{"id":85446,"date":"1993-11-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1993-11-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/steel-authority-of-india-ltd-vs-salem-stainless-steel-suppliers-on-3-november-1993-3"},"modified":"2015-04-13T02:40:58","modified_gmt":"2015-04-12T21:10:58","slug":"steel-authority-of-india-ltd-vs-salem-stainless-steel-suppliers-on-3-november-1993-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/steel-authority-of-india-ltd-vs-salem-stainless-steel-suppliers-on-3-november-1993-3","title":{"rendered":"Steel Authority Of India Ltd vs Salem Stainless Steel Suppliers on 3 November, 1993"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Steel Authority Of India Ltd vs Salem Stainless Steel Suppliers on 3 November, 1993<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1994 AIR 1414, \t\t 1994 SCC (1) 274<\/div>\n
Author: K Singh<\/div>\n
Bench: Kuldip Singh (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTEEL  AUTHORITY  OF  INDIA LTD.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSALEM  STAINLESS  STEEL\t SUPPLIERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT03\/11\/1993\n\nBENCH:\nKULDIP SINGH (J)\nBENCH:\nKULDIP SINGH (J)\nSAWANT, P.B.\n\nCITATION:\n 1994 AIR 1414\t\t  1994 SCC  (1) 274\n JT 1993 (6)   408\t  1993 SCALE  (4)339\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nKULDIP\t SINGH,J.–   Steel   Authority\t  of   India\t(the
\nAuthority),the\tappellant  herein, issued a  price  circular
\ndated  March  17,  1989 (the  circular)offering\t a  discount
\nscheme\twith  a\t view to give a thrust to  the\toff-take  of
\nstainless  steel of thinner gauges. The circular  stated  as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
“(a)  An  off-take  of over 400 mts. per  month\t of  thinner
\ngauges\tnamely 0.3,0.4, 0.5, and 0.63 taken together by\t any
\ncustomer from any
\nfrom  the  judgement and October 9, 1990 of the\t March\tHigh
\nCourt in W.A.Nos.601 to 604 of 1990.\n<\/p>\n
 275<\/span><\/p>\n
region\twill entitle them for an additional discount  of  Rs
\n2000  PMT over and above the normal monthly discount on\t the
\nincremental quantity.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (b)   A bonus incentive of addl.\tRs 2000\t PMT
\n\t      would  be admissible at the end of  6  monthly
\n\t      period provided the off-take is over 400\tmts.
\n\t      in  each\tof the 6  months.   This  additional
\n\t      incentive\t  will\t be   applicable   on\t the
\n\t      incremental  quantity in excess of  2400\tmts.
\n\t      during the period of 6 months.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (c)   Benefits under (a) and (b) above will be
\n\t      applicable to any customer including trade and
\n\t      their   associate\t concerns  both\t on   direct
\n\t      dispatch\tfrom  plant as\twell  as  quantities
\n\t      lifted   from   stockyard\t  of   any   region,
\n\t      irrespective  of\tthe  region  to\t which\t the
\n\t      customer is attached,”\n<\/p>\n
The  circular  was  issued by the  Calcutta  office  of\t the
\nAuthority.\n<\/p>\n
2.   Standard Metal Trading Company, respondent 3 herein, by
\nits letter dated November 27, 1989 sought clarifications  as
\nto  whether the subject discount would be available  on\t the
\nquantities lifted by a “group of dealers not related to each
\nother  by constitution” and how the said discount  would  be
\ndisbursed  to  the individual dealers.\tA request  was\talso
\nmade  that  the\t period of operation  of  scheme  under\t the
\ncircular,  be  extended to one year as against\tsix  months.
\nThe Authority by its letter dated December 2, 1989 furnished
\nthe necessary clarifications, to respondent 3, which are  as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Kindly  refer to your letter  dated  November
\n\t      27,  1989\t and December 1, 1989 on  the  above
\n\t      subject.\tWe wish to clarify as under:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      1.    The quantity discount under the  subject
\n\t      scheme  will  be\tpaid  on  quantities  lifted
\n\t      together\tby a group of  dealers\/actual  users
\n\t      who   are\t not  related  to  each\t  other\t  by
\n\t      constitution   provided  they  declare   their
\n\t      intention\t to  join  together  for  committing
\n\t      combined off-take as per the scheme.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      2.    The\t  scheme  will\tbe   applicable\t  on
\n\t      quantities  lifted by a group of\tdealers\t not
\n\t      related to each other by constituting  dealing
\n\t      at different regions.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      3.    After  the\tcompletion  of\tthe  current
\n\t      month  on\t the basis of  actual  off-take\t the
\n\t      quantity as per the eligibility may be  passed
\n\t      on   to  any  one\t of  the   constituents\t  or
\n\t      alternatively  on\t pro-rata basis to  all\t the
\n\t      constituents  subject to the  entitled  group.
\n\t      What they want.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      4.    Guarantee for continuation of the scheme
\n\t      can be given for a minimum period of 6  months
\n\t      from the month in which off-take commences.
\n\t      We also expect an increase in the off-take  of
\n\t      material\tby  the\t dealers  in  the   Southern
\n\t      Region.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      We also wish to make it clear that indents  as
\n\t      per  the\texisting procedure should  be  given
\n\t      well  in advance to enable us to complete\t the
\n\t      despatch of material.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Thereafter six traders, including respondents 1 to 4, sent a
\nletter dated December 4, 1989 to the Authority stating\tthat
\nthey had formed a group and
\n276<\/span>
\nwanted\tto  avail the additional discount on  the  basis  of
\ntheir  combined off-take as a group.  They also suggested  a
\nformula\t for the distribution of the discount, on the  basis
\nof  their combined off-take, amongst the individual  members
\nof the group.\n<\/p>\n
3.   The proposal of combined off-take by a group of traders
\nwas   not  warranted  by  the  circular,  The\tformula\t  of
\ndistribution  of  discount  amount  amongst  the  individual
\nmembers of an unorganised group was also not envisaged under
\nthe  circular.\t In any case such formula was  not  even  in
\naccordance with the clarifications given by the Authority in
\nits letter dated December 2, 1989.\n<\/p>\n
4.   The  Authority sent a telegram dated December 19,\t1989
\nto  all\t the  six  traders  including  respondents  1  to  4
\nintimating   them   that   the\tmatter\t was   still   under
\nconsideration  and  till the time a final decision  in\tthat
\nrespect was taken the, scheme regarding group off-take could
\nnot  operate.\tThe relevant part of the  said\ttelegram  is
\nextracted as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “YOUR  SUGGESTION, INTER ALIA, FOR  MANNER  OF
\n\t      ADJUSTMENT  OF  DISCOUNT UNDER THE  SCHEME  TO
\n\t      INDIVIDUAL  TRADERS  WAS\tTAKEN  UP  WITH\t SSP
\n\t      AUTHORITIES  AND REQUIRES FURTHER\t EXAMINATION
\n\t      (.)  THIS\t WILL HAVE TO BE SORTED\t OUT  BEFORE
\n\t      COMMENCING  OPERATION OF THE SCHEME-  (.)\t THE
\n\t      MATTER  IS  BEING\t PUT  UP  TO  THE  COMPETENT
\n\t      AUTHORITY\t FOR  NECESSARY\t CLARIFICATIONS\t AND
\n\t      APPROVAL\t(.)  UNTIL  SUCH  TIME\tAPPROVAL  IS
\n\t      RECEIVED WE ARE UNABLE TO OPERATE THE\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
5.   After  the receipt of the telegram dated  December\t 19,
\n1989 the group of traders- addressed a letter dated December
\n30,  1989  to  the  Authority  offering\t to  withdraw  their
\nsuggestion  for the disbursement of the discount  amount  in
\nthe manner suggested by them in their letter dated  December
\n4, 1989.\n<\/p>\n
6.   The  proposal made by the six traders as  contained  in
\ntheir  letter dated December 4, 1990 was considered  by\t the
\nAuthority  and it was found that under the scheme  contained
\nin the circular, there was no provision for the disbursement
\nof   discount  benefits\t to  a\tgroup  of  customers.\t The
\nmodification of scheme, as proposed by the respondents,\t was
\nnot  found  practicable.  Accordingly, by the  letter  dated
\nJanuary 23, 1990, addressed to each of the six traders,\t the
\nAuthority  reiterated  the contents of\tits  telegram  dated
\nDecember  19,  1989  and  further  informed  them  that\t the
\nsuggestion  made  by  the  traders  in\ttheir  letter  dated
\nDecember  4, 1989 was not acceptae to the  Authority,  inter
\nalia,  for the reason that the said suggestion was  contrary
\nto the scheme contained in the circular.\n<\/p>\n
7.   The respondents filed a writ petition before the Madras
\nHigh Court contending that they had started lifting material
\nsince  December 4, 1989 and as such they sought a  direction
\nfrom  the High Court that the discount benefit be  disbursed
\nto  them.  The writ petition was allowed by a teamed  Single
\nJudge of the High Court by the judgment dated April 17, 1990
\nprimarily on the ground that the clarifications given by the
\nAuthority by its letter dated
\n 277<\/span>
\nDecember  2,  1989  were  binding  on  the  Authority.\t The
\nAuthority filed appeals against the judgment of the  learned
\nSingle\tJudge.\t A Division Bench of the High Court  by\t the
\nimpugned  judgment  dated  October  9,\t1990  dismissed\t the
\nappeal.\t These appeals by the Steel Authority, of India\t are
\nagainst\t the  judgment\tof the Division Bench  of  the\tHigh
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
8.   The  Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court\t upheld\t the
\nfindings  of  the  learned Single  Judge  on  the  following
\nreasoning:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Thus,  the entitlement for the  discount\t and
\n\t      the  willingness to avail such’  discount\t are
\n\t      quite separate and distinct in the sense\tthat
\n\t      while ‘discount is on the quantity lifted\t and
\n\t      thus  these,  dealers  or\t actual\t users\t who
\n\t      qualified\t under\tthe  circular  automatically
\n\t      became  entitled\tto discount,  the  claim  on
\n\t      behalf  of  those who joined in  a  group\t was
\n\t      required\tto be indicated for the\t purpose  of
\n\t      working  out  some  formula  under  which\t the
\n\t      discount amount could be equitably distributed
\n\t      among them.  Such equitable distribution could
\n\t      be   in\tthe   manner   indicated   in\t the
\n\t      clarification  as well as left to the  dealers
\n\t      who decided how they would inter se distribute
\n\t      the   discount   amongst\t themselves.\tThey
\n\t      indicated\t a  formula in a  subsequent  letter
\n\t      dated  December 4, 1989.\tIt appears  however,
\n\t      that   nothing  was  said\t why   the   formula
\n\t      indicated\t by  them was not  accepted  by\t the
\n\t      appellants.   The\t learned  Single  Judge\t has
\n\t      rightly  taken  notice of this aspect  of\t the
\n\t      matter   to  conclude  that  when\t  the\twrit
\n\t      petitioners are a group of business people who
\n\t      had  joined  together and had in\tfact  lifted
\n\t      quantities  in excess of 400 metric tonnes  in
\n\t      the  month  of December 1989,  and  when\tthey
\n\t      projected a claim for a discount based on\t the
\n\t      scheme which is still in force, the refusal on
\n\t      the  part of the appellants to  implement\t the
\n\t      scheme cannot be permitted.  We are  satisfied
\n\t      that  there has been no mistake  committed  by
\n\t      the  learned  Single Judge  in  accepting\t the
\n\t      promise under the circular of the\t entitlement
\n\t      of  discount as clarified under  letter  dated
\n\t      December\t 2,  1989.   The  right\t under\t the
\n\t      circular\twas not in the nature of a  contract
\n\t      which   depended\t upon  the   acceptance\t  or
\n\t      otherwise\t of the offer of the  appellants  by
\n\t      the dealers.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It  is\tobvious that the High Court did not allow  the\twrit
\npetitions  on  the  ground  that  a  binding  contract\t had
\nconcluded between the parties but solely on the ground\tthat
\nunder\tthe  price  circular  dated  March  17,\t  1989\t the
\nrespondents  were entitled to the discount.  We\t agree\twith
\nthe High Court that the respondents could claim the discount
\nonly in terms of the price circular and not on the basis  of
\nany contract purported to have been concluded as a result of
\nthe  correspondence exchanged between the parties.  We\tare,
\nhowever, of the view that High Court fell into patent  error
\nin  appreciating  the scope and extent of the  circular.   A
\nbare reading of the circular makes it clear that the benefit
\nthereunder  was\t available to “any customer” and  not  to  a
\ngroup  of  customers.  Suppose there are 20 traders  in\t the
\ncity  of  Madras and each one of them lifts  300  tonnes  of
\nsteel  per month.  The off-take being less than\t 400  tonnes
\nper month, individually none of them would be entitled to
\n278<\/span>
\nthe  benefit  of  the scheme.  Can  they  claim\t that  since
\njointly they have lifted 6000 tonnes of steel which is\tmore
\nthan  400 tonnes in a particular month they are entitled  to
\nthe  discount  under the scheme for the\t off-take  over\t and
\nabove  400 tonnes.  Accepting such a claim would  be  making
\nmockery\t of  the scheme under the  circular.   As  mentioned
\nabove  the price discount scheme under the circular was\t for
\n“any  customer”\t and  not for  “group  of  customers”.\t The
\ncircular did not permit a group of customers not related  to
\neach  other  by\t constitution to avail the  benefit  of\t the
\nscheme\ton  the\t basis\tof  their  combined  off-take.\t The
\nrespondents could not have availed the benefit of the scheme
\njointly\t unless and until the scheme as a whole was  amended
\nand made applicable to all the customers of the Authority by
\nissuing\t a fresh circular informing all concerned about\t the
\nchange in the scheme.\n<\/p>\n
9.   Even  otherwise  there could be no\t concluded  contract
\nbetween the parties.  It was for the first time on  December
\n4,  1989  that the six traders made an offer  and  expressed
\ntheir  desire  to avail the benefit of the circular  on\t the
\nbasis  of their combined off-take.  Prior to that there\t was
\nno  communication  from\t the  traders  as  a  group  to\t the
\nAuthority  with\t regard\t to the admissibility  of  any\tsuch
\ndiscount  to  them  under  the\tcircular.   The\t methodology
\nsuggested  by  the  traders to share the  discount  was\t not
\nenvisaged under the circular.  The said method was even\t not
\nin accordance with the letter dated December 2, 1989 written
\nby  the Authority.  The Authority rejected the offer of\t the
\ntraders\t by  its telegram dated December 19,  1989  and\t the
\nletter\tdated January 23, 1990.\t No concluded contract\tcan,
\nthus,  be  deciphered from the\tcorrespondence\tbetween\t the
\nparties.   Looked from any angle, the High Court  fell\tinto
\npatent\terror  in  directing the  Authority  to\t extend\t the
\nbenefit of the circular to the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
10.  We\t allow\tthe appeals, set aside the judgment  of\t the
\nlearned\t Single\t Judge\tdated  April 17,  1990\tand  of\t the
\nDivision  Bench of the High Court dated October 9, 1990\t and
\ndismiss\t the writ petitions filed by the respondents  before
\nthe High Court with costs throughout.  We quantify the costs
\nas Rs 20,000.\n<\/p>\n
280<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Steel Authority Of India Ltd vs Salem Stainless Steel Suppliers on 3 November, 1993 Equivalent citations: 1994 AIR 1414, 1994 SCC (1) 274 Author: K Singh Bench: Kuldip Singh (J) PETITIONER: STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: SALEM STAINLESS STEEL SUPPLIERS DATE OF JUDGMENT03\/11\/1993 BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) BENCH: KULDIP […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-85446","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSteel Authority Of India Ltd vs Salem Stainless Steel Suppliers on 3 November, 1993 - 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\/steel-authority-of-india-ltd-vs-salem-stainless-steel-suppliers-on-3-november-1993-3\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Steel Authority Of India Ltd vs Salem Stainless Steel Suppliers on 3 November, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/steel-authority-of-india-ltd-vs-salem-stainless-steel-suppliers-on-3-november-1993-3\" \/>\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=\"1993-11-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-12T21:10:58+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/steel-authority-of-india-ltd-vs-salem-stainless-steel-suppliers-on-3-november-1993-3#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/steel-authority-of-india-ltd-vs-salem-stainless-steel-suppliers-on-3-november-1993-3\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Steel Authority Of India Ltd vs Salem Stainless Steel Suppliers on 3 November, 1993\",\"datePublished\":\"1993-11-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-12T21:10:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/steel-authority-of-india-ltd-vs-salem-stainless-steel-suppliers-on-3-november-1993-3\"},\"wordCount\":1919,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/steel-authority-of-india-ltd-vs-salem-stainless-steel-suppliers-on-3-november-1993-3#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/steel-authority-of-india-ltd-vs-salem-stainless-steel-suppliers-on-3-november-1993-3\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/steel-authority-of-india-ltd-vs-salem-stainless-steel-suppliers-on-3-november-1993-3\",\"name\":\"Steel Authority Of India Ltd vs Salem Stainless Steel Suppliers on 3 November, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1993-11-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-12T21:10:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/steel-authority-of-india-ltd-vs-salem-stainless-steel-suppliers-on-3-november-1993-3#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/steel-authority-of-india-ltd-vs-salem-stainless-steel-suppliers-on-3-november-1993-3\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/steel-authority-of-india-ltd-vs-salem-stainless-steel-suppliers-on-3-november-1993-3#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Steel Authority Of India Ltd vs Salem Stainless Steel Suppliers on 3 November, 1993\"}]},{\"@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":"Steel Authority Of India Ltd vs Salem Stainless Steel Suppliers on 3 November, 1993 - 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\/steel-authority-of-india-ltd-vs-salem-stainless-steel-suppliers-on-3-november-1993-3","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Steel Authority Of India Ltd vs Salem Stainless Steel Suppliers on 3 November, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/steel-authority-of-india-ltd-vs-salem-stainless-steel-suppliers-on-3-november-1993-3","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1993-11-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-12T21:10:58+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/steel-authority-of-india-ltd-vs-salem-stainless-steel-suppliers-on-3-november-1993-3#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/steel-authority-of-india-ltd-vs-salem-stainless-steel-suppliers-on-3-november-1993-3"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Steel Authority Of India Ltd vs Salem Stainless Steel Suppliers on 3 November, 1993","datePublished":"1993-11-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-12T21:10:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/steel-authority-of-india-ltd-vs-salem-stainless-steel-suppliers-on-3-november-1993-3"},"wordCount":1919,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/steel-authority-of-india-ltd-vs-salem-stainless-steel-suppliers-on-3-november-1993-3#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/steel-authority-of-india-ltd-vs-salem-stainless-steel-suppliers-on-3-november-1993-3","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/steel-authority-of-india-ltd-vs-salem-stainless-steel-suppliers-on-3-november-1993-3","name":"Steel Authority Of India Ltd vs Salem Stainless Steel Suppliers on 3 November, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1993-11-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-12T21:10:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/steel-authority-of-india-ltd-vs-salem-stainless-steel-suppliers-on-3-november-1993-3#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/steel-authority-of-india-ltd-vs-salem-stainless-steel-suppliers-on-3-november-1993-3"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/steel-authority-of-india-ltd-vs-salem-stainless-steel-suppliers-on-3-november-1993-3#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Steel Authority Of India Ltd vs Salem Stainless Steel Suppliers on 3 November, 1993"}]},{"@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\/85446","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=85446"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/85446\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=85446"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=85446"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=85446"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}