{"id":49447,"date":"2011-11-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-11-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-nicco-corporation-ltd-vs-ms-s-n-nandy-co-on-8-november-2011"},"modified":"2016-01-05T21:29:27","modified_gmt":"2016-01-05T15:59:27","slug":"ms-nicco-corporation-ltd-vs-ms-s-n-nandy-co-on-8-november-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-nicco-corporation-ltd-vs-ms-s-n-nandy-co-on-8-november-2011","title":{"rendered":"M\/S.Nicco Corporation Ltd. vs M\/S.S.N.Nandy &amp; Co. on 8 November, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Delhi High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">M\/S.Nicco Corporation Ltd. vs M\/S.S.N.Nandy &amp; Co. on 8 November, 2011<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Pradeep Nandrajog<\/div>\n<pre>*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n%                           Date of Decision : 8th November, 2011\n\n+                       RFA(OS) 54\/2011\n\n        M\/S.NICCO CORPORATION LTD.               ....Appellant\n                  Through : Mr.Pinnaki Addy, Advocate and\n                            Mr.Shekhar Gupta, Advocate.\n\n                              versus\n\n        M\/S.S.N. NANDY &amp; CO.                   ....Respondent<\/pre>\n<p>                  Through: Mr.S.D.Singh, Advocate.\n<\/p>\n<p>        CORAM:\n<\/p>\n<p>        HON&#8217;BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG<br \/>\n        HON&#8217;BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG<\/p>\n<p>     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed<br \/>\n        to see the judgment?\n<\/p>\n<p>     2. To be referred to Reporter or not?\n<\/p>\n<p>     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?\n<\/p>\n<p>PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral)<\/p>\n<p>1.            Vide impugned judgment dated 23.2.2011, plaintiff&#8217;s<br \/>\nsuit for recovery of `92,20,562\/- against the defendant has<br \/>\nbeen decreed in sum of `2,72,078.94 with proportionate cost,<br \/>\npendente-lite and future interest @12% per annum.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.            As per the averments in the plaint, the plaintiff<br \/>\n&#8216;M\/s.S.N.Nandy &amp; Co.&#8217; had offered to execute works on turnkey<br \/>\nbasis as per the requirement of the defendant\/appellant and<br \/>\nthat the various items of work to be executed were listed as<br \/>\nper Ex.PW-1\/51 at a total price of `2,87,30,333\/- and that<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">RFA(OS) 54\/2011                                     Page 1 of 7<\/span><br \/>\n during execution of the works, vide Ex.DW-1\/P1 extra items<br \/>\nwere agreed to be executed at the rate specified therein.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.            Alleging that for the extra work done the plaintiff<br \/>\nwas entitled to `92,20,562\/-, the suit was filed.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.            The appellant\/defendant denied any extra work.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.            Thus, the main issue between the parties was<br \/>\nwhether the plaintiff had executed extra work not covered by<br \/>\nthe original letter of intent dated 15.10.1992, Ex.PW-1\/6 and as<br \/>\ndetailed in Ex.PW-1\/51.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.            In para 7 of the impugned decision, the learned<br \/>\nSingle Judge has noted, Ex.PW-1\/9 and Ex.PW-1\/17 i.e. letters<br \/>\ndated 2.3.1993 and 7.1.1994 as per which the plaintiff had<br \/>\nreferred to meetings held on different dates and had asserted<br \/>\ntherein that at said meetings the extra works listed in the<br \/>\nletters were agreed to be executed and that the defendant had<br \/>\nnever refuted said letters.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.            We agree with the conclusion arrived at by the<br \/>\nlearned Single Judge that not replying to the said letters<br \/>\namounted to an admission, that as alleged in the two letters, at<br \/>\nthe meetings held on the dates disclosed in the letters extra<br \/>\nwork was agreed to be executed.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.            The reliance by the defendant upon the receipt,<br \/>\nEx.PW-1\/D1 that full and final payment was acknowledged as<br \/>\nbeing received by the plaintiff has rightly been refuted by the<br \/>\nlearned Single Judge inasmuch as the receipt, Ex.PW-1\/D1<br \/>\nclearly records that `9,36,900\/- received towards full and final<br \/>\npayment       pertained   to   the   original   contract   value    of<br \/>\n`2,87,30,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">RFA(OS) 54\/2011                                       Page 2 of 7<\/span><\/p>\n<p> 9.            We also agree with the view taken by the learned<br \/>\nSingle Judge that `5,00,000\/-, which were claimed by the<br \/>\nplaintiff as being paid when extra work was agreed to be<br \/>\nexecuted, being never adjusted against the running bills<br \/>\npertaining to the main works, would evidence that there was an<br \/>\nagreement between the parties that the plaintiff would execute<br \/>\nextra work.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.           The   defendant   has   admitted   having   received<br \/>\nplaintiff&#8217;s letter Ex.PW-1\/D1 which is dated 15.3.1993 and in<br \/>\nwhich breakup of the rate for the extra work has been<br \/>\nindicated. The defendant never refuted the said letter.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.           Faced with the aforesaid, save and except to argue<br \/>\nthat the defendant never wrote any letter to the plaintiff<br \/>\nrequiring extra work to be executed, learned counsel for the<br \/>\nappellant\/defendant has nothing more to argue.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.           The argument has to be noted and rejected for the<br \/>\nreason contractual obligations and variations to an existing<br \/>\ncontract can well be oral. In the teeth of Ex.PW-1\/D1, Ex.PW-<br \/>\n1\/6, Ex.PW-1\/9, Ex.PW-1\/17, Ex.PW-1\/51 and Ex.DW-1\/P1 it is<br \/>\napparent that at the meetings held on the dates disclosed in<br \/>\nthe said letters it was agreed that extra works would be<br \/>\nexecuted. Defendant not having controverted the contents of<br \/>\nthe said letter is proof of the correctness and truthfulness<br \/>\nthereof.     Further, `5,00,000\/- paid by the defendant to the<br \/>\nplaintiff which were never adjusted in the running bills<br \/>\npertaining to the main work is also proof that extra work was<br \/>\nagreed to be executed.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">RFA(OS) 54\/2011                                     Page 3 of 7<\/span><\/p>\n<p> 13.           We note that from para 24 to para 37, the learned<br \/>\nSingle Judge has worked out the revised scope of work, which<br \/>\nhas been tabulated in paragraph 24 of the impugned decision<br \/>\nto bring out the excess and\/or less work executed. The learned<br \/>\nSingle Judge has so worked out with reference to Ex.DW-1\/P1<br \/>\ni.e. the document as per which revised scope of work was<br \/>\nlisted. With respect to Pump House-1 and Pump House-2 the<br \/>\nlearned Single Judge has noted less work executed and thus, as<br \/>\nper contractual rates has held that the defendant would be<br \/>\nentitled to a corresponding price reduction, vis-\u00e0-vis the<br \/>\noriginal contract price as per Ex.PW-1\/51 in sum of `1,29,843\/-<br \/>\nand `1,85,937\/- respectively. With respect to the alleged third<br \/>\nextra item of work i.e. DAF building, the learned Single Judge<br \/>\nhas held that as per original contract work evidenced from<br \/>\nEx.PW-1\/51 a DAF unit had to be erected and which would<br \/>\ninclude the building and thus has negated said claim. Similar is<br \/>\nthe position with respect to the claim for MCC building for the<br \/>\nreason original contract envisaged MCC transformer room to be<br \/>\nconstructed which obviously meant a building to house the<br \/>\nunit. Claim towards Influent Slump has been held not payable<br \/>\nas it was found not to be an extra work. Similarly, no extra<br \/>\nwork pertaining to Apron around RCC Tank being held<br \/>\nestablished, claim towards said amount has been negated.<br \/>\nWith respect to the next item of claim i.e. office-cum-lab the<br \/>\nlearned Single Judge has noted that as per Ex.PW-1\/51 quantity<br \/>\nto be executed was 300 sq.mts. and as per Ex.DW-1\/P1 330.77<br \/>\nsq.mts. extra work was executed and for which sum held<br \/>\npayable to the plaintiff has been determined at `1,10,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">RFA(OS) 54\/2011                                   Page 4 of 7<\/span><\/p>\n<p> Similarly, pertaining to the Treatment Effluent Sump excess<br \/>\nwork of 60 cubic meters having been executed has been<br \/>\ndetermined and price payable, as per contract, has been<br \/>\ndetermined at `3,00,000\/-. Similarly, excess work having been<br \/>\nfound to be executed pertaining to Sludge Lagoon\/Drawing Bed<br \/>\na sum of `1,05,000\/- has been held payable to the plaintiff. On<br \/>\nthe similar process of reasoning, by contrasting the works<br \/>\nlisted in Ex.PW-1\/51 and the revised works as per Ex.DW-1\/P1,<br \/>\nholding extra work executed for Pump House at Common Catch<br \/>\nPit `1,85,000\/- has been held payable to the plaintiff and in<br \/>\nrespect of Cooling Tower Basin over Common Catch Pit<br \/>\n`1,20,000\/- has been held payable to the plaintiff.        `29,347\/-<br \/>\nhas been held payable towards extra quantity of the boundary<br \/>\nwall and for reconstruction of the boundary wall, for which<br \/>\nletters dated 27.11.1994 and 30.11.1994 i.e. Ex.PW-1\/23 and<br \/>\nEx.PW-1\/25 respectively were considered, `1,53,217.50 has<br \/>\nbeen held to be payable.\n<\/p>\n<p>14.           To put it pithily the works as per Ex.PW-1\/51 i.e. the<br \/>\noriginal works agreed to be executed and the revised works as<br \/>\nper Ex.DW-1\/P1 have been worked out by the learned Single<br \/>\nJudge.\n<\/p>\n<p>15.           Learned counsel for the appellant concedes that the<br \/>\noriginal works agreed to be executed were as per Ex.PW-1\/51<br \/>\nand does not dispute that Ex.DW-1\/P1 was received by the<br \/>\nplaintiff.        As noted hereinabove contemporaneous letters<br \/>\nwritten by the plaintiff to the defendant in which it was<br \/>\nasserted that at meetings held revised works were required to<br \/>\nbe executed and the same were detailed in Ex.DW-1\/P1 were<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">RFA(OS) 54\/2011                                       Page 5 of 7<\/span><br \/>\n never refuted and thus the learned Single Judge has drawn a<br \/>\ncorrect inference.\n<\/p>\n<p>16.           Challenge by learned counsel for the appellant to<br \/>\nthe findings of the learned Single Judge with reference to<br \/>\nSection 70 of the Indian Contract Act are simply noted by us<br \/>\nwithout any further discussion inasmuch as the said discussion<br \/>\nby the learned Single Judge, as per para 17 of the decision is on<br \/>\nthe assumption that the extra works executed were never<br \/>\nagreed to be executed by the defendant, but since as a matter<br \/>\nof fact the works were executed and accepted by the<br \/>\ndefendant, the learned Single Judge has, in the alternative<br \/>\ndiscussed the impact of Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act<br \/>\nwith respect to the plaintiff having admittedly executed<br \/>\nadditional works which were accepted by the defendant.\n<\/p>\n<p>17.           Since there is enough evidence to show that the<br \/>\nextra works were executed by the plaintiff upon an oral<br \/>\nagreement between the parties, we need not bother ourselves<br \/>\non the alternative reasoning which is on an assumption.\n<\/p>\n<p>18.           The appeal has to fail as regards the principal sum<br \/>\nadjudicated by the learned Single Judge, but we have to speak<br \/>\na word on the cost and interest awarded in favour of the<br \/>\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>19.           From a perusal of the impugned decision it is<br \/>\napparent that an inflated claim in sum of `92,20,562\/- has been<br \/>\nfound to be payable only in sum of `1,86,784.50 and pre-suit<br \/>\ninterest is `86,294.44 and thus the decree is in sum of<br \/>\n`2,72,078.94. The plaintiff has succeeded only to the extent of<br \/>\nabout 2% of the claim. Had the plaintiff been honest with the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">RFA(OS) 54\/2011                                     Page 6 of 7<\/span><br \/>\n defendant, in all probability the defendant would have sorted<br \/>\nout the matter across the table.            So inflated and grossly<br \/>\nexaggerated was the claim that the plaintiff left no scope for<br \/>\nthe defendant to sit and negotiate.\n<\/p>\n<p>20.           Thus, we are of the opinion that the plaintiff should<br \/>\nnot be entitled to any pre-suit interest or any pendente-lite and<br \/>\nfuture interest as also proportionate costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>21.           We have a legal reason for denying interest.              The<br \/>\nsum was unascertained till the learned Single Judge did so.<br \/>\nThe claim was highly exaggerated and the sum was not<br \/>\nascertainable.\n<\/p>\n<p>22.           Thus, the appeal is partially allowed.            Impugned<br \/>\njudgment and decree dated 23.2.2011 is modified and the suit<br \/>\nfiled   by   the   plaintiff\/respondent    is   decreed    in    sum     of<br \/>\n`1,86,784.50 without any pre-suit or pendente-lite interest.<br \/>\nFuture interest at the rate of 12% per annum from date of<br \/>\ndecree passed by the learned Single Judge on said sum is<br \/>\nawarded to the plaintiff and against the defendant.                Parties<br \/>\nshall bear their own costs all throughout.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                          (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)<br \/>\n                                                 JUDGE<\/p>\n<p>                                                (S.P. GARG)<br \/>\n                                                   JUDGE<br \/>\nNOVEMBER 08, 2011<br \/>\nmm<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">RFA(OS) 54\/2011                                           Page 7 of 7<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court M\/S.Nicco Corporation Ltd. vs M\/S.S.N.Nandy &amp; Co. on 8 November, 2011 Author: Pradeep Nandrajog * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 8th November, 2011 + RFA(OS) 54\/2011 M\/S.NICCO CORPORATION LTD. &#8230;.Appellant Through : Mr.Pinnaki Addy, Advocate and Mr.Shekhar Gupta, Advocate. versus M\/S.S.N. NANDY &amp; [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-49447","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>M\/S.Nicco Corporation Ltd. vs M\/S.S.N.Nandy &amp; Co. on 8 November, 2011 - 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\/ms-nicco-corporation-ltd-vs-ms-s-n-nandy-co-on-8-november-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S.Nicco Corporation Ltd. vs M\/S.S.N.Nandy &amp; Co. on 8 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-nicco-corporation-ltd-vs-ms-s-n-nandy-co-on-8-november-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-11-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-05T15:59:27+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-nicco-corporation-ltd-vs-ms-s-n-nandy-co-on-8-november-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-nicco-corporation-ltd-vs-ms-s-n-nandy-co-on-8-november-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S.Nicco Corporation Ltd. vs M\\\/S.S.N.Nandy &amp; Co. on 8 November, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-05T15:59:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-nicco-corporation-ltd-vs-ms-s-n-nandy-co-on-8-november-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1690,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-nicco-corporation-ltd-vs-ms-s-n-nandy-co-on-8-november-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-nicco-corporation-ltd-vs-ms-s-n-nandy-co-on-8-november-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-nicco-corporation-ltd-vs-ms-s-n-nandy-co-on-8-november-2011\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S.Nicco Corporation Ltd. vs M\\\/S.S.N.Nandy &amp; Co. on 8 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-05T15:59:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-nicco-corporation-ltd-vs-ms-s-n-nandy-co-on-8-november-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-nicco-corporation-ltd-vs-ms-s-n-nandy-co-on-8-november-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-nicco-corporation-ltd-vs-ms-s-n-nandy-co-on-8-november-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S.Nicco Corporation Ltd. vs M\\\/S.S.N.Nandy &amp; Co. on 8 November, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"M\/S.Nicco Corporation Ltd. vs M\/S.S.N.Nandy &amp; Co. on 8 November, 2011 - 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\/ms-nicco-corporation-ltd-vs-ms-s-n-nandy-co-on-8-november-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S.Nicco Corporation Ltd. vs M\/S.S.N.Nandy &amp; Co. on 8 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-nicco-corporation-ltd-vs-ms-s-n-nandy-co-on-8-november-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-11-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-05T15:59:27+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-nicco-corporation-ltd-vs-ms-s-n-nandy-co-on-8-november-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-nicco-corporation-ltd-vs-ms-s-n-nandy-co-on-8-november-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S.Nicco Corporation Ltd. vs M\/S.S.N.Nandy &amp; Co. on 8 November, 2011","datePublished":"2011-11-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-05T15:59:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-nicco-corporation-ltd-vs-ms-s-n-nandy-co-on-8-november-2011"},"wordCount":1690,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-nicco-corporation-ltd-vs-ms-s-n-nandy-co-on-8-november-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-nicco-corporation-ltd-vs-ms-s-n-nandy-co-on-8-november-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-nicco-corporation-ltd-vs-ms-s-n-nandy-co-on-8-november-2011","name":"M\/S.Nicco Corporation Ltd. vs M\/S.S.N.Nandy &amp; Co. on 8 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-11-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-05T15:59:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-nicco-corporation-ltd-vs-ms-s-n-nandy-co-on-8-november-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-nicco-corporation-ltd-vs-ms-s-n-nandy-co-on-8-november-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-nicco-corporation-ltd-vs-ms-s-n-nandy-co-on-8-november-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S.Nicco Corporation Ltd. vs M\/S.S.N.Nandy &amp; Co. on 8 November, 2011"}]},{"@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\/49447","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=49447"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49447\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=49447"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=49447"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=49447"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}