{"id":27356,"date":"2002-04-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-03-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-aradhana-trading-co-ors-on-1-april-2002"},"modified":"2018-06-24T04:58:17","modified_gmt":"2018-06-23T23:28:17","slug":"union-of-india-ors-vs-aradhana-trading-co-ors-on-1-april-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-aradhana-trading-co-ors-on-1-april-2002","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India & Ors vs Aradhana Trading Co & Ors on 1 April, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Union Of India & Ors vs Aradhana Trading Co & Ors on 1 April, 2002<\/div>\n
Author: B Kumar<\/div>\n
Bench: B.N. Kirpal, K.G. Balakrishnan, Brijesh Kumar<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil) 981-983  of  2000\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nUNION OF INDIA & ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nARADHANA TRADING CO & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t01\/04\/2002\n\nBENCH:\nB.N. Kirpal, K.G. Balakrishnan & Brijesh Kumar\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
BRIJESH KUMAR, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tThese appeals arise out of the Judgment and Order dated
\n19.3.1999 passed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in
\na bunch of appeals preferred by the present appellant before us.
\nWe have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The main
\nquestion that falls for our consideration in these appeals is about
\nthe maintainability of appeal before the Division Bench against the
\njudgment and order of the learned Single Judge of the Calcutta
\nHigh Court, rejecting the application under order  9 Rule 13 CPC
\nfor setting aside the ex-parte decree making the Award Rule of the
\nCourt.\tThe other question is as to whether the\t High Court was
\njustified in entertaining the proceedings  for making the award Rule
\nof the Court since the District Courts of Asansol had also been
\nmoved by the appellant to  issue notice to the Arbitrator, under
\nSection 14(2) of the Arbitration Act 1940, for filing of the award in
\nthe Asansol Court.\n<\/p>\n
It appears that the appellant, namely the Union of India
\nentered into agreements with the respondents for supply of certain
\nitems to the Railways viz Chittranjan Locomotives. After the
\nsupplies, the Department felt that the bills of exorbitant amount
\nwere being raised  by the respondents and an enquiry was also set
\nup  in that connection.\t Since however, payments were not being
\nmade, the respondents filed  writ petitions in Calcutta High Court
\nfor direction to the Government to  make  payment of bills. The
\nHigh Court passed a common order dated 24.11.1995 in the writ
\npetitions, directing the General Manager to appoint arbitrators to
\nsettle the disputes, consequently on December 12,1995 four
\nArbitrators were appointed.  Parties filed their respective claims
\nbefore the Arbitrators and put forth their pleas and placed the
\ninterim report of the Committee regarding rates of 42 items
\ninvolved in various purchases made under different agreements.
\nSince the time to make the Award had expired, the High Court on
\nbeing approached  by  the parties, extended time with their consent;
\nfor a period of two months, by order dated 4.2.1997.  The Awards
\nwere published by Arbitrators on 14.8.1997 sending notices of the
\nsame to the parties.  The Awards had been filed by the Arbitrators
\nin the Calcutta High Court on 11.11.1997.  Notices of the filing of
\nthe Award had also been issued by the High Court which were
\nserved upon the appellants on 11.12.1997. The appellants did not
\nfile any objection against the Award. The case was fixed on
\n27.1.1998.  It appears that nobody appeared on behalf of the
\nAppellant despite notice and since no objections too, were
\npreferred by them against the award, the High Court passed Decree
\nin terms of the Award making the same Rule of the Court.
\nThe Appellant moved an application on  24.2.1998 for
\nrecalling the order  dated 27.1.1998 passed by the High Court,
\nexplaining its absence on the date of hearing and stating that it had
\nmoved an application on 29.9.1997 under section 14(2) of the
\nArbitration Act 1940 before the Assistant District Judge, Asansol,
\npraying for a direction to the\tArbitrators to file Awards in the
\nAsansol Courts, therefore awards  could not be filed in the High
\nCourt..\n<\/p>\n
It may be noted that no appeal was preferred against order
\nand decree dated 27.1.1998 passed by the learned Single Judge.
\nThe High Court however, dismissed the application by order dated
\n23.4.1998, finding that since no objections were filed against the
\nAward, the Court had to pass the Orders making the Award Rule of
\nthe Court in accordance with Section 17 of the Arbitration Act.\t It
\nhad also been observed that Decree cannot be said to have been
\npassed ex-parte\t as it was with due notice to the appellant and that
\non passing  of the order according to Section 17 of the Arbitration
\nAct, the Court had become functus officio. It was also found that
\nAward was rightly filed in High Court. The appellant then filed
\nappeals\t before the Division Bench against the order dated
\n23.4.1998 passed by the Single Judge.  The Division Bench
\ndismissed the appeals repelling the objections that the High Court
\ncould not entertain the matter and also found that the appeal was
\nnot maintainable before the Division Bench against the order of
\nSingle judge of the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
Coming to the question as to whether the arbitrators  could
\nfile the award under Section 14 (2) of the Arbitration Act 1940 in
\nthe High Court of Calcutta or not, it has been submitted  on behalf
\nof the appellant that the subject-matter  of arbitration viz. supplies,
\nhave been made to Chitranjan Locomotive which is situate in
\nDistrict of Asansol.  Therefore, it was only appropriate for the
\narbitrator to have filed the award in the District Court of Asansol.
\nA reference has again been made to the application dated 24.9.1997
\nmoved before the Assistant District Judge, Asansol  for directions
\nto the Arbitrators requiring them to file the award in original along
\nwith all records and documents within the time as may be fixed by
\nthe Court in Asansol.  It has no where been indicated by the
\nappellant   that the Court of Assistant District Judge, Asansol had
\never issued any notice on the aforesaid application or any direction
\nto the Arbitrators as prayed.  On the other hand, the award was
\nundisputedly filed in the High Court on 11.11.1997 in respect
\nwhereof notice was issued,  which was received by the appellant
\non 11.12.1997.\tDespite service of notice, the appellant did not
\nseem to have moved any application informing the High Court or
\nthe respondents that they had already moved any application before
\nAssistant District Judge, Asansol for a direction to the Arbitrators
\nto file the award in that Court or indicating any reservation about
\nfiling of the award in the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
Besides the above, it is to be noticed that the Arbitrators
\nwere appointed in pursuance of an order passed by the High Court
\non the writ petitions filed by the respondents as a consequence
\nwhereof\t the Arbitrators proceeded in the matter and finally
\npublished the award.  On two occasions earlier, the parties
\nincluding the appellant had approached the High Court only  for
\nextension  of time for making  the award. The orders were passed
\nby the High Court  on 24,2,1997 and 28.7.1997 extending the time
\nthat is to say much before the appellant moved application in the
\nCourt of the Assistant District Judge, Asansol for a direction to the
\nArbitrator to file the award in Asansol.  In the above
\ncircumstances, it is too late in the day for the appellant to turn
\naround and say that that the High Court of Calcutta could not
\nentertain the filing of the award and to proceed with making it a
\nrule of the court.  Needless to mention that Calcutta High Court
\nexercises its original civil jurisdiction as well.  Therefore, perhaps
\nthe appellant has not come up with the case that there was any
\ninherent lack of jurisdiction in the High Court of Calcutta  to
\nentertain such\tsuit or proceedings.  As indicated earlier the
\nappellant itself had submitted to the jurisdiction  of the High Court
\nwhile moving application for extension of time under Section 28 of
\nthe Arbitration Act.  We  therefore do not find any fault in the
\nfinding of the High Court  negating the plea  raised by the appellant
\nthat Arbitrators should have filed the Award in the Asansol courts
\nand not in the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
We may next consider the nature of the application moved
\nby the appellant for recalling the order  dated 27.1.1998 passed by
\nthe learned Single Judge of the Calcutta  High Court.  The
\napplication dated February 24, 1998 does not indicate the provision
\nof law under which it was moved.  The averments made in the
\napplication are\t to the effect that the appellant had received a notice
\nfrom the Registry of the High Court  in the original civil
\njurisdiction informing that January 21, 1998 was fixed in the case.
\nThe case however, it is stated, was  fixed on 22.1.1998.  The
\ncounsel for the appellant remained in the Court concerned
\nthroughout the day but the matter was not taken up.  The next date
\nfixed was January 27, 1998 on which date also the counsel for the
\nappellant was present in Court up to 12 Noon  whereafter he got
\nengaged in another Court.  Therefore, he could not  be present at
\nthe time when the case was called out and the order was passed by
\nthe Court.  The counsel for the appellant  made a mention about the
\nmatter in the Court on 4.2.1998 and later moved an application in
\nthat behalf stating that there was sufficient ground for not being
\npresent at the time, the matter was called upon on 27.1.1998 and
\nex- parte order was passed. The following prayers were made in the
\napplication:\n<\/p>\n
a)\tThe order dated 27th January  1998  passed ex-
\nparte may be recalled;\n<\/p>\n
b)\tCase may be restored to its file and may be
\nfixed for hearing as “Judgment\tupon Award”\n<\/p>\n
in suitable date which is convenient for your
\nlordship so that the petitioner may take
\nnecessary steps to challenge the Award;\n<\/p>\n
c)\tAny other order or orders as your lordships
\nmay deem fit and proper”\n<\/p>\n
It is submitted\t that it would be treated as an application under
\nOrder IX, Rule 13 C.P.C. in view of Section 41 of the Arbitration
\nAct which reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
“41. Procedure and powers of the Court.\t Subject
\nto the provisions of this Act and of rules made
\nthereunder<\/p>\n
(a)\tthe provisions of the Code of Civil
\nProcedure, 1908, shall\tapply to all
\nproceedings before the Court, and to all
\nappeals, under this Act, and<\/p>\n
(b)\tthe Court shall have, for the purpose of, and
\nin relation to, arbitration proceedings, the
\nsame power of making  orders in respect of
\nany of the matters set out in the Second
\nSchedule as it has for the purpose of, and in
\nrelation to, any proceedings before the Court:\n<\/p>\n
Provided that nothing in clause (b) shall be taken to
\nprejudice any power which may be vested in an
\narbitrator or umpire for making orders with respect to
\nany of such matters.”\n<\/p>\n
It is thus  submitted  that subject to the provisions of the
\nArbitration Act, provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure  would
\napply  to all proceedings before the Court and the appeals under
\nthe Act.  Even taking it to be so, the rival contention of the
\nRespondents  is that no appeal will lie against the order of the
\nSingle Judge dated 23.4.1998 rejecting the application. Section 39
\nof the Arbitration Act enumerates the orders against which alone
\nan  appeal would lie and against no other order. Section 39 of the
\nArbitration Act 1940 reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
 “39.\tAppealable orders.  (1) An appeal shall lie
\nfrom the following  orders passed under this Act (and
\nfrom no others) to the Court authorised by law to hear
\nappeals from original decree of the Court passing the
\norders:-\n<\/p>\n
An order<\/p>\n
(i)\tsuperseding an arbitration;\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\ton an award stated in the form of a special
\n\tcase;\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\tmodifying or correcting an award;\n<\/p>\n
(iv)\tfiling or refusing to file an arbitration
\n\tagreement;\n<\/p>\n
(v)\tstaying or refusing to stay legal proceedings
\n\twhere there is an arbitration agreement;\n<\/p>\n
(vi)\tsetting aside or refusing to set aside an
\n\taward.\n<\/p>\n
Provided that the provisions of this section shall not
\napply to any order passed by a Small Cause Court.\n<\/p>\n
(2)\tNo second appeal shall lie from an order
\npassed under this section but nothing in this
\nsection shall affect or take away any right to
\nappeal\tto [the Supreme Court]”.\n<\/p>\n
We  find that prohibition against appeal is provided in two ways
\none where it is indicated that appeal would lie against given orders
\nand from no other orders and secondly under sub-section (2) of
\nSection 39 that no second appeal shall lie from an order passed in
\nappeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act. In the alternate, the
\nAppellants’ contention is that in any case a Letters Patent  Appeal
\nwould lie against the original\torders of the Single Judge of the
\nHigh Court to a Division Bench.\t A number of decisions have been
\nrelied upon by the learned counsel for the parties in support of their
\nrival contentions.\n<\/p>\n
Learned counsel for the Respondents has placed reliance
\nupon a decision reported in  1962 (2) S.C.R. 551 Neeilkantha
\nShidramappa Ningashetti versus Kashinath Somanna
\nNingashetti and others.\t It is a decision by a Bench of Four
\nJudges.\t The parties knew about the filing of the award in the Court
\nand on the date fixed the case was adjourned for “the parties’ say to
\nthe arbitrator’s report”.  No notice in writing was issued by the
\nCourt  of the filing of the award or objections thereto.  The
\nobjections were filed late beyond the time prescribed  by limitation.
\nThe court made the award rule of the Court.  The plea which was
\ntaken was that the period of limitation would  start from the date of
\nservice in writing of filing of the award.  Such a contention was not
\naccepted by the\t court and it was held that notice in writing was not
\nnecessary as the information to the parties of the award having
\nbeen filed  and date adjourned for their say to the arbitrator’s report
\nwas sufficient notice. It was held that award was not liable to be set
\naside  and no appeal was maintainable under Section 39(1) (vi) of
\nthe Arbitration Act.  In    State of West Bengal versus
\nGourangalal Chatterjee\t1993 (3) S.C.C. 1 the appeal under
\nSection 39 was held to be  not maintainable against an order
\npassed by the Single Judge appointing a new arbitrator since the
\norder was not covered under any of the clauses\tof  Section 39\tnor
\neven Letters Patent Appeal was held to be maintainable.\t In  Union
\nof India versus Mohindra Supply Company 1962 (3) S.C.R.
\n497, a decision by a Bench of Four  Judges,  held that Section 39
\napplies to the appeals\tto superior courts as well as to intra-court
\nagainst the decree passed in terms of the award but against the
\norder passed in appeal, a Letters Patent Appeal was  held to be
\nbarred under sub-section (2) of Section 39 of the Arbitration Act
\naccording to which  no second appeal lies against an order passed
\nunder Section 39(1) of the Act.\t It was further held that in view of
\nthe said provision, appeal under Section 100  CPC was also
\nprohibited.  We, however, find\tthat so far as this case is concerned,
\nit stands on a different footing since in the present case it is not a
\nfurther appeal or a second appeal but an appeal\t against an order
\npassed by the learned Single Judge under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. It
\nwould however be relevant  for the purpose that restriction on
\nappeal under Section 39\t of Arbitration Act  shall be applicable  to
\nappeals under any provision of law, may be CPC\tor Letters Patent.\n<\/p>\n
So far the appellants are concerned they placed reliance on a
\ncase reported in 1953 S.C.R. 1028 National Sewing Thread
\nCompany Limited versus James Chadwick & Bros Ltd.  It is a
\ndecision by a Three  Judge Bench.  In this case the proceedings
\nrelated to the Trade Marks Act containing a provision of appeal to
\nthe High Court under Section 76 (1) of the Act against an order of
\nthe Registrar.\tIt however contained no provision regarding
\nprocedure to be followed by the High Court or as to whether the
\norder passed by the High Court\twas further  appealable or not.\t It
\nwas held that the High Court was to exercise the appellate power
\nin the same manner as it exercises  its other appellate jurisdiction
\nand where such jurisdiction was exercised  by a Single Judge, his
\njudgment was appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
\nThe Court relied upon (1913) A.C. 546 quoting therefrom\t “When
\na question is stated to be referred to established Court without more
\n Ordinary instance of the procedure of that court are to attach\t and
\nalso that any general right of appeal from its decision like-wise
\nattaches.”  It also refers to (1947) 74 I.A. Page 264 quoting.
\n“Where a legal right is in dispute and the ordinary courts of the
\ncountry\t are seized of such dispute, the courts are governed by the
\nordinary rules of procedure applicable there to and an appeal lies if
\nauthorised by such rules, notwithstanding that the legal right
\nclaimed arises under a special statute, which does not, in terms
\nconfer a right of appeal”.  In Union of India and others versus
\nManager, M\/s. Jain & Associates 2001 (3) SCC 277 it was held
\nthat by virtue\tof Section 41 of the Arbitration Act, Order IX of the
\nC.P.C. would be applicable and an application under Order IX,
\nRule 13 CPC would lie and delay could be condoned  under
\nSection 5 of the Limitation Act in filing objections under Section
\n30 of the Arbitration Act. The refusal to condone the delay
\namounts to refusal to set aside the award and the orders become
\nappealable  under Section 39 (1)(vi) of the Act.  A similar view
\nwas taken  in Essar Constructions versus Ramakrishna Reddy
\n2000 (6) S.C.C. 94.\n<\/p>\n
On behalf of the appellant, reliance has also been placed in
\nVinita M. Khanolkar versus Pragna M. Pai and others 1998 (1)
\nS.C.C. 500.  In this case the High Court had passed an order in
\nexercise or its original jurisdiction under Section 6 of the Specific
\nRelief Act.  An appeal filed before the\t Division Bench was held to
\nbe maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent as it was held
\nthat such powers are vested in the High Courts of Madras, Bombay
\nand Calcutta  which are not whittled down by statutory provisions
\nof Section 6 (3) of the Specific Relief Act.  It was observed that
\npower is in pursuance of Section 108 of the Govt. of India Act.\t It
\nis a decision by a Bench of two learned Judges.\n<\/p>\n
So far the question as to whether the order passed by the
\nlearned Single Judge rejecting the application for recalling\/setting
\naside ex parte order dated 27.1.1998 is concerned, it cannot be
\ntreated as an order refusing to set aside the award.  This position
\nwould stand covered by the decision in the case of Neeilkantha
\nShidramappa Ningashetti (supra)\t as it has been held if there was
\nno objection before the court for setting aside\t the award, no
\nquestion of refusal to set it aside could arise. Hence no appeal
\nunder Section 39(1)(vi) of the Arbitration Act would be
\nmaintainable.  The ground of challenge of the award was that the
\nlimitation to file the objection was to run with effect from the date
\nof service of a written notice\tfor filing of the objection which
\ncontention was repelled by the Bench consisting of four Hon’ble
\nJudges holding that the knowledge of the appellant  of the award
\nhaving been filed and time allowed  to file objections was
\nsufficient notice.  In the present case also it is to be found that no
\nobjections to the award had been filed despite due notice and nor
\neven  subsequently  while  counsel is said to have been\t attending
\nthe court on two dates fixed in the case.  In this view of the matter
\nit would not be necessary to go into other aspect of the matter or
\nthe view taken in some other cases as referred to in the earlier part
\nof the judgment.  Some cases, a reference of which has been made
\nearlier relate to the question of maintainability of a second appeal
\nin Letters Patent against the appellate order passed under Section
\n39 (1) of the Arbitration Act as in the case of Mohindra Supply
\nCompany (supra) where the Bench of four Hon’ble Judges held
\nthat in view of clause (2) of Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, an
\nappeal against an appellate order under the Letters Patent  was not
\nmaintainable.  The restriction to appeal  contained under sub-sec.
\n(2) of Section 39  was applicable to Letters Patent.  So restriction
\ncontained  under sub-sec.(1)  of Sec.39 of Arbitration Act shall also
\nbe applicable.\n<\/p>\n
The question which thus remains to be considered  is as to
\nwhether an order passed on an application making the prayer like
\none which could be referable  to Order IX, Rule 13 CPC would be
\nappealable or not.  Such an application could be made by virtue of
\nSection 41 of the Arbitration Act.  An order under Order IX, Rule
\n13 CPC is appealable under Order 43, clause (c) read with Section
\n104 CPC.  In the case of National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd.
\n(supra), a decision by a Bench of Three Hon’ble Judges, the matter
\nrelated to Trade Marks Act Section 76(1) of which provided  for an
\nappeal against a decision of the Registrar under the Act to the High
\nCourt but no further provision in regard to the procedure to be
\napplied was made.  An appeal against the order of the Registrar
\nwas decided by a learned Single Judge of the High Court\t against
\nwhich a Letters Patent Appeal was filed which was held to be
\nmaintainable even though no such provision of further appeal was
\nmade under the Trade Marks Act.\t As indicated earlier the Court in
\nthe above-noted case has relied upon certain decision and held as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
“Though the facts of the cases laying down the above
\nrule were not exactly similar to the facts of the
\npresent case, the principle enunciated therein\tis one
\nof general application and has an apposite application
\nto the facts and circumstances of the present case.
\nSection 76 the Trade   Marks Act confers  a right of
\nappeal\tto the High Court and says nothing more
\nabout it.  That being so, the High Court being seized
\nat such of the appellate jurisdiction conferred\t by
\nsection 76 it has to exercise  jurisdiction in the same
\nmanner as it exercises\tits  other appellate jurisdiction
\nand when such jurisdiction is exercised by a Single
\nJudge, his judgment becomes subject to appeal under
\nclause 15 of the Letters Patent there being nothing to
\nthe contrary in the Trade Marks Act”\n<\/p>\n
In view of what has been held above  a Court while exercising
\npower by virtue of  Section 41 of the Arbitration Act shall have all
\nother related powers of the ordinary civil court subject  to the
\nconstraints  contained in the special Act itself.  Normally, an
\nappeal would be maintainable but there are two constrains as
\nprovided under the Special Act, namely, it should not be a second
\nappeal as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 39 of the Act
\nwhich position is also clear in the case of Mohindra Supply
\nCompany (supra) where it was held that the second appeal under
\nSection 100 CPC or under the Letters Patent against an appellate
\norder was barred by virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 39.  Here
\nwe find that there is yet another constraint as provided under sub-
\nsection (1) of Section 39 of the Arbitration Act itself and it is
\nemphatic too when it says that appeal shall lie against the orders
\nindicated in the provision and from no other order.  Section 41 of
\nthe Arbitration Act makes the provisions of CPC applicable
\nsubject to the provisions of the Arbitration Act and the rules
\nframed thereunder.  Therefore, the nature of an order against
\nwhich an appeal may lie must conform to the nature of the order
\nas enumerated under sub-section (1) of Section 39 of the
\nArbitration Act.  If  it does not amount to such an order as
\nenumerated under sub-section (1) of Section 39, the prohibition as
\ncontained in this sub-section  “(against no other order”) itself,
\nwould become operative, subject to which alone provisions of
\nCPC apply under Section 41 of the Act.\tIn the facts of the present
\ncase we\t find that an order refusing to recall an order passed by the
\ncourt will not amount to refusal to set aside the award under clause\n<\/p>\n
(vi) of sub-section (1) of Section 39 of the Arbitration Act as no
\nobjections to set aside the award have ever been filed\twith or
\nwithout application for condonation of delay, challenging the
\naward.\tAdmittedly, the appellant did not file any appeal against
\nthe order dated 27.1.1998.  In these circumstances and in view of
\nthe provisions of the Arbitration Act, the decision in the case of
\nNational Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. (supra)\t shall also not be
\napplicable  as in the Trade Marks Act with which the court was
\ndealing, did not have any provision like the one contained in sub-
\nsection (1) of Section 39 of the Arbitration Act restricting the right
\nof appeal only in respect of certain nature of orders and
\nprohibiting  appeal against any other order whatsoever.\t Therefore,
\nin the case of National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. (supra) it was
\nheld that where a provision for appeal was made under Section 76
\n(1) of the Trade Marks Act to the High Court, with nothing more,
\nthe other provisions relating to exercise of that jurisdiction by the
\nHigh Court would be applicable.\t The case  of National Sewing
\nThread Co. Ltd. (supra) is thus based on different provisions and
\nis clearly distinguishable. The case in hand is covered by the
\ndecisions in the  cases of Neeilkantha\t(supra) and Mohindra
\nSupply Co.both decided\tby  Bench of four Judges which do not
\nseem to have been noticed in other judgments.\n<\/p>\n
In view of the discussion held above, we find no force in the
\nappeals and they are dismissed.\t There would however be no order
\nas to costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t    ————————J
\n\t\t\t\t    (B.N. Kirpal)<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t    ————————J
\n\t\t\t\t    (K.G. Balakrishnan)<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t    ———————-J
\n\t\t\t\t     (Brijesh Kumar)<\/p>\n
April 01, 2002<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Union Of India & Ors vs Aradhana Trading Co & Ors on 1 April, 2002 Author: B Kumar Bench: B.N. Kirpal, K.G. Balakrishnan, Brijesh Kumar CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 981-983 of 2000 PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: ARADHANA TRADING CO & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01\/04\/2002 BENCH: B.N. […]<\/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-27356","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nUnion Of India & Ors vs Aradhana Trading Co & Ors on 1 April, 2002 - 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\/union-of-india-ors-vs-aradhana-trading-co-ors-on-1-april-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India & Ors vs Aradhana Trading Co & Ors on 1 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-aradhana-trading-co-ors-on-1-april-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-03-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-23T23:28:17+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=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-aradhana-trading-co-ors-on-1-april-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-aradhana-trading-co-ors-on-1-april-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India & Ors vs Aradhana Trading Co & Ors on 1 April, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-03-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-23T23:28:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-aradhana-trading-co-ors-on-1-april-2002\"},\"wordCount\":4183,\"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\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-aradhana-trading-co-ors-on-1-april-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-aradhana-trading-co-ors-on-1-april-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-aradhana-trading-co-ors-on-1-april-2002\",\"name\":\"Union Of India & Ors vs Aradhana Trading Co & Ors on 1 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-03-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-23T23:28:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-aradhana-trading-co-ors-on-1-april-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-aradhana-trading-co-ors-on-1-april-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-aradhana-trading-co-ors-on-1-april-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India & Ors vs Aradhana Trading Co & Ors on 1 April, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"Union Of India & Ors vs Aradhana Trading Co & Ors on 1 April, 2002 - 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\/union-of-india-ors-vs-aradhana-trading-co-ors-on-1-april-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India & Ors vs Aradhana Trading Co & Ors on 1 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-aradhana-trading-co-ors-on-1-april-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-03-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-23T23:28:17+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":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-aradhana-trading-co-ors-on-1-april-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-aradhana-trading-co-ors-on-1-april-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India & Ors vs Aradhana Trading Co & Ors on 1 April, 2002","datePublished":"2002-03-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-23T23:28:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-aradhana-trading-co-ors-on-1-april-2002"},"wordCount":4183,"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\/union-of-india-ors-vs-aradhana-trading-co-ors-on-1-april-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-aradhana-trading-co-ors-on-1-april-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-aradhana-trading-co-ors-on-1-april-2002","name":"Union Of India & Ors vs Aradhana Trading Co & Ors on 1 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-03-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-23T23:28:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-aradhana-trading-co-ors-on-1-april-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-aradhana-trading-co-ors-on-1-april-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-aradhana-trading-co-ors-on-1-april-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India & Ors vs Aradhana Trading Co & Ors on 1 April, 2002"}]},{"@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\/27356","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=27356"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27356\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27356"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27356"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27356"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}