Traders\nRajgarh Road, Guwahati\t\t\t\t Rs. 14.28\n10. M\/s. Noble Sales Agency\nGS Road, Dispur, Guwahati\t\t\t Rs. 14.55\n11. Shri Pranab Kumar Rajkhowa\nCoal Road, Jorhat\t\t\t\t Rs. 15.05\n12. M\/s. United Assam Company\nRupali Path, Jorhat\t\t\t\t Rs. 15.55\n13. M\/s. Mercentiles Pvt. Ltd.\nBishnu Market, Guwahati\t\t\t\t Rs. 15.55\n14. Shri Vijay Kumar Jasrasaria\nGuwahati\t\t\t\t\t Rs. 16.05\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_3\">15. Shri Dilip Rajkhowa, Tinsukia\t\t Rs. 16.13\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">16. M\/s. Pradip Kumar Khaitan<br \/>\nAT Road, Jorhat\t\t\t\t\t Rs. 16.39\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">17. M\/s. New Ashish Enterprise<br \/>\nTR Phukan Road, Guwahati\t\t\t Rs. 16.55<br \/>\n     It is  stated that\t out of\t seventeen tenders received,<br \/>\ntenders of  persons mentioned  at Sr. Nos.1 and 2 were found<br \/>\nineligible and were, therefore, excluded from consideration.<br \/>\nIf that were so, one would have excepted the Commissioner to<br \/>\naccept the offer of the person at Sr. No.3 [Dutta Associates<br \/>\nPrivate Limited, the appellant herein], his being the lowest<br \/>\ntender. He  did not  do so. He did not say that the offer of<br \/>\nDutta Associates  was not a genuine offer or that the is not<br \/>\nin a  position to  fulfil the  terms  of  the  contract,  if<br \/>\nentered into  with him.\t On the other hand, the Commissioner<br \/>\nand the\t Government entered upon an exercise of determining,<br \/>\nwhat they  call,  &#8220;viability  range&#8221;.  They  determined\t the<br \/>\nviability range\t between Rs.  14.72 to Rs. 15.71 per LPL. It<br \/>\nis said\t that his  viability range was arrived at keeping in<br \/>\nview the  prevailing prices  outside the  State inasmuch  in<br \/>\nview the  prevailing prices  outside the  State inasmuch  as<br \/>\nmost of\t the rectified\tspirit\tto  be\tsupplied  under\t the<br \/>\ncontract had  to be  procured outside the State of Assam. If<br \/>\nviability range\t was the relevant basis, then one would have<br \/>\nexpected the  Commissioner and\tthe Government\tof Assam  to<br \/>\nhave accepted  the tender  at Sr.  No.11 [Sri  Pranab  Kumar<br \/>\nRajkhowa], whose  bid was  the lowest  within the  viability<br \/>\nrange. They  did not  do this either. They called upon Dutta<br \/>\nAssociates [appellant  herein] to  revise his offer which he<br \/>\ndid by\tquoting Rs.  15.71 per\tLPL [which happens to be the<br \/>\nmaximum of  the viability  range].  His\t bid  was  accepted.<br \/>\nWhereupon   Indo   Merchantiles\t  Private   Limited   [first<br \/>\nrespondent herein] who is at Sr.No. 13 in the aforesaid list<br \/>\nof tenders,  filed a writ petition in the Gauhati High Court<br \/>\nquestioning  the  acceptance  of  appellant`s  tender.\tIndo<br \/>\nMerchatiles submitted\tthat not accepting his tender at Rs.<br \/>\n15.55 and  accepting the  tender of  the appellant by making<br \/>\nhim revise his bid is contrary to law, unfair and arbitrary.<br \/>\nThe writ  petition was\tdismissed by a learned Single Judge.<br \/>\nThe writ  petition was\tdismissed by a learned Single Judge.<br \/>\nOn appeal,  however, the Division Bench has allowed the writ<br \/>\nappeal filed  by Indo  Merchatiles and\thas  set  aside\t the<br \/>\nacceptance of  the appellant`s\ttender. The  Division  Bench<br \/>\nfound that  the Commissioner  and the  Government have acted<br \/>\nunfairly in  calling upon  the appellant,  Dutta Associates,<br \/>\nalone to  submit a  counter-offer while not giving a similar<br \/>\nopportunity to\tother tenderers.  The High Court accordingly<br \/>\ndirected that  fresh tenders  be  called  for  awarding\t the<br \/>\ncontract. It has also made certain directions for the period<br \/>\nuntil fresh tenders are called for and finalised.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">     After hearing  the parties,  we are of the opinion that<br \/>\nthe  entire   process  leading\tto  the\t acceptance  of\t the<br \/>\nappellant`s tender  is vitiated by more than one illegality.<br \/>\nFirstly, the  tender notice  did not  specify the `viability<br \/>\nrange&#8217; nor  did it  say that  only the tenders coming within<br \/>\nthe viability  range will be considered. More significantly,<br \/>\nthe tender  notice did not even say that after receiving the<br \/>\ntenders, the  Commissioner\/Government would  first determine<br \/>\nthe `viability\trange&#8217; and  would then\tcall upon the lowest<br \/>\neligible tenderer  to  make a counter-offer. The exercise of<br \/>\ndetermining the\t viability  range  and\tcalling\t upon  Dutta<br \/>\nAssociates to  make a  counter-offer on\t the alleged  ground<br \/>\nthat the was the lowest tenderer among the eligible tenderer<br \/>\nis outside  the tender\tnotice. Fairness  demanded that\t the<br \/>\nauthority should  have notified\t in the tender notice itself<br \/>\nthe procedure  which they  proposed to adopt while accepting<br \/>\nthe tender. They did nothing of that sort. Secondly, we have<br \/>\nconcept of `viability range&#8217; though Sri Kapil Sibal, learned<br \/>\ncounsel for  the appellant,  and the learned counsel for the<br \/>\nState of  Assam tried  to explain it to use. Learned counsel<br \/>\nstated that because of the de-control of molasses, the price<br \/>\nof rectified  spirit fluctuates\t from time  to time  in\t the<br \/>\nmarket\tand   that,  therefore,\t  the  viability  range\t was<br \/>\ndetermined keeping  in view  (1) distillery  cost price; (2)<br \/>\nexport pass  fees; (3) central sales tax; (4) transportation<br \/>\ncharges; (5)  transit wastage  @ 1  1\/2% &#8211; vide the counter-<br \/>\naffidavit filed\t by  the  Secretary  to\t Excise\t Department,<br \/>\nGovernment of  Assam pursuant  to this\tCourt`s orders.\t Sri<br \/>\nSibal further  explained that  because of the possibility of<br \/>\nthe fluctuation,  the tender  notice  cantains\tclause\t(16)<br \/>\nwhich reserves\tto the\tGovernment the\tpower to  reduce  or<br \/>\nincrease the  contract rate  depending upon the escalation r<br \/>\ndeceleration of the market price in the exporting States. We<br \/>\nare still  not able  to understand.  Clause (16)  deals with<br \/>\npost-contract situation,  i.e.,\t the  situation\t during\t the<br \/>\ncurrency of  the contract  and not  with a  situation at the<br \/>\ninception of the contract. The tenderers are all hard-headed<br \/>\nbusinessmen. They  know their  interest better.\t If they are<br \/>\nprepared to  supply rectified spirit at Rs. 11.14 per LPL or<br \/>\nso, it\tis inexplicable why should the Government think that<br \/>\nthey would  not be  able to  do so and still prescribe a far<br \/>\nhigher viability  range. Not  only the rate obtaining during<br \/>\nthe period  when the  tenders were  called was\tRs.11.05 per<br \/>\nLPL, the  more significant feature is that during the period<br \/>\nof about  more than  two years pending the writ petition and<br \/>\nwrit appeal,  the appellant  has  been\tsupplying  rectified<br \/>\nspirit @ Rs. 9.20 per LPL. If it was not possible for anyone<br \/>\nto supply  rectified spirit  at a  rate lower than Rs. 14.72<br \/>\n[the lower  figure of  the viability  range], how  could the<br \/>\nappellant have been supplying the same at such a low rate an<br \/>\nRs.9.20 for  such a  long period. It may be relevant to note<br \/>\nat this\t stage the  circumstances  in  which  the  appellant<br \/>\nvolunteered to\tsupply at  the said  rate. Indo Mercantiles,<br \/>\nthe respondent herein, filed the writ petition and asked for<br \/>\nand interim  order. The\t learned Single Judge directed [vide<br \/>\norder dated  June 2,  1994] not\t be given  the contract,  he<br \/>\n&#8220;shall be  allowed to  execute the  contract at\t the  lowest<br \/>\nquoted\trate  which  is\t stated\t to  be\t 9.20  by  the\twrit<br \/>\npetitioner. The\t respondent No.3  [Dutta Associates]  states<br \/>\nthat the  lowest quoted\t rate is 11.14. If the lowest quoted<br \/>\nrate is 9.20, it is that rate at which the contract shall be<br \/>\ngiven to  the respondent  No.3&#8221; It  is pursuant\t to the said<br \/>\norder that the appellant-Dutta Associates has been supplying<br \/>\nrectified spirit  @ Rs.\t 9.2. per  LPL since  June 1996 tell<br \/>\nOctober 1996.  The said\t order did  not compel the appellant<br \/>\n[Respondent No.3 in the writ petition] to supply at the rate<br \/>\nof Rs.9.20p.  If that  rate was not feasible or economic, he<br \/>\ncould well  have said, &#8220;sorry&#8221;. He did not say so but agreed<br \/>\nto and\thas been supplying at that rate, till October, 1996.<br \/>\nIt is  equally significant  to note  that  pursuant  to\t the<br \/>\ninterim orders\tof this Court [which directed the Government<br \/>\nto implement  the orders  of the  Gauhati  High\t Court\twith<br \/>\nrespect to  interim arrangement] negotiations were held with<br \/>\nboth the  appellant and\t the first  respondent herein;\tboth<br \/>\noffered to  supply at Rs.9.20p. The Commissioner, of course,<br \/>\nchose the  first respondent,  Indo  Merchantiles,  Over\t the<br \/>\nappellant, for\treason given  by  him  in  his\torder  dated<br \/>\nOctober 14,  1996. The\trate, however, remains Rs.9.20p. and<br \/>\nthe appellant`s\t counsel has  been making a grievance of the<br \/>\nCommissioner not  accepting the appellant`s offer. All these<br \/>\nfacts make  the so-called  `viability range&#8217;  and  the\tvery<br \/>\nconcept of &#8216;viability range&#8217; look rather ridiculous &#8211; and we<br \/>\nare not\t very far  from the end of the three year period for<br \/>\nwhich the tenders were called for. Neither the interlocutory<br \/>\norder of  the  learned\tSingle\tJudge  dated  June  2,\t1994<br \/>\naforesaid nor  does the\t order\tof  the\t Commissioner  dated<br \/>\nOctober 14,  1996 passed  pursuant to  the interim orders of<br \/>\nthis court provide for any fluctuation in the rate of supply<br \/>\ndepending upon\tthe fluctuation\t in the\t market rate  in the<br \/>\nexporting States,  as provided\tby clause (16) of the Tender<br \/>\nConditions, which  too appears\trather unusual. The order of<br \/>\nthe learned  Single Judge  aforesaid does  not also say that<br \/>\nthe rate specified therein is tentative and that it shall be<br \/>\nsubject to  revision  at  the  final  hearing  of  the\twrit<br \/>\npetition. As  a matter\tof fact,  no such  revision was made<br \/>\neither by the learned Single Judge or by the Division Bench.<br \/>\nIt is in these circumstances that, we said, we have not been<br \/>\nable to\t understand or appreciated the concept of `viability<br \/>\nrange&#8217; , its necessity and\/or its real purpose. Thirdly, the<br \/>\nDivision Bench states repeatedly in its judgment that having<br \/>\ndetermined the `viability range&#8217;, the Government called upon<br \/>\nonly the appellant-Dutta Associates [third respondent in the<br \/>\nwrit petition\/writ  appeal ] to make a counter-offer to come<br \/>\nwithin the  `viability range&#8217;  and that his revised offer at<br \/>\nthe higher  limit of  the `viability  range&#8217; [Rs.15.71]\t was<br \/>\naccepted. The  Divisions Bench\thas stressed  that  no\tsuch<br \/>\nopportunity to\tmade a\tcounter-offer was given to nay other<br \/>\ntenderer including  the first  respondent. As  the  Division<br \/>\nBench has  rightly pointed  out, this is equally a vitiating<br \/>\nfactor.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">     It is  thus clear that the entire procedure followed by<br \/>\nthe Commissioner   and\tthe Government of Assam in accepting<br \/>\nthe tender  of Dutta Associates [appellant herein] is unfair<br \/>\nand opposed  to the norms which the Government should follow<br \/>\nin such\t matters,  viz.,  openness,  transparency  and\tfair<br \/>\ndealing. The  Grounds No.1  and 2,  which we  have indicated<br \/>\nhereinabove, are more fundamental than the third ground upon<br \/>\nwhich the High Court has allowed the writ appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">     Before parting  with this matter, we must also say that<br \/>\nwe have not been able to appreciate a particular observation<br \/>\nof the\tDivision Bench. In Para-12 of its judgment, it said:<br \/>\n&#8221; In matter like supply of spirit to warehouse, offer of low<br \/>\nor high\t rate does  not affect\tthe government\trevenue. The<br \/>\nmore the  profit earned\t by the supplier, the more sales tax<br \/>\ncan be\tlevied by  the government&#8221;.  We find it difficult to<br \/>\nunderstand how\tthe acceptance\tof tender  at high rate does<br \/>\nnot effect  the government revenue. Secondly, we find it yet<br \/>\nmore difficult\tto  understand\tthe  observation  that\tmore<br \/>\nprofit the  supplier earns,  the more  sales  tax  will\t the<br \/>\ngovernment realise. Sales tax is not linked with the profit.<br \/>\nit is  linked to  the sale  price and  we see  no  logic  in<br \/>\ngovernment paying  higher rate\tat a  substantive figure and<br \/>\nrealising sales tax at a smaller figure.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">     In the  circumstances, we\taffirm the  judgment of\t the<br \/>\nDivision Bench\tin writ\t appeal on  the grounds stated above<br \/>\nand direct that fresh tenders may be floated in the light of<br \/>\nthe observations  made in  this judgment.  We reiterate that<br \/>\nwhatever procedure  the Government  proposes  to  follow  in<br \/>\naccepting the  tender must  be clearly\tstated in the tender<br \/>\nnotice, The  consideration of  the tenders  received and the<br \/>\nprocedure to  be followed  in the  matter of acceptance of a<br \/>\ntender\tshould\tbe  transparent,  fair\tand  open.  While  a<br \/>\nbonafide error\tof judgment  would not certainly matter, any<br \/>\nabuse of  power for extraneous reasons, it is obvious, would<br \/>\nexpose the authorities concerned, whether it is the Minister<br \/>\nfor Excise  or the  Commissioner of  Excise, to\t appropriate<br \/>\npenalties at  the hand of the courts, following the law laid<br \/>\ndown by\t this court  in shiv  <a href=\"\/doc\/1314\/\" id=\"a_1\">Sagar Tiwari v. Union of India<\/a><br \/>\n(re.: Capt.  Satish  Sharma  and  Smt.\tSheila\tKaul)  [Writ<br \/>\nPetition No. 585 of 1995].\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">     We further\t direct that pending the finalisation of the<br \/>\ncontract pursuant  to the  tenders to be floated hereinafter<br \/>\npursuant  to   the  directions\t made  herein,\tthe  present<br \/>\ntemporary arrangement  shall continue.\tThough Sri Sibal has<br \/>\nquestioned the\tcorrectness  of\t the  Commissioner`s  Orders<br \/>\ndated October 14, 1996 awarding the contract for the interim<br \/>\nperiod to  Indo Merchantiles,  we are not prepared to accept<br \/>\nthe criticism.\tIn our\topinion, the  Commissioner has given<br \/>\nvalid reasons  for preferring  Indo  Merchantiles  over\t the<br \/>\nappellant when both were prepared to supply at the same rate<br \/>\nof Rs.9.20  per LPL.  We further  direct that  fresh tenders<br \/>\nshould be  floated within  two months  from  today  and\t the<br \/>\nentire process finalised within four months from today.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">     The appeal\t is accordingly\t dismissed  subject  to\t the<br \/>\nabove observations. No costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Dutta Associates Pvt.Ltd vs Indo Merchatiles Pvt.Ltd &amp; Ors on 18 November, 1996 Author: B Reddy Bench: B.P. Jeevan Reddy, Suhas C. Sen PETITIONER: DUTTA ASSOCIATES PVT.LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: INDO MERCHATILES PVT.LTD &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18\/11\/1996 BENCH: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, SUHAS C. SEN ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: J U D [&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-270360","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>Dutta Associates Pvt.Ltd vs Indo Merchatiles Pvt.Ltd &amp; Ors on 18 November, 1996 - 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\/dutta-associates-pvt-ltd-vs-indo-merchatiles-pvt-ltd-ors-on-18-november-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dutta Associates Pvt.Ltd vs Indo Merchatiles Pvt.Ltd &amp; Ors on 18 November, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dutta-associates-pvt-ltd-vs-indo-merchatiles-pvt-ltd-ors-on-18-november-1996\" \/>\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=\"1996-11-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-26T23:58:46+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\\\/dutta-associates-pvt-ltd-vs-indo-merchatiles-pvt-ltd-ors-on-18-november-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dutta-associates-pvt-ltd-vs-indo-merchatiles-pvt-ltd-ors-on-18-november-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dutta Associates Pvt.Ltd vs Indo Merchatiles Pvt.Ltd &amp; Ors on 18 November, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-11-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-26T23:58:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dutta-associates-pvt-ltd-vs-indo-merchatiles-pvt-ltd-ors-on-18-november-1996\"},\"wordCount\":2136,\"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\\\/dutta-associates-pvt-ltd-vs-indo-merchatiles-pvt-ltd-ors-on-18-november-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dutta-associates-pvt-ltd-vs-indo-merchatiles-pvt-ltd-ors-on-18-november-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dutta-associates-pvt-ltd-vs-indo-merchatiles-pvt-ltd-ors-on-18-november-1996\",\"name\":\"Dutta Associates Pvt.Ltd vs Indo Merchatiles Pvt.Ltd &amp; Ors on 18 November, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-11-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-26T23:58:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dutta-associates-pvt-ltd-vs-indo-merchatiles-pvt-ltd-ors-on-18-november-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dutta-associates-pvt-ltd-vs-indo-merchatiles-pvt-ltd-ors-on-18-november-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dutta-associates-pvt-ltd-vs-indo-merchatiles-pvt-ltd-ors-on-18-november-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dutta Associates Pvt.Ltd vs Indo Merchatiles Pvt.Ltd &amp; Ors on 18 November, 1996\"}]},{\"@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":"Dutta Associates Pvt.Ltd vs Indo Merchatiles Pvt.Ltd &amp; Ors on 18 November, 1996 - 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\/dutta-associates-pvt-ltd-vs-indo-merchatiles-pvt-ltd-ors-on-18-november-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dutta Associates Pvt.Ltd vs Indo Merchatiles Pvt.Ltd &amp; Ors on 18 November, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dutta-associates-pvt-ltd-vs-indo-merchatiles-pvt-ltd-ors-on-18-november-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-11-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-26T23:58:46+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\/dutta-associates-pvt-ltd-vs-indo-merchatiles-pvt-ltd-ors-on-18-november-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dutta-associates-pvt-ltd-vs-indo-merchatiles-pvt-ltd-ors-on-18-november-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dutta Associates Pvt.Ltd vs Indo Merchatiles Pvt.Ltd &amp; Ors on 18 November, 1996","datePublished":"1996-11-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-26T23:58:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dutta-associates-pvt-ltd-vs-indo-merchatiles-pvt-ltd-ors-on-18-november-1996"},"wordCount":2136,"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\/dutta-associates-pvt-ltd-vs-indo-merchatiles-pvt-ltd-ors-on-18-november-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dutta-associates-pvt-ltd-vs-indo-merchatiles-pvt-ltd-ors-on-18-november-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dutta-associates-pvt-ltd-vs-indo-merchatiles-pvt-ltd-ors-on-18-november-1996","name":"Dutta Associates Pvt.Ltd vs Indo Merchatiles Pvt.Ltd &amp; Ors on 18 November, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-11-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-26T23:58:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dutta-associates-pvt-ltd-vs-indo-merchatiles-pvt-ltd-ors-on-18-november-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dutta-associates-pvt-ltd-vs-indo-merchatiles-pvt-ltd-ors-on-18-november-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dutta-associates-pvt-ltd-vs-indo-merchatiles-pvt-ltd-ors-on-18-november-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dutta Associates Pvt.Ltd vs Indo Merchatiles Pvt.Ltd &amp; Ors on 18 November, 1996"}]},{"@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\/270360","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=270360"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/270360\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=270360"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=270360"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=270360"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}