{"id":79959,"date":"2001-12-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-12-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/priya-holdings-co-p-ltd-vs-auto-general-engineering-co-on-19-december-2001"},"modified":"2017-02-04T05:41:38","modified_gmt":"2017-02-04T00:11:38","slug":"priya-holdings-co-p-ltd-vs-auto-general-engineering-co-on-19-december-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/priya-holdings-co-p-ltd-vs-auto-general-engineering-co-on-19-december-2001","title":{"rendered":"Priya Holdings Co. (P) Ltd. vs Auto General Engineering Co. on 19 December, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Priya Holdings Co. (P) Ltd. vs Auto General Engineering Co. on 19 December, 2001<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 2002 IIIAD Delhi 848, 2002 (2) RAJ 367<\/div>\n
Author: V Aggarwal.<\/div>\n
Bench: V Aggarwal<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
V.S. Aggarwal. J.<\/p>\n
1. In pursuance of the arbitrator having filed the
\naward and the proceedings notices had been issued to
\nthe parties. Objections have been preferred by the
\nobjector (Auto General Engineering co.) which are
\nbeing contested.\n<\/p>\n
2. The relevant facts are that on 29th September,
\n1983 an agreement was entered into between the
\nparties. The objector entered into an agreement for
\nsale with the applicant (Priya Holdings Pvt. Ltd.)
\nfor sale of the total recoveries of the ship CAPT
\nCOASTAS E. Material terms of the agreement were:-\n<\/p>\n
“That the material terms and conditions of
\nthe Agreement are set out hereinafter :-\n<\/p>\n
(i) Liability to pay customs duty was that of
\nthe objector;\n<\/p>\n
(ii) The objector was to give irrevocable
\nauthority to a sister concern of the
\npetitioner, namely, M\/s Hindustan Ship
\nBreakers (hereinafter referred to as
\n‘Hindustan’), enabling it to take deliveries
\nof the scrap of ship breaking;\n<\/p>\n
(iii) The liability of payment of sales-tax
\nand other levies and charges, if nay, on the
\nscrap of the ship was exclusively of the
\npetitioner;\n<\/p>\n
(iv) The consideration for selling the entire
\nscrap and any other material whatsoever of
\nthe ship was Rs. 62,00,000\/-. of which
\nRs. 6,00,000\/- was paid on signing of the
\nAgreement, Rs. 46,00,000\/- (Rupees Forty six
\nlacs only) was payable on the starting of the
\ndismantling work; and the balance sum of
\nRs. 10,00,000\/- was payable within 90 days
\nfrom the start of dismantling work. For the
\nsaid sum of Rs. 10,00,000\/- the petitioner was
\nto establish an unconditional irremovable and
\nwithout Recourse Internal Letter of
\nCredit\/Letter of Guarantee to the benefit of
\nthe objector through a Schedule Bank.”\n<\/p>\n
3. Shri B K Gupta had signed the agreement on
\nbehalf of the applicant because Hindustan was sister
\nconcern of the applicant. In pursuance of the
\nagreement the following considerations had been paid:\n<\/p>\n
(i) Rs. 6,00,000\/- by cheque dated 29.9.1983
\ndrawn on Corporation Bank;\n<\/p>\n
(ii) Rs. 45,00,000\/- by Demand Draft dated
\n7.11.1983 drawn on Corporation Bank;\n<\/p>\n
(iii) Rs. 10,77,500\/- by Cheque dated
\n7.11.1983 drawn Corporation Bank.\n<\/p>\n
4. The case of the complainant was that
\nrespondent had prepared a number of invoices for sale
\nof the recoveries of the ship. It was necessary to
\nprepare such invoices because the sale of the
\nrecoveries was subject to payment of sales tax in the
\nState of Gujarat. The rate of the sales tax depending on
\nthe type of scrap sold. One of the invoices dated
\n29th December, 1983 was with respect to the crane in
\nquestion. It was described as one number mobile crane
\npowered by internal combustion engine. The price of
\nthe crane was appearing from the invoice to be
\nRs. 9,70,720\/-. The sales tax was 7% “C” Tax was 3%
\nand surcharge 1% bringing the total to Rs. 10,77,500\/-.
\nThe claimant is alleged to have paid the said amount
\nvide cheque of 7th November, 1983. The claimants
\nassertions was that it did not get the possession of
\nthe crane because it was detained by the custom
\nauthorities. The respondent had declared the value of
\nthe crane to be only Rs. 50,000\/-. The crane was
\nstated to have still not been cleared. The applicant
\nclaimed Rs. 10,77,500\/- as the price of the crane with
\ninterest.\n<\/p>\n
5. As is apparent from the award, claim and the
\npleadings the respondents plea was that single
\nindivisible consideration for sale of Rs. 62 lakhs,
\npricing of parts of recoveries separately was
\ncommercially not feasible and physically impossible.
\nOnly one invoice was issued which was the one annexed
\nin the counter statement. All other invoices in the
\nstatement of claim of he claimant were alleged to be
\nfalse. It was pleaded that payment of sales tax is
\nthe germane in the context of the dispute. Regarding
\nthe sum of Rs. 10,77,500\/- purported to have been paid
\nby cheque respondents assertion was that on payment of
\nRs. 6 lakh on 29th September, 1983 and further sum of
\nRs. 45 lakhs on 7th November, 1983 there was a balance
\nof Rs. 11 lakhs. The claimant offered to pay the
\nbalance amount of Rs. 11 lakhs much prior to the
\nstipulated dated provided a discount of Rs. 22,500\/- was
\ngiven. It was accepted and therefore the payment of
\nRs. 10,77,500\/- was made.\n<\/p>\n
6. The learned arbitrator had gone into the
\nmaterial on the record and concluded that claimant is
\nentitled to recover from the objector a sum of
\nRs. 10,77,500\/-. Keeping in view the decision of the
\nSupreme Court in the  case of  Executive Engineer
\nIrrigation v. Abaaduta Jena<\/a> 1987(2) SCALE 675 ***
\nthe interest as such had not been awarded.\n<\/p>\n
7. Objections as such have been filed alleging
\nthat the applicant at all time knew that the dispute
\nraised by the custom authorities was that crane was
\nnot required for operation of the ship as per
\nconditions laid down in various Import Trade Control
\nRegulations and Circulars. The applicant knew that
\nthere was no question of mis declaration of the true
\nvalue of the ship. It was further alleged that the
\napplicant did not produce Shri Vijay Prakash Garg who
\nwas the Assistant Branch Manager of the objector. He
\nwas not produced and adverse inferences could well
\nhave been drawn. Even Shri B K Gupta of Hindustan was
\nnot examined. It is reiterated in the form of
\nobjections that it was a single indivisible contract
\nand consideration was Rs. 62 lakhs. Ship CAPT COSTAS
\nE given, the arbitrator is alleged to have ignored the
\nmaterial evidence i.e. the letter of the applicant
\ndated 8th June, 1984 being the notice issued to the
\nobjector claiming Rs. 16,99,500\/- which clearly stated
\nin great details particulars of the disputes between
\nthe parties. From the said document it is patent that
\nthe claim of the applicant\/claimants could not
\nsucceed. Furthermore it is asserted that the
\narbitrator was in error in concluding that the
\nobjector could have raised the objections regarding
\nthe invoice being forged in the High Court. It has
\nbeen pointed that the said invoice in controversy has
\nnot been produced and that the arbitrator was totally
\nin error in concluding that Rs. 10,77,500\/- was due.
\nIn the reply filed the contentions of the objector
\nhave been controverter.\n<\/p>\n
8. The short question as already referred to
\nabove is as to whether the award is liable to be set
\naside in terms that the findings of the arbitrator are
\nerroneous. The principle of law in this regard are
\nnot much in controversy. Reference can well be made
\nto some of the precedents on the subject. A Division
\nBench of this court had considered this question in
\nthe case of  Delhi Development Authority v.
\nAlkaram, New Delhi AIR<\/a> 1982 Delhi 364. It was
\nreiterated that the arbitrator is the final Judge of
\nfact. The court is bound by the findings of fact and
\ncannot review the same unless they are totally not
\nsupported by evidence or there was no evidence in
\nsupport of the findings. It is not open to the court
\nto examine the adequacy of evidence which led the
\narbitrator to record his findings. The error must be
\napparent on the face of the record.\n<\/p>\n
9. In the case of  Associated Engineering Co.
\nv. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh  Supreme
\nCourt<\/a> was also concerned with the question as to what
\nwould be an error apparent on the face of the record.\n<\/p>\n
10. The Supreme Court in this regard after
\nscanning through various precedents on the subject
\nalso held that :\n<\/p>\n
 “If the arbitrator commits an error in the
\nconstruction of the contract, that is an
\nerror within his jurisdiction. But if he
\nwanders outside the contract and deals with
\nmatters not allotted to him, he commits a
\njurisdictional error. Such error going to
\nhis jurisdiction can be established by
\nlooking into material outside the award.
\nExtrinsic evidence is admissible in such
\ncases because the dispute is not something
\nwhich arises under or in relation to the
\ncontract or dependent on the construction of
\nthe contract or to be determined within the
\naward. The dispute as to jurisdiction is a
\nmatter which is outside the award or outside
\nwhatever may be said about it in the award.
\nThe ambiguity of the award can, in such
\ncases, be resolved by admitting extrinsic
\nevidence. The rationale of this rule is that
\nthe nature of the dispute is something which
\nhas to be determined outside and independent
\nof what appears in the award. Such
\njurisdictional error needs to be proved by
\nevidence extrinsic to the award.”\n<\/p>\n
11. Yet in another decision rendered in the  case
\nof  Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. J C Budharaja.
\nGovernment and Mining Contractor<\/a> .\n<\/p>\n
The same principle of law was reiterated and was  held:\n<\/p>\n
“Further, the Arbitration Act does not give
\nany power to the arbitrator to act
\narbitrarily or capriciously. His existence
\ndepends upon the agreement and his function
\nis to act within the limits of the said
\nagreement. In continental Construction Col
\nLtd. v. State of MP this court considered
\nthe clauses of the contract which stipulated
\nthat the contractor had to compete charges
\nat the rates stipulated in the contract
\nDespite this, the arbitrator partly allowed
\nthe contractor’s claim. That was set aside
\nby the court and the appeal filed against
\nthat was dismissed by this court by holding
\nthat it was jot open to the contractor to
\nclaim extra costs towards raise in prices of
\nmaterial and labour and that the arbitrator
\nmisconducted himself in not deciding the
\nspecific objection regarding the legality of
\nthe extra claim. In that case the court
\nreferred to the various decisions and
\nsuccinctly observed: (SCC p. 88, para 5)<\/p>\n
“If no specific question of law is referred,
\nthe decision of the arbitrator on that
\nquestion is not final however much it may be
\nwithin his jurisdiction and indeed essential
\nfor him to decide the question incidentally.
\nThe arbitrator is not a conciliator and
\ncannot ignore the law or misapply it in order
\nto do what he thinks is just and reasonable.
\nThe arbitrator is a tribunal selected by the
\nparties to decided their disputes according to
\nlaws and so is bound to flow and apply the
\nlaw, and if he does not he can be set right
\nby the court provided his error appears on
\nthe face of the award.”\n<\/p>\n
12. Similar was the findings recorded by the
\nSupreme Court in the case of  Arosan Enterprises Ltd.
\nv. Union of India and Anr.<\/a>  wherein
\nin paragraphs 36 and 37 the principle of law as to
\nwhen the court would be justified in interfering the
\naward was re-stated:\n<\/p>\n
36. Be if noted that by reason of a long
\ncatena of cases, it is now a well settled
\nprinciple of law that reappraisal of evidence
\nby the Court is not permissible and as a
\nmatter of fact exercise of power by the Court
\nto reappraise the evidence is unknown to a
\nproceeding under Section 30 of the
\nArbitration Act. In the event of there being
\nno reasons in the award, question of
\ninterference of the Court would not arise at
\nall. In the event, however, there are
\nreasons, the interference would still be not
\navailable within the jurisdiction of the
\nCourt unless of course, there exist a total
\nperversity in the award or the judgment is
\nbased on a wrong proposition of law: In the
\nevent however two views are possible on a
\nquestion of law as well, the Court would not
\nbe justified in interfering with the award.\n<\/p>\n
37. The common phraseology “error apparent
\non the face of the record” does not itself,
\nhowever, mean and imply closer scrutiny of
\nthe merits of the documents and materials on
\nrecord. The court as a matter of fact,
\ncannot substitute its evaluation and come to
\nthe conclusion that the arbitrator had acted
\ncontrary to the bargain between the parties.
\nIf the view of the arbitrator is possible
\nview the award or the reasoning contained
\ntherein cannot be examined. ….\n<\/p>\n
13. More recently the Supreme Court in the case
\nof  Sikkim Subba Associates v. State of Sikkim<\/a>  also held that if there are two views
\npossible or plausible views then it is legitimate that
\nthe arbitrator to accept one or the other and also for
\nthe court not to interfere. The Supreme Court held:\n<\/p>\n
 “If there are two equally possible or
\nplausible views or interpretations, it was
\nconsidered to be legitimate for the
\narbitrator to accept one or the other of the
\navailable interpretations. It would be
\ndifficult for the courts to either
\nexhaustively define the word “misconduct” or
\nlikewise enumerate the line of cases in which
\nalone interference either could or could not
\nbe made. Courts of law have a duty and
\nobligation in order to maintain purity of
\nstandards and preserve full faith and credit
\nas well as to inspire confidence in alternate
\ndispute redressal method of arbitration, when
\non the face of the award it is shown to be
\nbased upon a proposition of law which is
\nunsound or findings recorded which are absurd
\nor so unreasonable and irrational that no
\nreasonable or right-thinking person or
\nauthority could have reasonably come to such
\na conclusion on the basis of the materials on
\nrecord or the governing position of law to
\ninterfere. So far as the case before us is
\nconcerned, the reference to the arbitrator is
\nfound to be  a general reference to adjudicate
\nupon the disputes relating to the alleged
\ntermination of the agreement by the State and
\nnot a specific reference on any particular
\nquestion and consequently, if it is shown or
\nsubstantiated to be erroneous on the face of
\nit, the award must be set aside.’<\/p>\n
14. The principle therefore can conveniently be
\nstated to be that regarding findings of fact the
\narbitrator is the final authority. The court will not
\nre-appraise the evidence or come to a different
\nconclusion. If the order is without jurisdiction or
\nit travels beyond the contract on basis of which the
\narbitrator has been appointed in that case only the
\ncourt would be justified in interference. If there
\nare erroneous decision not based on any evidence or no
\nreasonable person can come to such a finding the court
\ncan indeed interfere and it can well be stated in that
\nevent to be a legal misconduct.\n<\/p>\n
15. In the present case the arbitrator has looked
\ninto the evidence and the reasons that prompted the
\narbitrator to give the award in question were that the
\nprice of the crane as appearing from the invoice
\nannexed to the statement of claim was Rs. 9,77,500\/-
\nbesides sales tax and C tax. The arbitrator found
\nthat the objector had not dispute this sum. It was
\nfurther found that invoice of 29th December, 1993 was
\na genuine document and that the affidavit that was
\nfiled on behalf of the objector in this court in OMP
\n106\/84 and is 6129\/84 there was no allegation that the
\nsaid invoice was fabricated or a forged document. The
\narbitrator found that now the same could not be
\nassailed. The arbitrator had further recorded that
\nthe applicant had raised a loan on hypothecation of
\nthe crane expecting that it would be delivered shortly
\nand therefore the invoice was a genuine document and
\nlastly that objector had received on 7th November,
\n1983 Rs. 10,77,500\/- as the price of the crane.\n<\/p>\n
16. According to the learned counsel, Shri Garg
\nwas an employee of the objector was to be produced as
\na witness but the applicant later on did not produce
\nhim before the arbitrator and he went on to urge that
\nforgery has been committed in connivance with the said
\nShri Garg. When a person intends to examine a witness
\nand does not examine him there can be many reasons.
\nNecessarily it does not imply that adverse inference
\nshould be drawn against him. Shri Garg was an
\nemployee of the objector though it is being stated
\nthat he was instrumental in forging the invoice in
\nquestion but no action was taken against Shri Garg by
\nthe objector. When no action as such is being taken
\nagainst such a person indeed the obvious is clear that
\nsuch a contention cannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
17. In that event it had been urged that objector
\nwas allotted ship CAPT COSTAS E by Metal Scrap Trading
\nCorporation. The ship was not even within the shores
\nof India and because of the said fact the objector had
\nno physical means to verify the exact contents of the
\nship. He further contended that the petitioner had
\nnot produced before the High Court invoice in question
\nand therefore question of disputing the same to be a
\nforged one did not arise. The learned counsel further
\nhad a grievance that the arbitrator was in error in
\nrecording that Rs.  10,775 lakhs were paid by the
\npetitioner towards the value of the crane. So far as
\nthese contentions are concerned indeed the evidence is
\nnot to be re-appraised. Except for the argument that
\nthe invoice has not been produced before this court
\nand therefore the question of objecting to the
\nvalidity of the same other pleas required re-appraisal
\nof evidence. As already pointed out above the
\nre-appraisal of evidence will not be permissible
\nbecause in the present case as had been noticed above
\nfrom the resume of facts the arbitrator has considered
\nthe evidence and recorded a finding. Even if two
\nviews are possible this court will not interfere.
\nThere was invoices that were more than one and the
\nposition as set up by the arbitrator therefore could
\nhardly be described to be erroneous. There was not
\nevidence led by the objector that the invoices in
\nquestion on basis of which the amount was held to be
\ndue were forged. The invoices ran into series.
\nKeeping in view the same the findings are obvious that
\nthis court will not interfere in findings of the
\narbitrator.\n<\/p>\n
18. For these reasons the objections are
\ndismissed. The award is made a rule of the court and
\ndecree in terms of the award is passed. The applicant
\nwould be entitled to interest on the principle amount
\nfrom the date of the award till the final payment is
\nmade.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Priya Holdings Co. (P) Ltd. vs Auto General Engineering Co. on 19 December, 2001 Equivalent citations: 2002 IIIAD Delhi 848, 2002 (2) RAJ 367 Author: V Aggarwal. Bench: V Aggarwal JUDGMENT V.S. Aggarwal. J. 1. In pursuance of the arbitrator having filed the award and the proceedings notices had been issued to […]<\/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-79959","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPriya Holdings Co. (P) Ltd. vs Auto General Engineering Co. on 19 December, 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\/priya-holdings-co-p-ltd-vs-auto-general-engineering-co-on-19-december-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Priya Holdings Co. (P) Ltd. vs Auto General Engineering Co. on 19 December, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/priya-holdings-co-p-ltd-vs-auto-general-engineering-co-on-19-december-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=\"2001-12-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-04T00:11:38+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/priya-holdings-co-p-ltd-vs-auto-general-engineering-co-on-19-december-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/priya-holdings-co-p-ltd-vs-auto-general-engineering-co-on-19-december-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Priya Holdings Co. (P) Ltd. vs Auto General Engineering Co. on 19 December, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-12-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-04T00:11:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/priya-holdings-co-p-ltd-vs-auto-general-engineering-co-on-19-december-2001\"},\"wordCount\":3010,\"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\\\/priya-holdings-co-p-ltd-vs-auto-general-engineering-co-on-19-december-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/priya-holdings-co-p-ltd-vs-auto-general-engineering-co-on-19-december-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/priya-holdings-co-p-ltd-vs-auto-general-engineering-co-on-19-december-2001\",\"name\":\"Priya Holdings Co. (P) Ltd. vs Auto General Engineering Co. on 19 December, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-12-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-04T00:11:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/priya-holdings-co-p-ltd-vs-auto-general-engineering-co-on-19-december-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/priya-holdings-co-p-ltd-vs-auto-general-engineering-co-on-19-december-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/priya-holdings-co-p-ltd-vs-auto-general-engineering-co-on-19-december-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Priya Holdings Co. (P) Ltd. vs Auto General Engineering Co. on 19 December, 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":"Priya Holdings Co. (P) Ltd. vs Auto General Engineering Co. on 19 December, 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\/priya-holdings-co-p-ltd-vs-auto-general-engineering-co-on-19-december-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Priya Holdings Co. (P) Ltd. vs Auto General Engineering Co. on 19 December, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/priya-holdings-co-p-ltd-vs-auto-general-engineering-co-on-19-december-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-12-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-04T00:11:38+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/priya-holdings-co-p-ltd-vs-auto-general-engineering-co-on-19-december-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/priya-holdings-co-p-ltd-vs-auto-general-engineering-co-on-19-december-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Priya Holdings Co. (P) Ltd. vs Auto General Engineering Co. on 19 December, 2001","datePublished":"2001-12-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-04T00:11:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/priya-holdings-co-p-ltd-vs-auto-general-engineering-co-on-19-december-2001"},"wordCount":3010,"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\/priya-holdings-co-p-ltd-vs-auto-general-engineering-co-on-19-december-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/priya-holdings-co-p-ltd-vs-auto-general-engineering-co-on-19-december-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/priya-holdings-co-p-ltd-vs-auto-general-engineering-co-on-19-december-2001","name":"Priya Holdings Co. (P) Ltd. vs Auto General Engineering Co. on 19 December, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-12-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-04T00:11:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/priya-holdings-co-p-ltd-vs-auto-general-engineering-co-on-19-december-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/priya-holdings-co-p-ltd-vs-auto-general-engineering-co-on-19-december-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/priya-holdings-co-p-ltd-vs-auto-general-engineering-co-on-19-december-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Priya Holdings Co. (P) Ltd. vs Auto General Engineering Co. on 19 December, 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\/79959","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=79959"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/79959\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=79959"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=79959"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=79959"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}