{"id":39950,"date":"2001-01-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-01-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dalmia-cement-bharat-ltd-vs-ms-galaxy-trades-agencies-ltd-on-19-january-2001"},"modified":"2016-04-03T16:22:54","modified_gmt":"2016-04-03T10:52:54","slug":"dalmia-cement-bharat-ltd-vs-ms-galaxy-trades-agencies-ltd-on-19-january-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dalmia-cement-bharat-ltd-vs-ms-galaxy-trades-agencies-ltd-on-19-january-2001","title":{"rendered":"Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd vs M\/S.Galaxy Trades & Agencies Ltd. … on 19 January, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd vs M\/S.Galaxy Trades & Agencies Ltd. … on 19 January, 2001<\/div>\n
Author: Sethi<\/div>\n
Bench: R.P.Sethi, K.T.Thomas<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.) 957  of  2000\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nDALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LTD.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nM\/S.GALAXY TRADES & AGENCIES LTD.  & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t19\/01\/2001\n\nBENCH:\nR.P.Sethi,, K.T.Thomas\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
L…..I………T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T..J<\/p>\n
      SETHI,J.\n<\/p>\n
      The   complaint  filed  under   Section  138  of\t the
\nNegotiable  Instruments\t Act, 1881 (hereinafter called\t“the
\nAct”)  was  quashed  by\t the High Court\t vide  the  judgment
\nimpugned  in this appeal holding that the same was barred by
\ntime  as  the  complainant had allegedly failed to  file  it
\nwithin the statutory period from the date of accruing of the
\ncause  of  action.   In\t order\t to  appreciate\t the   legal
\nsubmissions, a resume of facts of the case is necessary.  In
\nits complaint, the appellant-company had stated that Accused
\nNos.2  to  9 who are partners of  respondent-firm  purchased
\ncement\tfrom it and issued cheque for Rs.9,13,353.84 on 26th
\nMay, 1998 which was drawn on Karur Vysa Bank Ltd., Ernakulam
\nBranch.\t  When\tpresented  for collection,  the\t cheque\t was
\ndishonoured  on\t account  of insufficiency of funds  in\t the
\naccount\t of  the  accused.  The\t information  regarding\t non
\npayment of the cheque amount was communicated by the Bank to
\nthe  complainant on 2.6.1998.  The complainant on 13.6.1998,
\nthrough\t its Advocate, issued a statutory notice in terms of
\nSection\t 138  of  the  Act intimating respondents  1  and  2
\nregarding  the dishonour of the cheque and calling upon\t the
\nrespondents  to\t pay the said amount within a period  of  15
\ndays  from  the\t receipt  of the said  notice.\t The  postal
\nacknowledgement\t receipt  of  the notice,  served  upon\t the
\nrespondents,  was received by the complainant on  15.6.1998.
\nHowever,  the  respondents 1 and 2, vide their letter  dated
\n20th  June, 1998, which was received by the Advocates of the
\nappellant  on  30th June, 1998, intimated that they  had  in
\neffect\treceived  empty envelopes without any  contents\t and
\nrequested  the appellant to mail the contents.\tIt is  worth
\nnoticing  that\tby  the time the  complainant  received\t the
\nintimation  of\tthe  respondents, the  statutory  period  of
\nfiling\tthe  complaint was about to expire.   Believing\t the
\naverments  of  the  respondents\t to   be  true,\t though\t not
\nadmitting but as an abundant caution the appellant presented
\nthe  cheque  again  on 1.7.1998 to the drawee  bank  through
\ntheir  bankers.\t  The  cheque was again dishonoured  by\t the
\ndrawee\tbank on 2.7.1998.  A registered statutory notice was
\nissued to the accused intimating the dishonour of the cheque
\nand the payment was demanded.  The accused received the said
\nnotice on 27.7.1998 but did not make the payment.  According
\nto  the\t complainant,  the  accused   on  6.7.1998  sent   a
\nregistered  cover  to its Ernakulam office  which  contained
\nsome  waste  newspaper\tbits.  As despite dishonour  of\t the
\ncheque\tand  receipt  of notice, the cheque amount  was\t not
\npaid,  the  appellant filed the complaint on 9th  Setpember,
\n1998,  admittedly,  within  the statutory  period  from\t the
\nsecond\tnotice.\t  The Additional Chief Judicial\t Magistrate,
\nErnakulam  took\t the  cognizance and issued process  to\t the
\nrespondents.   Instead\tof appearing before the\t Magistrate,
\nthe  respondents  filed a petition under Section 482 of\t the
\nCode  of  Criminal Procedure in the High Court\tpraying\t for
\nquashing  the  complaint  on the ground that  the  same\t was
\nbarred by limitation which was disposed of vide the judgment
\nimpugned  in  this appeal.  The Act was enacted and  Section
\n138 thereof incorporated with a specified object of making a
\nspecial provision by incorporating a strict liability so far
\nas  the cheque, a negotiable instrument, is concerned.\t The
\nlaw  relating  to  negotiable  instrument   is\tthe  law  of
\ncommercial  world legislated to facilitate the activities in
\ntrade  and  commerce making provision of giving sanctity  to
\nthe  instruments  of  credit  which could be  deemed  to  be
\nconvertible  into money and easily passable from one  person
\nto another.  In the absence of such instruments, including a
\ncheque,\t the  trade and commerce activities, in the  present
\nday  would,  are  likely to be adversely affected as  it  is
\nimpracticable  for the trading community to carry on with it
\nthe  bulk  of  the  currency   in  force.   The\t  negotiable
\ninstruments  are  in  fact the instruments of  credit  being
\nconvertible  on account of legality of being negotiated\t and
\nare  easily  passable from one hand to another.\t To  achieve
\nthe  objectives\t of  the Act, the legislature  has,  in\t its
\nwisdom, thought it proper to make such provisions in the Act
\nfor conferring such privileges to the mercantile instruments
\ncontemplated  under  it\t and provide special  penalties\t and
\nprocedure  in case the obligations under the instruments are
\nnot  discharged.   The\tlaws  relating\t to  the  Act\tare,
\ntherefore,  required  to be interpreted in the light of\t the
\nobjects\t intended  to be achieved by it despite there  being
\ndeviations  from the general law and the procedure  provided
\nfor  the  redressal  of\t the grievances\t to  the  litigants.
\nEfforts\t to  defeat  the objectives of law by  resorting  to
\ninnovative  measures and methods are to be discouraged, lest
\nit  may affect the commercial and mercantile activities in a
\nsmooth\tand healthy manner, ultimately affecting the economy
\nof  the\t country.   Section  138 of the Act  makes  a  civil
\ntransaction  to be an offence by fiction of law.  Where\t any
\ncheque\tdrawn  by a person on an account maintained  by\t him
\nwith  a banker for payment of any amount of money to another
\nperson\tis returned by the bank unpaid either because of the
\namount\tor money standing to the credit of that person being
\ninsufficient  to  honour the cheque or that it\texceeds\t the
\namount\tarranged to be paid from that account, such  person,
\nsubject\t to  the other conditions, shall be deemed  to\thave
\ncommitted an offence under the Section and be punished for a
\nterm  which  may extend to one year or with fine  which\t may
\nextend\tto twice the amount of cheque or with both.  To make
\nthe  dishonour\tof the cheque as an offence,  the  aggrieved
\nparty is required to present the cheque to the bank within a
\nperiod\tof six months from the date on which it is drawn  or
\nwithin\tthe period of its validity, whichever is earlier and
\nthe  payee or the holder in due course of the cheque makes a
\ndemand\tfor payment of the cheque amount by giving a  notice
\nin writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of the
\nreceipt\t of  information by him from the bank regarding\t the
\nreturn of the cheque as unpaid and drawer of the such cheque
\nfails  to  make the payment of the amount within 15 days  of
\nthe  receipt  of  the said notice.  Section  139  refers  to
\npresumption  that unless the contrary is proved, the  holder
\nreceived  the cheque of the nature referred to under Section
\n138  for the discharge in whole or in part or of any debt or
\nother  liability.  Section 140 restricts the defence in\t any
\nprosecution  under  Section 138 of the Act and\tSection\t 141
\nrefers\tto such offence committed by the companies.  Section
\n142  provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the
\nCode  of Criminal Procedure no court shall take\t congnizance
\nof  an offence under the Section except upon a complaint  in
\nwriting\t made by the payee or as the case may be, the holder
\nof  the\t cheque and that such complaint is made\t within\t one
\nmonth  of the date on which the cause of action arose  under
\nclause (c) of proviso to Section 138 of the Act.  Supporting
\nthe  judgment  of  the\tHigh   Court,  the  learned  counsel
\nappearing  for\tthe respondents has submitted that  as\tupon
\npresentation and dishonour of the cheque by the bank on 28th
\nMay, 1998 which was intimated to the complainant, a cause of
\naction had accrued, the complaint could be filed only within
\n30  days  from the date of the alleged receipt of the  first
\nnotice by the accused.\tHe contends that as according to the
\ncomplainant the postal acknowledgement receipt of the notice
\nwas  received  by  the complainant on 15th June,  1998,\t the
\ncomplaint  filed  by it after 15th July, 1998 was barred  by
\ntime.\tAs  admittedly,\t the  complaint\t was  filed  by\t the
\nappellant  on 9th September, 1998, it is contended that\t the
\nsame  being barred by limitation was rightly quashed by\t the
\nHigh  Court.  However, the learned counsel for the appellant
\nsubmitted  that\t as the respondents had disclaimed  to\thave
\nreceived  the notice of dishonour sent to them on 13th June,
\n1998,  no option was left to the appellant except to present
\nthe cheque again and when not paid, serve a fresh notice for
\nthe  purposes  of making out a case and offence\t within\t the
\nmeaning of Section 138 of the Act.  To constitute an offence
\nunder  Section 138 of the Act the complainant is obliged  to
\nprove its ingredients which include the receipt of notice by
\nthe accused under clause (b).  It is to be kept in mind that
\nit is not the ‘giving’ of the notice which makes the offence
\nbut  it\t is the ‘receipt’ of the notice by the drawer  which
\ngives  the  cause of action to the complainant to  file\t the
\ncomplaint  within  the\tstatutory  period.   This  Court  in
\nK.Bhaskaran  v.\t  Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Anr.<\/a>  [1999\t (7)
\nSCC  510]  considered the difference between ‘giving’  of  a
\nnotice\tand ‘receipt’ of the notice and held:  “On the\tpart
\nof the payee he has to make a demand by ‘giving a notice’ in
\nwriting.   If that was the only requirement to complete\t the
\noffence\t on  the  failure of the drawer to  pay\t the  cheque
\namount\twithin\t15 days from the date of such ‘giving’,\t the
\ntravails  of  the  prosecution\twould have  been  very\tmuch
\nlessened.  But the legislature says that failure on the part
\nof the drawer to pay the amount should be within 15 days ‘of
\nthe  receipt’  of the said notice.  It is, therefore,  clear
\nthat  ‘giving  notice’\tin the context is not  the  same  as
\nreceipt\t of notice.  Giving is a process of which receipt is
\nthe  accomplishment.   It  is for the payee to\tperform\t the
\nformer\tprocess\t by sending the notice to the drawer at\t the
\ncorrect address.\n<\/p>\n
      In  Black’s  Law\tDictionary  ‘giving  of\t notice’  is
\ndistinguished  from ‘receiving of notice’ (vide p.621):\t  “A
\nperson\tnotifies  or gives notice to another by taking\tsuch
\nsteps  as may be reasonably required to inform the other  in
\nthe  ordinary  course,\twhether or not such  other  actually
\ncomes  to know of it’.\tA person ‘receives’ a notice when it
\nis duly delivered to him or at the place of his business.\n<\/p>\n
      If  a  strict interpretation is given that the  drawer
\nshould\thave actually received the notice for the period  of
\n15  days to start running no matter that the payee sent\t the
\nnotice\ton  the correct address, a trickster  cheque  drawer
\nwould  get  the\t premium to avoid receiving  the  notice  by
\ndifferent  strategies  and  he could escape from  the  legal
\nconsequences of Section 138 of the Act.\t It must be borne in
\nmind that the court should not adopt an interpretation which
\nhelps  a dishonest evader and clips an honest payee as\tthat
\nwould defeat the very legislative measure.\n<\/p>\n
      In  Maxwell’s Interpretation of Statutes, the  learned
\nauthor has emphasised that ‘provisions relating to giving of
\nnotice often receive liberal interpretation’ (vide p.  99 of
\nthe 12th Edn.).\t The context envisaged in Section 138 of the
\nAct  invites a liberal interpretation for the person who has
\nthe  statutory\tobligation  to\tgive notice  because  he  is
\npresumed  to  be the loser in the transaction and it is\t for
\nhis  interest the very provision is made by the legislature.
\nThe words in clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the
\nAct  show  that\t the payee has the statutory  obligation  to
\n‘make  a demand’ by giving notice.  The thrust in the clause
\nis  on the need to ‘make a demand’.  It is only the mode for
\nmaking\tsuch demand which the legislature has prescribed.  A
\npayee  can send the notice for doing his part for giving the
\nnotice.\t Once it is despatched his part is over and the next
\ndepends on what the sendee does.\n<\/p>\n
      It  is  well  settled  that a  notice  refused  to  be
\naccepted  by  the  addressee can be presumed  to  have\tbeen
\nserved\ton  him (vide Harcharan Singh v.  Shivrani<\/a> 1981\t (2)
\nSCC 535 and Jagdish Singh v.  Natthu Singh<\/a> 1992 (1) SCC 647.\n<\/p>\n
      Here  the\t notice is returned as unclaimed and not  as
\nrefused.   Will there by any significant difference  between
\nthe  two so far as the presumption of service is  concerned?
\nIn  this connection a reference to Section 27 of the General
\nClauses Act will be useful.  The section reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
      27.   Meaning  of service by post– Where any  Central
\nAct  or\t Regulation made after the commencement of this\t Act
\nauthorises  or\trequires any document to be served by  post,
\nwhether\t the expression ‘serve’ or either of the  expression
\n‘give’\tor  ‘send’  or any other expression is\tused,  then,
\nunless\ta different intention appears, the service shall  be
\ndeemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and
\nposting\t  by  registered  post,\t a  letter  containing\t the
\ndocument,  and\tunless the contrary is proved, to have\tbeen
\neffected  at the time at which the letter would be delivered
\nin the ordinary course of post.”\n<\/p>\n
      Section  27 of the General Clauses Act deals with\t the
\npresumption  of\t service  of  a letter sent  by\t post.\t The
\ndespatcher  of\ta notice has, therefore, a right  to  insist
\nupon  and  claim the benefit of such a presumption.  But  as
\nthe presumption is rebuttable one, he has two options before
\nhim.  One is to concede to the stand of the sendee that as a
\nmatter\tof fact he did not receive the notice, and the other
\nis  to\tcontest\t the sendee’s stand and take  the  risk\t for
\nproving\t that he in fact received the notice.  It is open to
\nthe  despatcher to adopt either of the options.\t If he\topts
\nthe  former, he can afford to take appropriate steps for the
\neffective  service  of\tnotice upon the addressee.   Such  a
\ncourse appears to have been adopted by the appellant-company
\nin  this  case and the complaint filed,\t admittedly,  within
\nlimitation  from the date of the notice of service  conceded
\nto  have  been served upon the respondents.   In  Sadanandan
\nBhadran\t v.   Madhavan Sunil Kumar<\/a> [1998 (6) SCC  514]\tthis
\nCourt held that clause (a) of the proviso to Section 138 did
\nnot put any embargo upon the payee to successively present a
\ndishonoured  cheque  during the period of its validity.\t  On
\neach  presentation  of the cheque and its dishonour a  fresh
\nright  and not cause of action accrues.\t The payee or holder
\nof  the\t cheque may, therefore, without\t taking\t pre-emptory
\naction\tin exercise of his right under clause (b) of Section
\n138  of the Act, go on presenting the cheque so as to enable
\nhim  to exercise such right at any point of time during\t the
\nvalidity  of the cheque.  But once a notice under clause (b)
\nof Section 138 of the Act is ‘received’ by the drawer of the
\ncheque,\t the payee or the holder of the cheque forfeits\t his
\nright  to  again present the cheque as cause of\t action\t has
\naccrued\t when there was failure to pay the amount within the
\nprescribed period and the period of limitation starts to run
\nwhich  cannot  be  stopped  on\t any  account.\t This  Court
\nemphasised  that  “needless to say the period of  one  month
\nfrom  filing  the complaint will be reckoned from  the\tdate
\nimmediately  falling the day on which the period of 15\tdays
\nfrom  the  date of the receipt of the notice by\t the  drawer
\nexpires”  (emphasis supplied).\tIn SIL Import, USA v.\tExim
\nAides  Silk  Exporters,\t Bangalore<\/a> [1999 (4)  SCC  567]\t the
\nrespondents  therein was an exporter of finished silk  goods
\nand the appellant company based at USA was an importer.\t The
\nappellant  owed a certain amount towards sale  consideration
\nof  goods  exported to it by the respondent and issued\tsome
\ncheque\tin their favour.  Two of such cheques were  returned
\ndishonoured   with  reason  “no\t  sufficient  funds”.\t The
\nrespondents sent a notice to the appellant-company by fax on
\n11.6.1996  and\tnotice\tby registered post on the  next\t day
\nwhich was received by the appellant on 25th June, 1996.\t The
\nrespondents  filed  a  complaint before\t the  Magistrate  in
\nrespect\t of  the  said cheques on 8.8.1996.   The  appellant
\ncontended  that\t the cause of action having accrued  on\t the
\nexpiry\tof  15 days from the date of notice sent by  fax  on
\n26th  June,  1996, the limitation for filing  the  complaint
\nexpired\t on 27th June, 1996, therefore, the complaint  filed
\non  8.8.1996 could not be taken congnizance of by the  trial
\ncourt.\t Allowing the appeal this Court held:  “The language
\nused  in  the  above  section admits of no  doubt  that\t the
\nMagistrate  is\tforbidden  from\t taking\t cognizance  of\t the
\noffence\t if the complaint was not filed within one month  of
\nthe  date on which the cause of action arose.  Completion of
\nthe  offence is the immediate forerunner of rising of  cause
\nof  action.  In other words cause of action would arise soon
\nafter  completion  of  the  offence,   and  the\t period\t  of
\nlimitation  for\t filing the complaint  would  simultaneously
\nstart running.\n<\/p>\n
      To  circumvent  the  above   hurdle,  the\t  respondent
\nsubmitted  that 15 days can be counted only from  25.6.1996,
\nthe  date  when\t the appellant received the notice  sent  by
\nregistered  post  and the cause of action would have  arisen
\nonly  on  11.7.1996.   The  complaint  which  was  filed  on
\n8.8.1996  is therefore within time, according to the learned
\ncounsel for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
      xxxxxx<\/p>\n
      The  requirement for sending a notice after the cheque
\nis returned by the bank unpaid is set out in clauses (b) and\n<\/p>\n
(c)  of\t the proviso to Section 138 of the Act.\t  They\tread
\nthus:\n<\/p>\n
      “Provided that nothing contained in this Section shall
\napply unless–\n<\/p>\n
      (a) x x x<\/p>\n
      (b)  the\tpayee  or the holder in due  course  of\t the
\ncheque,\t as the case may be, makes a demand for the  payment
\nof  the said amount of money by giving a notice in  writing,
\nto  the\t drawer\t of the cheque, within fifteen days  of\t the
\nreceipt\t of  information by him from the bank regarding\t the
\nreturn of the cheque as unpaid;\t and<\/p>\n
      (c)  the\tdrawer\tof  such cheque fails  to  make\t the
\npayment\t of the said amount of money to the payee or as\t the
\ncase  may  be,\tto the holder in due course  of\t the  cheque
\nwithin fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice”.\n<\/p>\n
      The  duty cast on the payee on receipt of\t information
\nregarding  the\treturn of the cheque unpaid is mentioned  in
\nclause\t(b) of Section 138.  Within 15 days he has to make a
\ndemand\tfor  payment.  The mode of making such a  demand  is
\nalso  prescribed in the clause, that it should be ‘by giving
\nnotice\tin writing to the drawer of the cheque’.  Nowhere it
\nis  said that such notice must be sent by registered post or
\nthat it should be despatched through a messenger.”\n<\/p>\n
      and concluded:\n<\/p>\n
      “The upshot of the discussion is, on the date when the
\nnotice\tsent  by  fax reached the drawer of the\t cheque\t the
\nperiod\tof 15 days (within which he has to make the payment)
\nhas  started  running  and on the expiry of the\t period\t the
\noffence\t is completed unless the amount has been paid in the
\nmeanwhile.   If\t no  complaint was filed  within  one  month
\ntherefrom  the payee would stand forbidden from launching  a
\nprosecution thereafter, due to the clear interdict contained
\nin Section 142 of the Act.”\n<\/p>\n
      It  is  conceded in this case that in response to\t the
\nnotice\tsent by the appellant through their counsel on\t13th
\nJune,  1998, the respondents herein, vide their letter dated
\n20th  June,  1998,  intimated “received one  empty  envelope
\nwithout\t any content in it.  Therefore request you to kindly
\nsend  the content, if any”.  This intimation was received by
\nthe  appellant\ton  30th June, 1998, the day  on  which\t the
\nperiod\tof limitation on the basis of earlier notice was  to
\nexpire.\t  They\thad  exercised\tthe  option  to\t accept\t the
\naverments made by the respondents in their letter dated 20th
\nJune,  1998 and issue a fresh notice after again  presenting
\nthe cheque.  The respondents have not denied the issuance of
\ntheir  letter dated 20th June, 1998.  Despite admitting\t its
\ncontents, they opted to approach the High Court for quashing
\nthe  proceedings  merely  upon assumption,  presumption\t and
\nconjectures.   They  tried to blow hot and cold in the\tsame
\nbreath, stating on the one hand that the notice of dishonour
\nhas  not been received by them and on the other praying\t for
\ndismissal  of  the complaint on the plea that the  complaint
\nwas  barred  by\t time in view of the notice  served  by\t the
\nappellant  which  they\thad not received.  The plea  of\t the
\nrespondents  was  not only contradictory, and after  thought
\nbut  apparently\t carved\t out  to resist\t the  claim  of\t the
\ncomplainant  and  thereby frustrate the provisions  of\tlaw.
\nThe  High Court fell in error by not referring to the letter
\nof  the\t respondents dated 20th June, 1998 and quashing\t the
\nproceedings  merely  by\t reading a line from para 6  of\t the
\ncomplaint.   The appellant in para 7 of their complaint\t had
\nspecifically stated that “Even though the complainant is not
\nadmitting  the\tsaid  allegation, on  abundant\tcaution\t the
\ncomplainant  presented\tthe  cheque again on 1.7.98  to\t the
\ndrawee\tbank  through  the   complainant’s  bankers,  Punjab
\nNational  Bank.\t  The  cheque was again dishonoured  by\t the
\ndrawee\tbank on 2.7.98 a registered lawyer notice was issued
\nto  the\t 1st  accused  firm as well as to  the\t2nd  accused
\nintimating  the\t dishonour  of\t the  cheque  and  demanding
\npayment.   The accused have received the notice on  27.7.98.
\nThe  accused did not make any payment so far”.\tThe  receipt
\nof  the second notice has concededly not been denied by\t the
\nrespondents.   Under the circumstances the appeal is allowed
\nand the order of the High Court quashing the complaint filed
\nby  the\t appellant  is set aside.  The trial  Magistrate  is
\ndirected  to  proceed against the respondents in  accordance
\nwith  the provisions of law and expeditiously dispose of the
\ncomplaint.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd vs M\/S.Galaxy Trades & Agencies Ltd. … on 19 January, 2001 Author: Sethi Bench: R.P.Sethi, K.T.Thomas CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 957 of 2000 PETITIONER: DALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: M\/S.GALAXY TRADES & AGENCIES LTD. & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19\/01\/2001 BENCH: R.P.Sethi,, K.T.Thomas JUDGMENT: L…..I………T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T..J SETHI,J. […]<\/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-39950","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nDalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd vs M\/S.Galaxy Trades & Agencies Ltd. ... on 19 January, 2001 - 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\/dalmia-cement-bharat-ltd-vs-ms-galaxy-trades-agencies-ltd-on-19-january-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd vs M\/S.Galaxy Trades & Agencies Ltd. ... on 19 January, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dalmia-cement-bharat-ltd-vs-ms-galaxy-trades-agencies-ltd-on-19-january-2001\" \/>\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=\"2001-01-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-03T10:52:54+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dalmia-cement-bharat-ltd-vs-ms-galaxy-trades-agencies-ltd-on-19-january-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dalmia-cement-bharat-ltd-vs-ms-galaxy-trades-agencies-ltd-on-19-january-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd vs M\\\/S.Galaxy Trades & Agencies Ltd. … on 19 January, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-01-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-03T10:52:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dalmia-cement-bharat-ltd-vs-ms-galaxy-trades-agencies-ltd-on-19-january-2001\"},\"wordCount\":3587,\"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\\\/dalmia-cement-bharat-ltd-vs-ms-galaxy-trades-agencies-ltd-on-19-january-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dalmia-cement-bharat-ltd-vs-ms-galaxy-trades-agencies-ltd-on-19-january-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dalmia-cement-bharat-ltd-vs-ms-galaxy-trades-agencies-ltd-on-19-january-2001\",\"name\":\"Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd vs M\\\/S.Galaxy Trades & Agencies Ltd. ... on 19 January, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-01-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-03T10:52:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dalmia-cement-bharat-ltd-vs-ms-galaxy-trades-agencies-ltd-on-19-january-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dalmia-cement-bharat-ltd-vs-ms-galaxy-trades-agencies-ltd-on-19-january-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dalmia-cement-bharat-ltd-vs-ms-galaxy-trades-agencies-ltd-on-19-january-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd vs M\\\/S.Galaxy Trades & Agencies Ltd. … on 19 January, 2001\"}]},{\"@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":"Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd vs M\/S.Galaxy Trades & Agencies Ltd. ... on 19 January, 2001 - 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\/dalmia-cement-bharat-ltd-vs-ms-galaxy-trades-agencies-ltd-on-19-january-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd vs M\/S.Galaxy Trades & Agencies Ltd. ... on 19 January, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dalmia-cement-bharat-ltd-vs-ms-galaxy-trades-agencies-ltd-on-19-january-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-01-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-03T10:52:54+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dalmia-cement-bharat-ltd-vs-ms-galaxy-trades-agencies-ltd-on-19-january-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dalmia-cement-bharat-ltd-vs-ms-galaxy-trades-agencies-ltd-on-19-january-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd vs M\/S.Galaxy Trades & Agencies Ltd. … on 19 January, 2001","datePublished":"2001-01-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-03T10:52:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dalmia-cement-bharat-ltd-vs-ms-galaxy-trades-agencies-ltd-on-19-january-2001"},"wordCount":3587,"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\/dalmia-cement-bharat-ltd-vs-ms-galaxy-trades-agencies-ltd-on-19-january-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dalmia-cement-bharat-ltd-vs-ms-galaxy-trades-agencies-ltd-on-19-january-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dalmia-cement-bharat-ltd-vs-ms-galaxy-trades-agencies-ltd-on-19-january-2001","name":"Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd vs M\/S.Galaxy Trades & Agencies Ltd. ... on 19 January, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-01-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-03T10:52:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dalmia-cement-bharat-ltd-vs-ms-galaxy-trades-agencies-ltd-on-19-january-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dalmia-cement-bharat-ltd-vs-ms-galaxy-trades-agencies-ltd-on-19-january-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dalmia-cement-bharat-ltd-vs-ms-galaxy-trades-agencies-ltd-on-19-january-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd vs M\/S.Galaxy Trades & Agencies Ltd. … on 19 January, 2001"}]},{"@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\/39950","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=39950"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39950\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=39950"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=39950"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=39950"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}