{"id":50685,"date":"2001-11-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-11-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-trading-corporation-of-vs-madhu-enterprises-ltd-and-ors-on-19-november-2001"},"modified":"2016-09-25T06:25:18","modified_gmt":"2016-09-25T00:55:18","slug":"state-trading-corporation-of-vs-madhu-enterprises-ltd-and-ors-on-19-november-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-trading-corporation-of-vs-madhu-enterprises-ltd-and-ors-on-19-november-2001","title":{"rendered":"State Trading Corporation Of … vs Madhu Enterprises Ltd. And Ors. on 19 November, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
State Trading Corporation Of … vs Madhu Enterprises Ltd. And Ors. on 19 November, 2001<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 2002 IIAD Delhi 836<\/div>\n
Author: A Sikri<\/div>\n
Bench: A Sikri<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
  A.K. Sikri, J.  <\/p>\n
                 1.    The  plaintiff  in the instant case  is  State
\n           Trading  Corporation of India Ltd.  which is a  company
\n           registered  under the Indian Companies Act,1956.  It is
\n           having  one of its Branch Offices in Delhi situated  at
\n           En  Kay  House,3-4,  Shopping   Centre,  Dharam   Marg,
\n           Chanakya   Puri,  New  Delhi.    One  of  the  business
\n           activities  of  the  plaintiff is sale of  second  hand
\n           imported  cars  and other vehicles.  The plaintiff  has
\n           alleged in the plaint that the said Delhi Branch issued
\n           a  Tender  Notice No.DLH-44\/Sept.25\/81 dated  11.9.1981
\n           for  the  sale  of  imported cars  and  other  vehicles
\n           mentioned  including  a Mercedes Benz 300-D  Sedan  Car
\n           mentioned  at  S.No.3  in the said Tender  Notice.   In Suit No. 1260\/85:\n<\/p>\n
  response  to  the  said Tender Notice, besides  others,
\n           M\/s.Madhu   Enterprises  (P)   Ltd.,  defendant   No.1,
\n           M\/s.L.S.Bagla  H.U.F.,  defendant No.2 and  Shri  Shyam
\n           Goel,  defendant  No.3 also offered their  tenders  for
\n           several  cars  mentioned in the said Tender Notice  and
\n           remitted Bank draft\/pay-orders of the amount of earnest
\n           money  for the required category of vehicles.  All  the
\n           defendants  also  filed  tender  offers  for  the  said
\n           Mercedes  Benz  300-D Sedan Car mentioned at S.No.3  of
\n           the  said Tender Notice dated 11.9.1981 along with  the
\n           Demand  Draft\/pay-orders  of the amount of  Rs.40,000\/-
\n           each  by way of earnest money.  The tenders were opened
\n           in  the  presence  of  the tenderers who  chose  to  be
\n           present  including  defendants  1 to  3  and  following
\n           offers  for  the  said Mercedes Benz car  mentioned  at
\n           S.No.3  were  found  to  be the highest  in  the  order
\n           mentioned below:-\n<\/p>\n
             1.       Madhu Enterprises(P)Ltd.\n<\/p>\n
                        (Defendant No.1)      :Rs.13,57,000\/-\n           2.       L.S.Bagla H.U.F.\n                        (Defendant No.2)      :Rs.11,83,979\/-\n           3.       Sh.Shyam Goel\n                        (Defendant No.3)      :Rs.11,15,300\/-\n           4.       Sh.Nalin Bhatia           :Rs. 9,81,501\/-   \n\n \n\n<\/pre>\n
  2.                   It  is  further alleged in the plaint that  on
\n           coming to know that tenders submitted by the defendants
\n           1  to 3 were the highest and that they had given a very
\n           high  bid  than  the next tenderer Shri  Nalin  Bhatia,
\n           their  intention  became bad and the defendant No.3  in
\n           collusion  with the defendant No.2 raised an  objection
\n           in  respect  of tender submitted by the defendant  No.1
\n           alleging  that the said tender was not accompanied by a
\n           valid  Bank  Draft.   The defendant No.3  even  sent  a
\n           written  representation dated 26.9.1981 requesting  for
\n           rejecting the tender of the defendant No.1 and demanded
\n           that  fresh tenders be called for the sale of said car.
\n           The  plaintiff after considering the representation and
\n           objection  rejected the aforesaid representation of the
\n           defendant No.3 and accepted the highest tender offer of
\n           defendant  No.1 requiring the defendant No.1 to pay the
\n           balance  of  the  tender  price  with  octroi  duty  by
\n           26.10.1981 and take delivery of the car.  Thereafter on
\n           24.10.1981  the  defendant  No.2 withdrew  his  earnest
\n           money.   However, the defendant No.3 in collusion  with
\n           the  defendant No.1 filed suit for permanent injunction
\n           against  the plaintiff on 25.10.1981 seeking  restraint
\n           against  the plaintiff from selling the car in question
\n           to  the defendant No.1.  Initially ex-parte  injunction
\n           was  granted on 26.10.1981.  The Defendant No.1 on  the
\n           same day came to the office of the plaintiff and handed
\n           over  a letter dated 26.10.1981 and a Bank Draft in the
\n           sum  of  Rs.13,14,118\/-  for  the delivery  of  car  in
\n           question.   However,  the  car could not  be  delivered
\n           because of the aforesaid restraint order.  On receiving
\n           this letter, the defendant No.1 requested the plaintiff
\n           to return the Bank Draft.  Thereafter vide letter dated
\n           23.4.1982 the defendant No.1 sent a legal notice to the
\n           plaintiff refusing to purchase the car, terminating the
\n           contract and claiming the refund of earnest money.\n<\/p>\n
     3.                The  suit  filed  by the  defendant  No.3  was
\n           ultimately  dismissed on 3.7.1982.  After the dismissal
\n           of   the  suit,  the   plaintiff  sent  telegram  dated
\n           24.7.1982  calling  upon the defendant No.1 to pay  the
\n           balance  price of the said car and take delivery of the
\n           car  on  or  before  30.7.1982.   The  defendant  No.1,
\n           however,  refused to take the car on the ground that as
\n           the  plaintiff  could not deliver the car  earlier  the
\n           contract  had been terminated.  The defendant No.1 also
\n           filed  suit  for  recovery of  Rs.40,000\/-  being  Suit
\n           No.984\/82  which was pending in the Court of Additional
\n           District  Judge, Delhi at the time of filing the  suit.
\n           As  the  defendant  No.1 refused to take  the  car  the
\n           plaintiff  auctioned  the car again for  Rs.9,03,079\/-.\n<\/p>\n
        4.             On  summons  having  been   served  upon   the
\n           defendants,  the defendants 1 and 2 appeared and  filed
\n           their  separate  written   statements  denying  various
\n           allegations  made  in  the   plaint.   The  preliminary
\n           objection  to  the effect that suit is time  barred  is
\n           also  taken.   On the pleadings, following issues  were
\n           framed on 6.11.1995:\n<\/p>\n
                     1.   Whether   the   plaint  is   signed   and
\n                         presented  by a duly authorised person on
\n                         behalf of the plaintiff?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     2.   Whether   the  plaintiff    proves   that
\n                         defendant No.1 had offered a valid tender
\n                         for purchase of vehicle – a Mercedes Benz
\n                         300-D Sedan Car?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     3.   Whether  the  plaintiff proves  that  the
\n                         suit  No.488\/81  was filed  by  defendant
\n                         No.1 by colluding with defendant No.3?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     4.   Whether  the  notice issued by  defendant
\n                         No.1 on 23.4.1982 is illegal and invalid?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     5.   Whether  the  plaintiff proves  that  the
\n                         defendant  No.1 has committed a breach of
\n                         contract?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     6.   Whether   the  plaintiff    proves   that\n                         plaintiff   has   suffered  a   loss   of\n                         Rs.4,53,921\/-?  \n\n \n\n<\/pre>\n
                     7.   Whether  the  plaintiff  is  entitled  to
\n                         claim  and  get Rs.2,56,960\/- by  way  of
\n                         interest  for the period running  between
\n                         1.8.82 to 15.7.85?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     8.   Whether  there is any cause of action for
\n                         the plaintiff to sue defendants 1 to 3?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     9.   Whether   plaintiff’s  suit   is   within
\n                         limitation?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     10.  What  is due from the plaintiff and  from
\n                         which of the defendants?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     11.  What order and decree?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           5.          Thereafter  the  defendants stopped  appearing
\n           and  by  order  dated   8.7.1996  the  defendants  were
\n           proceeded  ex-parte.  The plaintiff has filed affidavit
\n           of  Mr.George  Verghese, Deputy Finance Manager of  the
\n           plaintiff Corporation in support of its case.\n<\/p>\n
              6.       The  central issue in this case is Issue  No.3
\n           inasmuch  as  if  the plaintiff is able to  prove  this
\n           issue   and  collusion  between   the   defendants   is
\n           established  leading to filing of Suit No.488\/81 by the
\n           defendant  No.1  in the District Court it would not  be
\n           difficult  to find answers to other issues.  We have to
\n           keep in mind that the defendants have remained ex-parte
\n           and,  therefore, there is no evidence of the defendants
\n           in support of their case.  The version of the plaintiff
\n           supported  by  an affidavit of Mr.George  Verghese  its
\n           Deputy  Finance  Manager  remains unrebutted.   He  has
\n           proved  on record through various documents the  entire
\n           tendering  process  i.e.   the submission  of  bids  by
\n           various   persons  including   the  defendants  herein;
\n           opening of tenders;  objection of defendant No.3 to the
\n           tender  submitted by defendant No.1;  turning down  the
\n           said  objection;   acceptance  of tender  of  defendant
\n           No.1,  rejection of that objection;  filing of suit  by
\n           defendant  No.3 challenging the bid of defendant  No.1;
\n           order  of  Trial  Court  in that  suit  dismissing  the
\n           injunction  application  ultimately;  communcations  to
\n           the  defendant No.1 to take the delivery of the car and
\n           on  refusal  of  the  defendant No.1  to  make  balance
\n           payment  and  take the delivery of the order;   selling
\n           the  said  car  by  fresh auction.   In  his  testimony
\n           Mr.Verghese has stated as under:\n<\/p>\n
                        2.   “That  in those days defendant  No.1
\n                      and  No.2 were almost the biggest  buyers
\n                      of cars from S.T.C.  and used to buy more
\n                      than  any  other single party in a  given
\n                      tender.     Mr.S.Srinivasan     was   the
\n                      authorised  attorney of defendants 1 & 2.
\n                      The  said Mr.Srinivasan and Mr.L.K.Bagla,
\n                      the  Karta of defendant No.2 H.U.F.  were
\n                      frequent  visitors  to the office of  the
\n                      Imported  Cars Division.  They were  also
\n                      assisted  by  others  including  Mr.Shyam
\n                      Goyal, the defendant No.3 herein who also
\n                      used  to visit STC office sometimes alone
\n                      and sometimes in company of Mr.Srinivasan
\n                      and  Mr.Bagla.   Sometimes the  defendant
\n                      No.3  also filed tenders in his own name.
\n                      All  the aforesaid three persons used  to
\n                      write  and  sign at STC office  and  also
\n                      tenders  and  other  correspondence  were
\n                      received  at my office.  I am  conversant
\n                      with  their handwriting and signature and
\n                      can identify the same”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
7. In order to prove the conspired dealing by the
\n           defendants,  the plaintiff has also produced on  record
\n           bids  submitted  by  these  defendants  in  respect  of
\n           various  other tenders issued by the plaintiff for sale
\n           of  various other cars.  Paras 7 to 9 of the testimony
\n           of  Mr.Verghese mention these aspects in the  following
\n           manner:\n<\/p>\n
                       7.   “That  Ex.PW-1\/27 to Ex.PW-1\/53  are
\n                      tenders  filed  by   defendant  No.1  for
\n                      various  cars  in   pursuance  of  tender
\n                      No.DLH\/44\/Sept-25\/81, all of them bear my
\n                      initials  and initials of Shri N.P.Dubey,
\n                      Shri  B.P.Gupta  and S.Kumar.  They  also
\n                      bears  the signatures of Shri  L.K.Bagla,
\n                      Director of defendant No.1 under the date
\n                      13.2.1986.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                       8.   That  Ex.PW-1\/54 to  Ex.PW-1\/60  are
\n                      tenders  filed  by defendant  No.2  which
\n                      bears  my  initials and initials of  Shri
\n                      N.P.Dubey  and  Shri S.Kumar.  All  these
\n                      tenders   have   been   signed  by   Shri
\n                      S.Srinivasan  attorney of defendant  No.2
\n                      which   I   identify.     Ex.PW-1\/61   to
\n                      Ex.PW-1\/63  are the tenders of  defendant
\n                      No.3  which bears his signatures which  I
\n                      identify.   They  also hear my  initials,
\n                      initials   of   Shri    N.P.Dubey,   Shri
\n                      B.P.Gupta,  FM  and of  Mr.S.Kumar.   The
\n                      endorsement  on Ex.PW-1\/61 at point X  is
\n                      in   the  hand  of  Mr.Bhupinder   Singh,
\n                      General  Manager, Delhi Branch Ex.PW-1\/64
\n                      to   Ex.PW-1\/66   are   the  letters   of
\n                      defendant  No.1 received by our office in
\n                      connection  with the payment of price  of
\n                      various  cars purchased by defendant No.1
\n                      in   the   tender  No.DLH\/44\/Sept-25\/1981
\n                      forwarding  the  bank   draft\/pay   order
\n                      mentioned  therein.   Ex.PW-1\/67  is  the
\n                      letter  from  defendant  No.2  under  the
\n                      signatures    of     Shri    S.Srinivasan
\n                      forwarding   Bank  draft\/pay   order   in
\n                      payment  of  the price of car  at  serial
\n                      number  4,31,44 & 56 of the said  tender.
\n                      It  also  bears  the   initials  of  Shri
\n                      N.P.Dubey  and  Shri  HC  Gupta  and  the
\n                      signature  of  Shri  L.K.Bagla  Karta  of
\n                      defendant No.2.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                       9.  That Ex.PW-1\/68 to Ex.PW-1\/74 are the
\n                      tenders   filed  by   defendant  No.2  in
\n                      response     to         tender     notice
\n                      No.DLH\/42\/July-29\/1981  opened  on   29th
\n                      July,1981 for various cars serial numbers
\n                      whereof are stated therein.  Each of them
\n                      is  signed by Shri S.Srinivasan  attorney
\n                      of  defendant  No.2 and is  witnessed  by
\n                      defendant    No.3.    I   identify    the
\n                      signatures  of Shri S.Srinivasan and Shri
\n                      Shyam  Goyal defendant No.3.  Each one of
\n                      the   tenders  bears  my   initials   and
\n                      initials  of Shri N.P.Dubey as members of
\n                      the  tenders  opening   Committee  having
\n                      opened the tenders on 29th July,1981″.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 8.                    As  per  the  aforesaid dealings  as  well  as
\n           circumstantial evidence in the present case may lead to
\n           the conclusion that three defendants were known to each
\n           other  and they wanted to purchase the car in question.
\n           May  be  for  this  reason   the  bid  given  by  these
\n           defendants  is  much more than the next bid of  another
\n           person.  The bid of defendant No.1 was for an amount of
\n           Rs.13,57,000\/-,  defendant  No.2  for   an  amount   of
\n           Rs.11,83,979\/-  and  defendant  No.3 for an  amount  of
\n           Rs.11,15,300\/-.   The  next bid was of  another  person
\n           Mr.Nalin   Bhatia.    It   was   for   an   amount   of
\n           Rs.9,81,501\/-.   Thus it appears that when the  tenders
\n           were  opened they found that they were paying much more
\n           price  than the bid of the highest bidder outside their
\n           “cartel”.   They  thus wanted to frustrate the  tender.
\n           First salvo was filed by M\/s.Madhu Enterprises which is
\n           sole  proprietorship concern of Mr.L.K.Bagla.  The suit
\n           was  filed  by M\/s.Madhu Enterprises alleging that  the
\n           bid should not be accepted as it had also submitted its
\n           bid  which  was  the highest bid which was not  at  all
\n           considered.   This Suit No.397\/83 was dismissed by  the
\n           Court  of Smt.Bimla Makan, Sub-Judge, IInd Class, Delhi
\n           on 27.9.83 (Ex.PW1\/25).  Then defendant No.3 challenges
\n           the   bid  of  defendant  No.1   and  sent  a   notice.
\n           Significantly  he only said in the notice that the  car
\n           be reauctioned.  If the bid submitted by defendant no.1
\n           was  not proper and defendant No.3 was challenging  the
\n           same  earnestly  the  only demand would  have  been  to
\n           accept  his  bid  who  was  the  next  highest  bidder.
\n           However, strangely he requested for reauctioning.  When
\n           his  request  was  turned down he filed  the  suit  and
\n           managed to get ex-parte injunction which was ultimately
\n           vacated  on  this very ground, namely, he had no  locus
\n           standi to challenge the bid submitted by defendant No.1
\n           when  he  was  not asking for the purchase  of  car  by
\n           himself in the alternative.  In all this game plan they
\n           played  smart because immediately after the  injunction
\n           order  dated  26.10.1981  served  upon  the  plaintiff,
\n           defendant  No.1 through Shri S.Srinivasan, Attorney  of
\n           defendant  No.1  approached the plaintiff with  a  bank
\n           draft  of  the balance consideration and requested  for
\n           delivery  of the car knowingly fully well that  because
\n           of the injunction order the plaintiff would not be in a
\n           position  to do so.  Thereafter taking advantage of the
\n           operation  of the said injunction order, defendant no.1
\n           withdrew  his  offer  to purchase the car.   There  are
\n           certain other circumstances which lead to the inference
\n           that there was collusion between the defendants:  These
\n           are:\n<\/p>\n
                     (a)  The  moneys  of   defendant  No.1\/2  were
\n           utilized by defendant No.3.\n<\/p>\n
                     (b)  Ex.PW.1\/63  which is tender of  defendant
\n           No.3 for car at S.No.23 mentions draft No.696749\/49 has
\n           been mentioned.  Defendant No.3 was unsuccessful bidder
\n           and  draft which was really given by defendants 1 and 2
\n           was  utilized by defendant No.1 in purchase of the  car
\n           at S.No.3.\n<\/p>\n
 (c)  Ex.PW.1\/2  is a tender of defendant  No.1
\n           for  the  said  car.  It mentions the  draft  No.696712
\n           which  is scored out and in its place draft  Nos.031205
\n           and  031206 of Rs.20,000\/- each are added in its place.
\n           This  draft  No.696712 has been used by defendant  No.3
\n           for his tender for the said Mercedeze Benz Car.\n<\/p>\n
                     (d)  PW.1\/40 is the tender of defendant  No.1.
\n           Also  this draft No.051207\/357 is scored of and in  its
\n           place   draft  No.695796  is   written.    This   draft
\n           051207\/357  is used by defendant No.3 in Ex.PW.1\/61  as
\n           earnest money for car at serial No.56.\n<\/p>\n
                     (e)  Beside  Ex.PW.1\/61  which  is  tender  of
\n           defendant   No.3  in  which   draft  No.696748\/48   and
\n           051207\/357  of Rs.20,000\/- each have been given by  way
\n           of earnest money for car at S.No.56.  As defendant No.3
\n           was unsuccessful bidder and offer of defendant No.2 was
\n           accepted  for  the said car, the said two drafts  which
\n           were  the  property  of  defendants  No.1  and  2  were
\n           utilized  by defendant No.2 for the purchase of cars at
\n           Serial No.4, 31,44 and 56 (Ex.PW.1\/67).\n<\/p>\n
    9.                 In view of the aforesaid documents produced on
\n           record  supported  by uncontroverter testimony  of  the
\n           plaintiff’s  witness and in the absence of any evidence
\n           produced  by the defendants, it stands established that
\n           Suit No.488\/81 was filed by defendant No.1 in collusion
\n           with  defendant  No.3.\n<\/p>\n
       10.              In  view of this finding, it is not  difficult
\n           to  unfold  the  events and to  reach  the  conclusion,
\n           namely, the defendant No.1 did not want to purchase the
\n           car  at  such a high price mentioned by him in his  bid
\n           and,  therefore,  in  order to wriggle  out  from  this
\n           obligation  everything  was  managed.    Thus  by   not
\n           purchasing   the  car  in   question,  defendant   No.1
\n           committed  breach  of  the contract  which  forced  the
\n           plaintiff to reauction the said car.  The plaintiff has
\n           produced  the  documents  showing   that  the  car  was
\n           reauctioned  for a sum of Rs.9,03,197\/- and in this way
\n           it suffered a loss of Rs.4,53,921\/- than the offer made
\n           by  defendant  No.1.  The defendant No.1 would thus  be
\n           liable  to  make  good  this   loss  suffered  by   the
\n           plaintiff.   The defendant No.1 had given earnest money
\n           of  Rs.40,000\/-.   It may be pointed out at this  stage
\n           that defendant No.1 had filed this suit for recovery of
\n           this  amount  alleging  that  the money  could  not  be
\n           forfeited.   This suit, being Suit No.2992\/88 was filed
\n           in  the  District Court which was transferred  to  this
\n           court  and ultimately dismissed in default by order  of
\n           this  Court  on  21.3.1990.  After adjustment  of  this
\n           amount,  the  plaintiff shall be entitled to recover  a
\n           sum of Rs.4,13,921\/- from the defendant No.1.\n<\/p>\n
            11.         After  recording  the aforesaid conclusion  on
\n           the  main  issue,  it would be  appropriate  to  record
\n           issuewise findings.  I proceed to do so now:\n<\/p>\n
                     Issue   No.1.   The  plaint   is   signed   by
\n           Mr.S.Dayal,   Marketing  Manager  of   the   plaintiff.
\n           Ex.PW1\/84  is the delegation of powers of the plaintiff
\n           company,  which  authorised Marketing Managers to  sign
\n           and  verify the plaint.  Under the heading, signing and
\n           verification  of legal documents, it is stated that the
\n           Chairman,  any Executive Director, any Group Executive,
\n           Chief  Engineer,  Chief Finance Manager  and  Marketing
\n           Manager,  any  Finance  Manager, Chief  Legal  Advisor,
\n           Legal  Advisor, Deputy Legal Advisor are authorised and
\n           empowered  on  behalf of State Trading  Corporation  to
\n           sign,  verify,  declare  and   affirm  plaint,  written
\n           statement,  memorandum  of appeal or  other  pleadings,
\n           vakalatnama,  affidavit and miscellaneous applications.
\n           It  is further mentioned that the officers mentioned in
\n           para-1 shall for the purpose of CPC be deemed to be the
\n           principle  officers  of the State Trading  Corporation.
\n           Hence  the  suit  has been signed and  verified  by  an
\n           authorised person.  Therefore, issue no.1 is decided in
\n           favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants.\n<\/p>\n
                     Issue  No.2.  In fact the defendant No.1 never
\n           challenged  that it had not given a valid tender.   Its
\n           tender  was challenged by defendant No.3 for which suit
\n           was  filed and the same was dismissed.  In view thereof
\n           this  issue does not even survive.  Be that as it  may,
\n           insofar  as the plaintiff is concerned it has proved on
\n           record  that  tender  was submitted by  defendant  No.1
\n           along  with earnest money.  The tender was  accompanied
\n           by  a  demand  draft payable at Madras.  It was  not  a
\n           pay-order  and thus did not require to be made  payable
\n           in  Delhi  or  New Delhi.  In any  case,  as  mentioned
\n           above,  the  defendant  No.1 had  itself  accepted  the
\n           tender  as  a valid tender.  This issue is  decided  in
\n           favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants.\n<\/p>\n
                     Issue   Nos.3  &  4.   In  view  of   detailed
\n           discussion above, these issues are decided in favor of
\n           the  plaintiff and against the defendants.  It is  held
\n           that  the suit No.488\/81 was filed by defendant No.1 in
\n           collusion  with  defendant No.3.  Therefore, notice  of
\n           defendant  No.1  dated 23.4.1982 withdrawing  from  the
\n           tender  was not valid notice.  Moreover insofar as  bid
\n           of  defendant No.1 is concerned the same was admittedly
\n           accepted  by the plaintiff and thus a valid enforceable
\n           contract  came into existence.  If the plaintiff  could
\n           not  deliver  the  car earlier it was  because  of  the
\n           injunction  order  issued by the Court.  The  Defendant
\n           No.1 was also a party in the Suit No.488\/81 and had not
\n           only  in the knowledge of the injunction order, it  was
\n           equally  bound  by  the said  injunction  order.   This
\n           injunction  order  dated 26.10.1981 was vacated by  the
\n           Court  only  on 3.7.1982.  Immediately  thereafter  the
\n           plaintiff offered to deliver the car to defendant no.1.
\n           During  the currency of the aforesaid injunction order,
\n           defendant  No.1  sought to withdraw the bid  by  letter
\n           dated  23.4.1982  which  was, therefore,  not  a  valid
\n           action  of  the  defendant   No.1.   These  issues  are
\n           accordingly  decided  in  favor of the  plaintiff  and
\n           against the defendants.\n<\/p>\n
                     Issue  Nos.5,6,8  &  10.    When  a  concluded
\n           contract  stands  proved  between   the  plaintiff  and
\n           defendant No.1 and it also stands proved that defendant
\n           No.1  wrongly refused to accept the delivery of the car
\n           and  to  pay balance amount after the vacation  of  the
\n           injunction  order,  it  is clear  that  defendant  No.1
\n           committed  breach of the contract.  As already recorded
\n           above, the plaintiff has been able to prove the loss of
\n           Rs.4,53,921\/-.  Since there is a breach of the contract
\n           because  of  which the plaintiff suffered loss,  it  is
\n           held  that  the plaintiff has a cause of action to  sue
\n           defendants  1 to 3.  Issue Nos.5,6,8 & 10 are therefore
\n           decided  in  favor  of the plaintiff and  against  the
\n           defendants.   Since  breach is committed  by  defendant
\n           No.1  and the beneficiary of the collusion is defendant
\n           No.1,  it is defendant No.1 who would be liable to  pay
\n           the amount in question.\n<\/p>\n
                     Issue No.7.  The plaintiff has suffered a loss
\n           of Rs.4,13,921\/-.  In normal course the car was offered
\n           for  delivery on 30.7.1982 when the defendant No.1  had
\n           refused to take delivery of the car and pay the balance
\n           consideration.   The car was reauctioned on  1.10.1982.
\n           The plaintiff has calculated interest on Rs.4,13,921\/-.
\n           It  would  be  entitled  to  interest  thereon   w.e.f.
\n           1.10.1982  when  it  received Lesser  consideration  on
\n           re-sale  of the car and suffered loss of  Rs.4,13,921\/-
\n           on  that  date.  However, the claim of interest at  the
\n           rate  of 21% appears to be excessive.  Interest at  the
\n           rate  of  11%  is granted for the period  1.10.1982  to
\n           15.7.1985.  This issue is decided accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
                     Issue  No.9.   As mentioned  above,  defendant
\n           No.1  refused  to  take  the delivery  of  the  car  on
\n           30.7.1982.   Thereafter the car was sold to some  other
\n           person  on  1.10.1982  on that date when the  loss  was
\n           ascertained the plaintiff would have cause of action to
\n           file  the suit.  The suit is filed on 15.7.1985.   Thus
\n           even if the limitation is taken from 30.7.1982 when the
\n           defendant  No.1 committed breach by refusing to  accept
\n           the  car  the suit is within the period of  limitation.
\n           This  issue  is decided in favor of the plaintiff  and
\n           against the defendants.\n<\/p>\n
                     Issue No.11.\n<\/p>\n
                 12.    The result of the aforesaid discussion is that
\n           suit  is  decreed in the sum of Rs.4,13,921 along  with
\n           interest  at  the  rate  of 12%  w.e.f.   1.10.1982  to
\n           15.7.1985  against  the  defendant   No.1  only.    The
\n           plaintiff  shall also be entitled to pendente lite  and
\n           future interest at the rate of 12% p.a..  The plaintiff
\n           shall also be entitled to costs.  Decree sheet be drawn
\n           accordingly.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court State Trading Corporation Of … vs Madhu Enterprises Ltd. And Ors. on 19 November, 2001 Equivalent citations: 2002 IIAD Delhi 836 Author: A Sikri Bench: A Sikri JUDGMENT A.K. Sikri, J. 1. The plaintiff in the instant case is State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. which is a company registered under the […]<\/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-50685","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nState Trading Corporation Of ... vs Madhu Enterprises Ltd. And Ors. on 19 November, 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\/state-trading-corporation-of-vs-madhu-enterprises-ltd-and-ors-on-19-november-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Trading Corporation Of ... vs Madhu Enterprises Ltd. And Ors. on 19 November, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-trading-corporation-of-vs-madhu-enterprises-ltd-and-ors-on-19-november-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=\"2001-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-25T00:55:18+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\\\/state-trading-corporation-of-vs-madhu-enterprises-ltd-and-ors-on-19-november-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-trading-corporation-of-vs-madhu-enterprises-ltd-and-ors-on-19-november-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Trading Corporation Of … vs Madhu Enterprises Ltd. And Ors. on 19 November, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-25T00:55:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-trading-corporation-of-vs-madhu-enterprises-ltd-and-ors-on-19-november-2001\"},\"wordCount\":3590,\"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\\\/state-trading-corporation-of-vs-madhu-enterprises-ltd-and-ors-on-19-november-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-trading-corporation-of-vs-madhu-enterprises-ltd-and-ors-on-19-november-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-trading-corporation-of-vs-madhu-enterprises-ltd-and-ors-on-19-november-2001\",\"name\":\"State Trading Corporation Of ... vs Madhu Enterprises Ltd. And Ors. on 19 November, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-25T00:55:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-trading-corporation-of-vs-madhu-enterprises-ltd-and-ors-on-19-november-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-trading-corporation-of-vs-madhu-enterprises-ltd-and-ors-on-19-november-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-trading-corporation-of-vs-madhu-enterprises-ltd-and-ors-on-19-november-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Trading Corporation Of … vs Madhu Enterprises Ltd. And Ors. on 19 November, 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":"State Trading Corporation Of ... vs Madhu Enterprises Ltd. And Ors. on 19 November, 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\/state-trading-corporation-of-vs-madhu-enterprises-ltd-and-ors-on-19-november-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Trading Corporation Of ... vs Madhu Enterprises Ltd. And Ors. on 19 November, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-trading-corporation-of-vs-madhu-enterprises-ltd-and-ors-on-19-november-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-25T00:55:18+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\/state-trading-corporation-of-vs-madhu-enterprises-ltd-and-ors-on-19-november-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-trading-corporation-of-vs-madhu-enterprises-ltd-and-ors-on-19-november-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Trading Corporation Of … vs Madhu Enterprises Ltd. And Ors. on 19 November, 2001","datePublished":"2001-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-25T00:55:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-trading-corporation-of-vs-madhu-enterprises-ltd-and-ors-on-19-november-2001"},"wordCount":3590,"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\/state-trading-corporation-of-vs-madhu-enterprises-ltd-and-ors-on-19-november-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-trading-corporation-of-vs-madhu-enterprises-ltd-and-ors-on-19-november-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-trading-corporation-of-vs-madhu-enterprises-ltd-and-ors-on-19-november-2001","name":"State Trading Corporation Of ... vs Madhu Enterprises Ltd. And Ors. on 19 November, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-25T00:55:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-trading-corporation-of-vs-madhu-enterprises-ltd-and-ors-on-19-november-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-trading-corporation-of-vs-madhu-enterprises-ltd-and-ors-on-19-november-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-trading-corporation-of-vs-madhu-enterprises-ltd-and-ors-on-19-november-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Trading Corporation Of … vs Madhu Enterprises Ltd. And Ors. on 19 November, 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\/50685","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=50685"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50685\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=50685"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=50685"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=50685"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}