{"id":61072,"date":"2002-03-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-03-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ushamil-private-ltd-vs-gimplex-limited-on-15-march-2002"},"modified":"2017-10-07T14:54:36","modified_gmt":"2017-10-07T09:24:36","slug":"ushamil-private-ltd-vs-gimplex-limited-on-15-march-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ushamil-private-ltd-vs-gimplex-limited-on-15-march-2002","title":{"rendered":"Ushamil Private Ltd. vs Gimplex Limited on 15 March, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Delhi High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Ushamil Private Ltd. vs Gimplex Limited on 15 March, 2002<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 2002 IVAD Delhi 111, 2002 (64) DRJ 358<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: J Kapoor<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: J Kapoor<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>  J.D. Kapoor, J. <\/p>\n<p>1.This is a petition under Section 20 of the<br \/>\nArbitration Act, 1940 seeking directions to the respondent<br \/>\nto file arbitration agreement dated 20.8.1994 and refer<br \/>\nthe disputes to the arbitrator.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. Short question that calls for determination is<br \/>\nas to which court namely Delhi Court or Madras Court has<br \/>\njurisdiction. Petitioner has placed reliance upon letter<br \/>\ndated 4.11.1993 wherein Clause 12 relating to jurisdiction<br \/>\nis as under:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;This offer is subject to jurisdiction<br \/>\nof Courts of Delhi\/New Delhi.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>3. However this offer was accepted by respondent on<br \/>\n9.11.1993 without reservation . Admittedly work was<br \/>\ncommenced by the petitioner in November 1993 itself.\n<\/p>\n<p>4. On the other hand, the respondent is invoking<br \/>\nclause 16 pertaining to jurisdiction contained in the<br \/>\nletter of acceptance forwarded on August 20, 1994. This<br \/>\nclause reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n<p>16. JURISDICTION: This order is<br \/>\nsubject to jurisdiction of the Courts of<br \/>\nMadras.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>5. It is in this letter of acceptance that the<br \/>\narbitration Clause 15 was included.\n<\/p>\n<p>6. It is settled law that the communications<br \/>\nexchanged between the parties at the stage of negotiation<br \/>\nbecome irrelevant once the parties enter into final<br \/>\nwritten agreement which becomes binding and concluding<br \/>\nagreement.\n<\/p>\n<p>7. As is apparent form the clauses of the letters<br \/>\ndated 4.11.1993 and 20.8.1994, no exclusivity has been<br \/>\nattached to the jurisdiction of the courts. It is the<br \/>\nfinal agreement which is binding upon the parties. The<br \/>\npetitioner is invoking Clause 15 of the final agreement.<br \/>\nIn the letter of offer, there was no clause of<br \/>\narbitration. Similarly letter dated 9.11.1993 was silent<br \/>\nfor arbitration.\n<\/p>\n<p>8. On the one hand, petitioner is invoking clause<br \/>\n15 of the agreement dated 20.8.1994 whereas on the other<br \/>\nhand he has placed reliance upon Clause 12 of the letter<br \/>\nsent by him. Such a course is not open to the petitioner.<br \/>\nEither he has to rely entirely upon letter of offer sent&#8217;<br \/>\non 4.11.1993 and the letter dated 9.11.1993 received by<br \/>\nhim which according to the petitioner is the letter of<br \/>\nacceptance or he has to rely upon final agreement<br \/>\nconcluded between the parties. In the letter of offer,<br \/>\nthere was no arbitration clause. It is the final<br \/>\nagreement between the parties which contained arbitration<br \/>\nclause and therefore Clause 16 of the final agreement has<br \/>\nto be given effect to as far as question of jurisdiction<br \/>\nis concerned.\n<\/p>\n<p>9. Now arises the question whether Clause 16 has<br \/>\nelement of exclusivity or not.\n<\/p>\n<p>10. Wherever there is ouster clause, it has to be<br \/>\nclear, unambiguous and specific as various causes of<br \/>\naction arise in matter of contracts. For instance cause<br \/>\nof action may arise where contract is made or where it<br \/>\nshould heave been performed or where its breach occurred.<br \/>\nThe nature of contract may provide jurisdiction to more<br \/>\nthan one courts but if the parties agree to vest<br \/>\njurisdiction in one of the courts, such an agreement<br \/>\nbetween the parties is neither against public policy nor<br \/>\nagainst the provisions of procedural code governing the<br \/>\njurisdiction of courts vis-a-vis causes of action.\n<\/p>\n<p>11. According to Mr.Sanjeev Puri, learned counsel<br \/>\nfor the petitioner Clause 16 of the agreement does not<br \/>\nhave element or ingredient of exclusiveness as the word<br \/>\n&#8216;alone&#8217; is missing where courts of Madras have been vested<br \/>\nwith the jurisdiction. Mr. Puri has placed reliance upon<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/997135\/\">A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. A.P. Agencies,<br \/>\nSalem<\/a>  wherein a view was taken that where<br \/>\nthe clause under which it is claimed that there is ouster<br \/>\nof jurisdiction of courts only stated that any dispute<br \/>\narising out of sale would be subject to jurisdiction of<br \/>\nCourt within whose jurisdiction order was placed but there<br \/>\nwere no words like &#8216;exclusive&#8217;, &#8216;alone&#8217; and the like,<br \/>\nother jurisdictions having connecting factors were not<br \/>\nclearly, unambiguously and explicitly excluded. The above.<br \/>\nratio was handed down in view of clause 11 of the<br \/>\nagreement which was as under:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Any dispute arising out of this sale<br \/>\nshall be subject to kaira jurisdiction.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>12. It was observed that when the Court has to<br \/>\ndecide the question of jurisdiction pursuant to an ouster<br \/>\nclause it is necessary to construe the ousting expression<br \/>\nor clause properly. Often the stipulation is that the<br \/>\ncontract shall be deemed to have been made at a particular<br \/>\nplace. This would provide the connecting factor for<br \/>\njurisdiction to the Courts of that place in the matter of<br \/>\nany dispute on or arising out of that contract and<br \/>\ntherefore it would ipso facto take away jurisdiction of<br \/>\nthe courts. Where an ouster clause occurs, it is<br \/>\npertinent to see whether there is ouster of jurisdiction<br \/>\nof other courts. The difficulty arises where the words<br \/>\n&#8216;alone&#8217;, &#8216;only&#8217;, &#8216;exclusive&#8217; and the like are not used.<br \/>\nIt was observed that even without such words in<br \/>\nappropriate cases the maxim &#8216;expressio unius est exlusio<br \/>\nalterius&#8217; i.e. expression of one is the exclusion of<br \/>\nanother is applicable.\n<\/p>\n<p>13. Where there are two or more competent courts<br \/>\nwhich can entertain a suit consequent upon a part of the<br \/>\ncause of action having arisen but if the parties to the<br \/>\ncontract agree to vest jurisdiction in one such court to<br \/>\ntry the dispute which might arise between themselves the<br \/>\nagreement would be valid and if such a contract is clear,<br \/>\nunambiguous and explicit and not vague, it is not hit by<br \/>\nSection 23 &amp; 28 of the Contract Act. This is so because<br \/>\nof commercial practices and the mercantile law, otherwise,<br \/>\nthe salutary principle is that the parties cannot confer<br \/>\njurisdiction even with consent.\n<\/p>\n<p>14. Coming to the facts of the case in hand,<br \/>\nambiguity has crept firstly in the letter of offer dated<br \/>\n4.11.1993 whereby jurisdiction of courts other than New<br \/>\nDelhi was ousted. The said offer was accepted<br \/>\nunequivocally and without any reservation. However, while<br \/>\nentering into agreement wherein arbitration clause was<br \/>\nthere and that too when the petitioner had commenced work<br \/>\nand started executing the work on the presumption that the<br \/>\njurisdiction of courts of Delhi\/New Delhi would be<br \/>\ninvocable that clause 16 was introduced in the letter<br \/>\ndated 20th August, 1994 vesting the jurisdiction in courts<br \/>\nat Madras. Another relevant factor is that the contract<br \/>\nwas to be performed at Delhi; so much so application<br \/>\nunder Section 20 of the Act was also moved at earlier<br \/>\npoint of time at Delhi. Since both the clauses do not<br \/>\nhave element or ingredient of exclusivity so the courts of<br \/>\nDelhi and courts of Madras have jurisdiction. At the time<br \/>\nof commencement of negotiations, the petitioner laboured<br \/>\nunder the belief that the courts at Delhi would have<br \/>\njurisdiction but after eight months, a letter was<br \/>\ndispatched by the respondent wherein it was mentioned that<br \/>\nthe order was subject to jurisdiction of the courts at<br \/>\nMadras. In situation like this the factor as to the place<br \/>\nwhere the contract is to be performed and where breach<br \/>\noccurs becomes more significant and determining factor.\n<\/p>\n<p>15. Taking overall view of the conspectus of facts<br \/>\nas referred above particularly the place of performance of<br \/>\ncontract and the letter of acceptance of offer given in<br \/>\nthe letter dated November 1994, the petitioner cannot be<br \/>\nput to hardship or jeopardy by submitting to the<br \/>\njurisdiction of Madras courts.\n<\/p>\n<p>16. Apart form this, Sub-section (4) of Section 31<br \/>\nspecifically provides that where in any reference, any<br \/>\napplication under this Act has been made in a Court<br \/>\ncompetent to entertain it, that court alone shall have<br \/>\njurisdiction over the arbitration proceedings and all<br \/>\nsubsequent applications arising out of that reference, and<br \/>\nthe arbitration proceedings shall be made in that court<br \/>\nand in no other court. The words &#8220;competent to entertain&#8221;<br \/>\nhas great significance and encompass in their fold all<br \/>\nthose courts in whose jurisdiction whole or part of cause<br \/>\nof action arises. Since the instant application was filed<br \/>\nmuch earlier than the one filed by the respondent, the<br \/>\npetitioner has to be given the benefit of Sub-section (4)<br \/>\nof Section 31 of Arbitration Act, 1940 besides other<br \/>\nfactors.\n<\/p>\n<p>17. Foregoing reasons pursuance me to allow the<br \/>\npetition. Mr.Justice C.L. Chaudhary, a retired Judge of<br \/>\nthis court is appointed as Arbitrator. The learned<br \/>\nArbitrator shall fix his own fee. The parties shall<br \/>\nappear before the learned Arbitrator on 30th April, 2002.\n<\/p>\n<p>18 Copy of this order along with relevant record be<br \/>\nsent to the learned Arbitrator.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court Ushamil Private Ltd. vs Gimplex Limited on 15 March, 2002 Equivalent citations: 2002 IVAD Delhi 111, 2002 (64) DRJ 358 Author: J Kapoor Bench: J Kapoor JUDGMENT J.D. Kapoor, J. 1.This is a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 seeking directions to the respondent to file arbitration agreement dated [&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-61072","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>Ushamil Private Ltd. vs Gimplex Limited on 15 March, 2002 - 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\/ushamil-private-ltd-vs-gimplex-limited-on-15-march-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ushamil Private Ltd. vs Gimplex Limited on 15 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ushamil-private-ltd-vs-gimplex-limited-on-15-march-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-03-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-07T09:24:36+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ushamil-private-ltd-vs-gimplex-limited-on-15-march-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ushamil-private-ltd-vs-gimplex-limited-on-15-march-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ushamil Private Ltd. vs Gimplex Limited on 15 March, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-03-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-07T09:24:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ushamil-private-ltd-vs-gimplex-limited-on-15-march-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1364,\"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\\\/ushamil-private-ltd-vs-gimplex-limited-on-15-march-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ushamil-private-ltd-vs-gimplex-limited-on-15-march-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ushamil-private-ltd-vs-gimplex-limited-on-15-march-2002\",\"name\":\"Ushamil Private Ltd. vs Gimplex Limited on 15 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-03-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-07T09:24:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ushamil-private-ltd-vs-gimplex-limited-on-15-march-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ushamil-private-ltd-vs-gimplex-limited-on-15-march-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ushamil-private-ltd-vs-gimplex-limited-on-15-march-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ushamil Private Ltd. vs Gimplex Limited on 15 March, 2002\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ushamil Private Ltd. vs Gimplex Limited on 15 March, 2002 - 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\/ushamil-private-ltd-vs-gimplex-limited-on-15-march-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ushamil Private Ltd. vs Gimplex Limited on 15 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ushamil-private-ltd-vs-gimplex-limited-on-15-march-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-03-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-07T09:24:36+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ushamil-private-ltd-vs-gimplex-limited-on-15-march-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ushamil-private-ltd-vs-gimplex-limited-on-15-march-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ushamil Private Ltd. vs Gimplex Limited on 15 March, 2002","datePublished":"2002-03-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-07T09:24:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ushamil-private-ltd-vs-gimplex-limited-on-15-march-2002"},"wordCount":1364,"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\/ushamil-private-ltd-vs-gimplex-limited-on-15-march-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ushamil-private-ltd-vs-gimplex-limited-on-15-march-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ushamil-private-ltd-vs-gimplex-limited-on-15-march-2002","name":"Ushamil Private Ltd. vs Gimplex Limited on 15 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-03-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-07T09:24:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ushamil-private-ltd-vs-gimplex-limited-on-15-march-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ushamil-private-ltd-vs-gimplex-limited-on-15-march-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ushamil-private-ltd-vs-gimplex-limited-on-15-march-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ushamil Private Ltd. vs Gimplex Limited on 15 March, 2002"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/61072","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=61072"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/61072\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=61072"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=61072"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=61072"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}