{"id":97083,"date":"1996-05-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-05-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathi-knitting-company-vs-dhl-worldwide-express-courier-on-9-may-1996"},"modified":"2017-01-26T20:27:36","modified_gmt":"2017-01-26T14:57:36","slug":"bharathi-knitting-company-vs-dhl-worldwide-express-courier-on-9-may-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathi-knitting-company-vs-dhl-worldwide-express-courier-on-9-may-1996","title":{"rendered":"Bharathi Knitting Company vs Dhl Worldwide Express Courier &#8230; on 9 May, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Bharathi Knitting Company vs Dhl Worldwide Express Courier &#8230; on 9 May, 1996<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: K. Ramaswamy, Faizan Uddin, G.B. Pattanaik<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nBHARATHI KNITTING COMPANY\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nDHL WORLDWIDE EXPRESS COURIER DIVISION OF AIRFREIGHT LTD\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t09\/05\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nK. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN, G.B. PATTANAIK\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\t\t O R D E R<br \/>\n Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>     We have heard learned counsel on both sides.<br \/>\n     This appeal  by special leave arises from the appellate<br \/>\norder  of   the\t  National   Consumer\tDisputes   Redressal<br \/>\nCommission, New\t Delhi dated  17.1.1996 made in FA No.317 of<br \/>\n1993 which  in turn  reversed the  order of  the State Forum<br \/>\nCommission, Madras in O.P. No.364\/93 dated June 9, 1993. The<br \/>\nadmitted   facts    are\t  that\t  the\trespondent-plaintiff<br \/>\nmanufacturer appears  to have  an agreement  with  a  German<br \/>\nbuyer for  summer season,  1990 and  consigned certain goods<br \/>\nwith documents\tsent in\t a cover  on May 25, 1990 Containing<br \/>\n(1) invoice  No.32; (2)\t packaging list; (3) Original Export<br \/>\nCertificate and\t certificate of\t origin No.T\/WG\/001316 dated<br \/>\n24.5.90; and  (A) Original GSP Form A No.E1. It would appear<br \/>\nthat the  cover did not reach the destination. Consequently,<br \/>\nthough the  duplicate copies  were subsequently\t sent by the<br \/>\ndate of\t receipt of  the consignment,  the season  was over.<br \/>\nResultantly, the  Consignee agreed  to pay  only DM 35,000\/-<br \/>\ninstead of  invoice value  DM 56,469.63.  As a\tresult,\t the<br \/>\nappellant laid the complaint before the State Commission for<br \/>\nthe difference\tof the loss incurred by the respondent in DM<br \/>\n21,469.63 equivalent  to Rs.4,29,392.60\t which was  ordered.<br \/>\nThe respondent\tcarried the  matter in\tappeal. The National<br \/>\nCommission  in\tthe  impugned  order  held  that  since\t the<br \/>\nliability was  only of\tan extent  of US  $ 100\t as per\t the<br \/>\nreceipt, the appellant is entitled for deficiency of service<br \/>\nonly to\t that extent  which is equivalent to Rs.3,515\/- with<br \/>\ninterest at  18% from  May 25, 1990 till date of realisation<br \/>\nwith cost. Thus, this appeal by special leave.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It is contended by Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, learned senior<br \/>\ncounsel\t appearing  for\t the  appellant\t that  the  Consumer<br \/>\nProtection Act,\t 1986 (for short, the &#8216;Act&#8217;) is a beneficial<br \/>\nlegislation envisaged  to accord expeditious and inexpensive<br \/>\nrelief to  the consumer;  when the Commission gave a finding<br \/>\nthat  there  was  a  deficiency\t in  service,  the  National<br \/>\nCommission was\twrong in  law to  reduce the liability of US<br \/>\n$100 Contained in the receipts There is no consensus ad idem<br \/>\nbetween the  appellant and  the respondent  who is a courier<br \/>\nvis-a-vis the  appellant. Therefore, the National Commission<br \/>\nwas wrong  in awarding\tdeficiency amount only to the extent<br \/>\nof US  $100. He\t seeks to  contend that\t until there  is  an<br \/>\nagreement by  the appellant  by consensus  at idem  with the<br \/>\nrespondent  for\t  carriage  of\t the  invoice  with  limited<br \/>\nliability, it  must be\tpresumed that  in the  event of nor-<br \/>\ndelivery of the cover thereof, the resultant damages must be<br \/>\nborn by\t the courier. The State Commission would be entitled<br \/>\nto award the difference of the damages to the appellant. The<br \/>\nState Commission,  therefore,  was  right  in  awarding\t the<br \/>\ndamages. We find no force in the contention.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It is  true that the Act is a protective legislation to<br \/>\nmake available\tinexpensive and\t expeditious summary remedy.<br \/>\nThere must  be a finding that the respondent was responsible<br \/>\nfor the\t deficiency in\tservice, the  consequence  of  which<br \/>\nwould be  that the  appellant had incurred the liability for<br \/>\nloss or\t damages suffered  by the consumer due to deficiency<br \/>\nin service  thereof. When  the parties\thave contracted\t and<br \/>\nlimited their  liabilities, the question arises: whether the<br \/>\nState Commission  or the  National Commission  under the Act<br \/>\ncould give  relief for\tdamages\t in  excess  of\t the  limits<br \/>\nprescribed under kha Contract?\n<\/p>\n<p>     It is  true that the limit of damages would depend upon<br \/>\nthe terms of the contract and facts in each case. In Anson&#8217;s<br \/>\nLaws of Contract, 24th Edn. at page 152, on exemption clause<br \/>\nwith regard  to notice\tof a  printed clause,  it was stated<br \/>\nthat a person who signed, a document containing contract and<br \/>\nterms is  normally bound by them even though he has not read<br \/>\nthem, and  even though he is ignorant of their precise legal<br \/>\neffect. But  if the  document is  not signed,  being  merely<br \/>\ndelivered to  him, then\t the question  arises:\twhether\t the<br \/>\nterms of the contract were adequately brought to his notice?<br \/>\nThe terms  of the  contract have elaborately been considered<br \/>\nand decided, The details thereof are not necessary for us to<br \/>\nPursue. It is seen that when a person signs a document which<br \/>\ncontains certain  contractual terms,  as rightly pointed out<br \/>\nby Mr.\tR.F. Nariman,  learned senior counsel, that normally<br \/>\nparties are  bound by  such contracts it is for the party to<br \/>\nestablish exception  in a suit. When a party to the contract<br \/>\ndisputes the  binding nature  of the  signed document, it is<br \/>\nfor him\t to prove the terms in the contract or circumstances<br \/>\nin  which   he\tcame  to  sign\tthe  documents\tneed  to  be<br \/>\nestablished. The  question we  need to\tconsider is; whether<br \/>\nthe District  Forum or\tthe State Commission or the rational<br \/>\nCommission could  go behind the terms of the contract? it is<br \/>\ntrue, as  contended by\tMr. M.N.  Krishnamani,\tthat  in  an<br \/>\nappropriate case,  the Tribunal without trenching upon acute<br \/>\ndisputed question  of facts  may decide\t the validity of the<br \/>\nterms of  the contract based upon the fact situation and may<br \/>\ngrant remedy.  But each case depends upon fits own facts. In<br \/>\nan appropriate case where there is an acute dispute of facts<br \/>\nnecessarily  the  tribunal  has\t to  refer  the\t parties  to<br \/>\noriginal  civil\t  Court\t established   under  the   CPC\t  or<br \/>\nappropriate State law to have the claims decided between the<br \/>\nparties. But  when there is a specific term in the contract,<br \/>\nthe parties  are bound\tby the\tterms in  the contract.\t The<br \/>\nNational Commission  in the  impugned order  pointed out  as<br \/>\nunder:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;We have considered the submissions<br \/>\n     of the  counsel for  the parties on<br \/>\n     the facts\tof the\tcase and  having<br \/>\n     regard  the  earlier  decisions  of<br \/>\n     this  Commission.\tThe  consignment<br \/>\n     containing the  documents\tsent  in<br \/>\n     the cover\thad been accepted by the<br \/>\n     Appellant and  was subject\t to  the<br \/>\n     terms and\tconditions mentioned  on<br \/>\n     the    consignment\t    note.    The<br \/>\n     Complaining the  documents sent  in<br \/>\n     the cover\thad been accepted by the<br \/>\n     Appellant and  was subject\t to  the<br \/>\n     terms and\tconditions mentioned  on<br \/>\n     the   consignment\t  note\t .   The<br \/>\n     Complainant  had  signed  the  said<br \/>\n     note at  the time of entrusting the<br \/>\n     consignment and  had greed\t to  and<br \/>\n     accepted the  terms and  conditions<br \/>\n     mentioned therein.\t Clauses 5 and 7<br \/>\n     of the terms and conditions as also<br \/>\n     the important  notice mentioned  on<br \/>\n     The consignment note are reproduced<br \/>\n     below:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     Clause 6: &#8220;Limitation of liability:<br \/>\n     Without prejudice\tto clause  7 the<br \/>\n     liability of  DHL for  any loss  or<br \/>\n     damage to\tthe shipment, which term<br \/>\n     shall  include   all  documents  or<br \/>\n     parcels consigned to DHL under this<br \/>\n     Air bill and shall not mean any one<br \/>\n     document or  envelope  included  in<br \/>\n     the  shipment  is\tlimited\t to  the<br \/>\n     lesser of\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     a) US $ 100\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     b) The  amount of loss or damage to<br \/>\n     a\tdocument   or  parcel\tactually<br \/>\n     sustained or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     c) The actual value of the document<br \/>\n     or\t parcel\t  as  determined   under<br \/>\n     Section 6 hereof, without regard to<br \/>\n     the commercial  utility or\t special<br \/>\n     value to the shipper.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     Clause   7:    Consequent\t damages<br \/>\n     excluded: DHL  shall not  be liable<br \/>\n     in any  event for any consequential<br \/>\n     or\t  special   damages   or   other<br \/>\n     indirect\tloss   however\t arising<br \/>\n     whether or\t not DHL  had  knowledge<br \/>\n     that such\tdamage might be incurred<br \/>\n     including but  not limited\t to loss<br \/>\n     of\t  income,    profits   interest,<br \/>\n     utility or loss of market.<br \/>\n     Important Notice: by the conditions<br \/>\n     set out  below DHL and its servants<br \/>\n     and agents\t are firstly  not to  be<br \/>\n     liable at\tall for\t certain  losses<br \/>\n     and damages  and secondly\twherever<br \/>\n     they are to be liable the amount of<br \/>\n     liability strictly\t limited to  the<br \/>\n     amount  stated   in  condition  and<br \/>\n     customers are  therefore advised to<br \/>\n     purchase insurance\t cover to ensure<br \/>\n     that  their   interests  are  fully<br \/>\n     protected\tin   all  event.   Under<br \/>\n     clause   5\t  of   the   terms   end<br \/>\n     conditions\t of  the  contracts  the<br \/>\n     liability of  the Appellant for any<br \/>\n     loss or  damage to the consignment:<br \/>\n     was limited  to US\t $ 100. Clause 7<br \/>\n     of\t  the\t contract   specifically<br \/>\n     provided that  the liability of the<br \/>\n     Appellant for  any consequential or<br \/>\n     Especial  damages\t or  any   otter<br \/>\n     indirect  loss,   that  may   occur<br \/>\n     including the  loss  of  market  or<br \/>\n     profits etc.  was excluded.  It  is<br \/>\n     also pertinent to note that despite<br \/>\n     the advice in the important notice,<br \/>\n     the Complainant  did not did one at<br \/>\n     the   time\t  or   Consignment   the<br \/>\n     contents of  the cover and also not<br \/>\n     purchased the  insurance  cover  to<br \/>\n     ensure  that  their  interests  are<br \/>\n     fully protected in all events.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     In view  of the above consideration and findings we are<br \/>\nof the\topinion that  the national  Commission was  right in<br \/>\nlimiting the  liability undertaken  in the  contract entered<br \/>\ninto  by  the.\tparties\t and  in  awarding  the\t amount\t for<br \/>\ndeficiency service to the extent of the liability undertaken<br \/>\nby the\trespondent. Therefore, we do not think that there is<br \/>\nany illegality\tin the\torder passed by the Commission. Shri<br \/>\nKrishnamani has\t brought to our notice that there are number<br \/>\nof judgments  covering divergent  views. In view of the view<br \/>\nwe have\t expressed above,  it is  now settled  law  and\t the<br \/>\nTribunals would\t follow the  same. Lastly,  it is  Contended<br \/>\nthat besides  the amounts  awarded by  the State Commission,<br \/>\nliberty may  be given to the. appellant to pursue the remedy<br \/>\navailable in  law. It is needless to mention that the remedy<br \/>\navailable at law would be pursued accordingly to law.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The appeal is dismissed. No costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Bharathi Knitting Company vs Dhl Worldwide Express Courier &#8230; on 9 May, 1996 Bench: K. Ramaswamy, Faizan Uddin, G.B. Pattanaik PETITIONER: BHARATHI KNITTING COMPANY Vs. RESPONDENT: DHL WORLDWIDE EXPRESS COURIER DIVISION OF AIRFREIGHT LTD DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09\/05\/1996 BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN, G.B. PATTANAIK ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: O R D [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-97083","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Bharathi Knitting Company vs Dhl Worldwide Express Courier ... on 9 May, 1996 - 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\/bharathi-knitting-company-vs-dhl-worldwide-express-courier-on-9-may-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bharathi Knitting Company vs Dhl Worldwide Express Courier ... on 9 May, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathi-knitting-company-vs-dhl-worldwide-express-courier-on-9-may-1996\" \/>\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=\"1996-05-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-26T14:57:36+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharathi-knitting-company-vs-dhl-worldwide-express-courier-on-9-may-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharathi-knitting-company-vs-dhl-worldwide-express-courier-on-9-may-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bharathi Knitting Company vs Dhl Worldwide Express Courier &#8230; on 9 May, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-05-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-26T14:57:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharathi-knitting-company-vs-dhl-worldwide-express-courier-on-9-may-1996\"},\"wordCount\":1541,\"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\\\/bharathi-knitting-company-vs-dhl-worldwide-express-courier-on-9-may-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharathi-knitting-company-vs-dhl-worldwide-express-courier-on-9-may-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharathi-knitting-company-vs-dhl-worldwide-express-courier-on-9-may-1996\",\"name\":\"Bharathi Knitting Company vs Dhl Worldwide Express Courier ... on 9 May, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-05-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-26T14:57:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharathi-knitting-company-vs-dhl-worldwide-express-courier-on-9-may-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharathi-knitting-company-vs-dhl-worldwide-express-courier-on-9-may-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharathi-knitting-company-vs-dhl-worldwide-express-courier-on-9-may-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bharathi Knitting Company vs Dhl Worldwide Express Courier &#8230; on 9 May, 1996\"}]},{\"@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":"Bharathi Knitting Company vs Dhl Worldwide Express Courier ... on 9 May, 1996 - 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\/bharathi-knitting-company-vs-dhl-worldwide-express-courier-on-9-may-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bharathi Knitting Company vs Dhl Worldwide Express Courier ... on 9 May, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathi-knitting-company-vs-dhl-worldwide-express-courier-on-9-may-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-05-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-26T14:57:36+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathi-knitting-company-vs-dhl-worldwide-express-courier-on-9-may-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathi-knitting-company-vs-dhl-worldwide-express-courier-on-9-may-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bharathi Knitting Company vs Dhl Worldwide Express Courier &#8230; on 9 May, 1996","datePublished":"1996-05-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-26T14:57:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathi-knitting-company-vs-dhl-worldwide-express-courier-on-9-may-1996"},"wordCount":1541,"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\/bharathi-knitting-company-vs-dhl-worldwide-express-courier-on-9-may-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathi-knitting-company-vs-dhl-worldwide-express-courier-on-9-may-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathi-knitting-company-vs-dhl-worldwide-express-courier-on-9-may-1996","name":"Bharathi Knitting Company vs Dhl Worldwide Express Courier ... on 9 May, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-05-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-26T14:57:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathi-knitting-company-vs-dhl-worldwide-express-courier-on-9-may-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathi-knitting-company-vs-dhl-worldwide-express-courier-on-9-may-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathi-knitting-company-vs-dhl-worldwide-express-courier-on-9-may-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bharathi Knitting Company vs Dhl Worldwide Express Courier &#8230; on 9 May, 1996"}]},{"@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\/97083","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=97083"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/97083\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=97083"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=97083"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=97083"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}