{"id":114895,"date":"1997-02-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1997-02-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-vs-urmila-ramesh-etc-on-4-february-1997"},"modified":"2015-02-08T17:13:30","modified_gmt":"2015-02-08T11:43:30","slug":"the-commissioner-of-vs-urmila-ramesh-etc-on-4-february-1997","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-vs-urmila-ramesh-etc-on-4-february-1997","title":{"rendered":"The Commissioner Of … vs Urmila Ramesh Etc on 4 February, 1997"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
The Commissioner Of … vs Urmila Ramesh Etc on 4 February, 1997<\/div>\n
Bench: B.P. Jeevan Reddy, K.S. Paripoornan<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,MADRAS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nURMILA RAMESH ETC.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t04\/02\/1997\n\nBENCH:\nB.P. JEEVAN REDDY, K.S. PARIPOORNAN\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t       THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1997
\nPresent:\n<\/p>\n
\t    Hon’ble Mr.Justice B.P.Jeevan Reddy
\n\t    Hon’ble Mr.Justice K.S.Paripoornan
\nDr.V.Gaurishankar, Sr.Adv., S.Rajappa and B.K.Prasad, Advs.
\nwith him for the appellant
\nT.A. Ramachandran,  Sr. Adv,  and A.T.M.  Sampath, Adv. with
\nhim for the Respondent in C.A.No.2150-52\/82
\nJ.Ramamurthy, Sr.Adv. Ms.Janki Ramachandran, Adv.with
\nhim for the Respondent in C.A.No.3274\/84
\n\t\t\t O R D E R
\n     The following order of the Court was delivered:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    WITH
\n   CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2144-46\/82, 2147-49\/82, 2150-52\/82,
\n\t      2153-55\/82, 4204\/82 AND 3274\/84.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t O R D E R
\n     In this  batch of cases, the following two questions of
\nlaw arise for consideration:\n<\/p>\n
(i)  Whether, On  the facts  and in the Circumstances of the
\n     case,  the\t  Appellate  Tribunal\twas   justified\t  in
\n     confirming the  deletion  of  the\tincome\tassessed  as
\n     deemed dividends under the Provisions of s. 2(22)(c) in
\n     the assessees’ case?\n<\/p>\n
(ii) Whether, on  the facts  and in the circumstances of the
\n     case, the\tAppellate  Tribunal  was  right\t in  law  in
\n     holding  that   the  sum  of  Rs.7,28,760\trepresenting
\n     profits assessed  under section  41(2) in the preceding
\n     years cannot  form part  of the accumulated profits for
\n     the purpose  of section 2(22)(c) of the Income-tax Act,
\n     196?\n<\/p>\n
2.   The Revenue  has preferred\t the appeals from the common
\njudgment rendered by the High Court of Madras dated 9.3.1979
\nreported as Commissioner of Income-tax.\n<\/p>\n
Tamil Nadu I v. T.S. Rajam [(1980) 125 ITR 207].\n<\/p>\n
3.   We heard counsel at some length. The main facts are not
\nin dispute.  The respondents ate assessees under the Income-
\ntax Act.  They were  shareholders  of  a  company  Known  as
\n“Tinnevelly Motor Service Company Private Ltd.”. The company
\ncarried on  transport business. Government took over all the
\nVehicles  owned\t by  the  company.  The\t company  went\tinto
\nliquidation. The  Liquidator distributed  the dividends from
\ntime to\t time. Assessments  were made for the years 1970-71,
\n1971-72 and  1972-73. The  Income-tax officer assessed a sum
\nof  Rs.7,28,760\/-,   as\t representing  profits\ton  sale  of
\ncompany’s  capital  assets,  which  had\t been  subjected  to
\ndepreciation and  not trading  or business  profits, and the
\ncompany had  shown it  as a capital reserve. The plea of the
\nRevenue was  that though  the amount  was shown\t as  capital
\nreserve, it  was purely\t the accumulation of profits, either
\nassessed or  equal to  the amounts  assessed  under  Section
\n41(2) of  the Act from 1962-63 to 1969-70. On this basis, it
\nwas concluded that the said amount represented the income of
\nthe shareholders  under\t Section  2(24)\t read  with  Section
\n2(22)(c) of  the Income-tax  Act. The  plea of the assessees
\nwas that the amounts assessed under Section 41(2) of the Act
\ncannot be treated as `commercial profits’ at all in the real
\nsense and  so, it cannot come within the mischief of Section
\n2(22)(c) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
4.   The High Court of Madras held that Section 41(2) of the
\n1961 Act  creates a  legal fiction under which the balancing
\ncharge is  treated as  “business income”  Chargeable to tax.
\nThe legal  fiction should  be limited  for the\tpurpose\t for
\nwhich it  was created. The receipt of excess on written down
\nvalue on  the sale  of capital\tassets cannot  be held to be
\nprofit apart from the legal fiction created by Section 41(2)
\nof the Act. It cannot form part of commercial profit. So, it
\ncannot from part of “accumulated profits” within the meaning
\nof Section  2(22)(c) read  with Section 2(24) of the Act and
\nany distribution  out of  such amount  cannot be assessed in
\nthe hands  of shareholders as “deemed dividends”. If at all,
\nit represents only a capital receipt. The above decision was
\nrendered placing  reliance on  the decisions  of this  Court
\nrendered in  (1) CIT  V. Bipinchandra  Maganlal\t &  Co\tLtd.
\n[(1961 41  ITR 290 (SC)], (2) CIT V. Express Newspapers Ltd.
\n[(1964)\t 53   ITR  250\t (SC)],(3)  Cambay  Electric  Supply
\nIndustrial Co  Ltd. v.\tCIT [(1978) 119 ITR 113.]. The first
\ntwo  decisions\twere  rendered\twith  reference\t to  Section
\n10(2)(vii) of  the Income-tax  Act, 1922. The said provision
\nclearly created\t a legal  fiction. The\tthird  decision\t was
\nrendered in  the context  of Section 41(2) of the Income-tax
\nAct, 1961.\n<\/p>\n
5.   Dr. Gaurishanker,\tSenior Counsel for Revenue submitted
\nas follow:-\n<\/p>\n
     The language of Section 41(2) of 1961 Act is different.
\nUnder Section  41(2) of the Act, if the amount for which the
\nasset is sold exceeds the written down value, so much of the
\nexcess as  does not exceed the difference between the actual
\ncost and  the written  down value,  shall be  chargeable  to
\nincome-tax as  income of  the business\tor profession of the
\nprevious year.\tThere is  no fiction,  similar to the second
\nproviso\t  to Section 10(2)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.
\nEven so,  as stated in Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co.
\nLtd. V. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-II<\/a> (113 ITR 84);
\nthe fiction  should be\tapplied to  its logical limit. If so
\ndone, the  receipt of  excess on  written down\tvalue of the
\ncapital of  assets, is\t“income” for  all purposes under the
\nAct. There is no dichotomy in applying the above concept  as
\n“profits simpliciter” and “commercial profits”. The language
\nof Section  2(22)(c) “accumulated  profits” taken along with
\nSection 2(24) and Section 2(45) of the Act defining “income”
\nand “total income” read with Section 5 of the Act, should be
\ngiven its  plain meaning  and the  balancing charge assessed
\nunder Section 41(2) of the Act, is “profit” and distribution
\nthereof to the shareholders should be assessed a “dividend”.
\nPlacing reliance  on the  decision in  Bishop v.  Smyrna and
\nCassaba Railway\t Company (No.  2) (1895\t 2 ch. 596), counsel
\ncontended that the income brought to tax under section 41(2)
\nof the\tAct is\tone by\tway of\trestitution; what  had\tbeen
\nwritten off (allowed) for the purpose of accounts, has later
\nbeen made good by the increase in value. In occuring at page
\n601 of the said decision:\n<\/p>\n
     “It is writing back what was before
\n     written  off;   and  I  cannot  for
\n     myself see\t why, since  the  amount
\n     written  off   was\t treated   as  a
\n     deduction from  profits  in  former
\n     accounts, the  amount that\t is  now
\n     written up should not be treated as
\n     profits in\t the same  way. It seems
\n     to me  to be  not\t an accretion of
\n     principal, but  restitution of what
\n     was before\t taken away– taken away
\n     from  profits,   and  therefore   a
\n     restitution to profits.”
\n     On the other hand, counsel for the assessees, Mr. T. A.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Ramachandran and  Mr. J. Ramamurthy, contended that there is
\ndifference between  “Profits” and  “commercial profits”, and
\ndividend can be declared only out of commercial profits. The
\nmeaning to  be given  to  the  words  “accumulated  profits”
\nshould be construed in that background. The balancing charge
\nin the\tinstant case  is merely a capital reserve and cannot
\nbe treated  as commercial  profits and\tso,  will  not\tcome
\nwithin Section 2(22)(c) of the Act. It was also contended by
\nSri J.\tRamamurty, that\t Section 41(2)\tof the\tAct contains
\nwords which are similar or akin to a legal fiction and so it
\nis not\tcorrect to  say that  the  language  and  import  of
\nSection 10(2)(vii)  proviso of 1922 Act and Section 41(2) of
\n1961 Act are different.\n<\/p>\n
6.   On hearing\t the rival  pleas urged\t before us,  we\t are
\nprima facie  of the  view  that\t the  language\temployed  in
\nSection 10(2)(vii)  of the  Income Tax\tAct, 1922  and\tthat
\nemployed in  Section 41(2)  of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are
\nmaterially different.  It is  doubtful, whether the language
\nused in\t Section 41(2)\tof the\t1961 Act  is akin to a legal
\nfiction.  The\tearlier\t decisions   reported  in   CIT\t  v.
\nBipinchandra Maganlal & Co. Ltd. [(1961 41 ITR 290 (SC)] and
\nCIV v. Express Newspapers Ltd. [(1964) 53 ITR\t  250  (SC)]
\nwere based  on the  relevant provisions\t of  1922  Act.\t The
\ndecision in  Cambay Electric  Supply Industrial\t Co. Ltd. v.
\nCommissioner of Income-tax. Gujarat-II<\/a> (113 ITR 84) was with
\nreference to Section 41(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This
\nlater decision\twas  rendered  mainly  placing\temphasis  on
\nSection 80E  of the  Income-tax Act, 1961. Incidentally, the
\nlanguage used  in Section  41(2) of  the Act  has also\tbeen
\nreferred to as a fiction. We are prima facie inclined to the
\nview that  when once  certain amount  is treated  as  income
\nunder the Act, it should be so for all intents and purposes-
\nand in\tall situations\tarising under the Act. Based on this
\napproach, it  will be  difficult to hold that the receipt of
\nexcess on  written down value on the sale of capital assets,
\nis a “fictional income” and cannot form part of the profits.
\nOnce it\t is profit,  it is  so for  all\t purposes,  and\t any
\ndistribution made  out of  such an amount should be assessed
\nin the\thands of shareholders as dividends. Section 41(2) of
\n1961 Act  plainly makes\t the “excess” amount “chargeable” as
\n“income”. If  it is so, it will be taken in by Section 2(24)
\nread with  Section 2(22)(c)  of the Act. An indepth analysis
\nof the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1922, vis-a-vis the
\nprovisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is called for in the
\ncircumstances. The  matter is  not free from difficulty. The
\nearlier\t decisions   of\t this\tCourt  reported\t in  CIT  v.
\nBipinchandra Maganlal & Co. Ltd. [(1961 41 ITR 290 (SC)] and
\nCIT v. Express Newspapers Ltd. [(1964) 53 ITR 250 (SC)] were
\nrendered by a Bench of three-judges while the later decision
\nin  Cambay   Electric  Supply\tIndustrial   Co.   Ltd.\t  v.
\nCommissioner of\t Income-tax, Gujarat-II<\/a>\t (113  ITR  84)\t was
\nrendered by a Bench of two-judges.\n<\/p>\n
7.   In the  circumstances and\tin view of the importance of
\nthe questions involved in this batch of cases. We think that
\nit is only appropriate that this batch of cases be heard and
\ndisposed of  by a  larger Bench.  Accordingly, We direct the
\nRegistry to  place the\tmatter before  the Hon’ble the Chief
\nJustice for appropriate orders in this behalf.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India The Commissioner Of … vs Urmila Ramesh Etc on 4 February, 1997 Bench: B.P. Jeevan Reddy, K.S. Paripoornan PETITIONER: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,MADRAS Vs. RESPONDENT: URMILA RAMESH ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04\/02\/1997 BENCH: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, K.S. PARIPOORNAN ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1997 Present: Hon’ble Mr.Justice B.P.Jeevan […]<\/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-114895","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Commissioner Of ... vs Urmila Ramesh Etc on 4 February, 1997 - 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\/the-commissioner-of-vs-urmila-ramesh-etc-on-4-february-1997\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Commissioner Of ... vs Urmila Ramesh Etc on 4 February, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-vs-urmila-ramesh-etc-on-4-february-1997\" \/>\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=\"1997-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-02-08T11:43:30+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\\\/the-commissioner-of-vs-urmila-ramesh-etc-on-4-february-1997#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-vs-urmila-ramesh-etc-on-4-february-1997\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Commissioner Of … vs Urmila Ramesh Etc on 4 February, 1997\",\"datePublished\":\"1997-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-08T11:43:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-vs-urmila-ramesh-etc-on-4-february-1997\"},\"wordCount\":1597,\"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\\\/the-commissioner-of-vs-urmila-ramesh-etc-on-4-february-1997#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-vs-urmila-ramesh-etc-on-4-february-1997\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-vs-urmila-ramesh-etc-on-4-february-1997\",\"name\":\"The Commissioner Of ... vs Urmila Ramesh Etc on 4 February, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1997-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-08T11:43:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-vs-urmila-ramesh-etc-on-4-february-1997#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-vs-urmila-ramesh-etc-on-4-february-1997\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-vs-urmila-ramesh-etc-on-4-february-1997#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Commissioner Of … vs Urmila Ramesh Etc on 4 February, 1997\"}]},{\"@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":"The Commissioner Of ... vs Urmila Ramesh Etc on 4 February, 1997 - 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\/the-commissioner-of-vs-urmila-ramesh-etc-on-4-february-1997","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Commissioner Of ... vs Urmila Ramesh Etc on 4 February, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-vs-urmila-ramesh-etc-on-4-february-1997","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1997-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-02-08T11:43:30+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\/the-commissioner-of-vs-urmila-ramesh-etc-on-4-february-1997#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-vs-urmila-ramesh-etc-on-4-february-1997"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Commissioner Of … vs Urmila Ramesh Etc on 4 February, 1997","datePublished":"1997-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-08T11:43:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-vs-urmila-ramesh-etc-on-4-february-1997"},"wordCount":1597,"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\/the-commissioner-of-vs-urmila-ramesh-etc-on-4-february-1997#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-vs-urmila-ramesh-etc-on-4-february-1997","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-vs-urmila-ramesh-etc-on-4-february-1997","name":"The Commissioner Of ... vs Urmila Ramesh Etc on 4 February, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1997-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-08T11:43:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-vs-urmila-ramesh-etc-on-4-february-1997#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-vs-urmila-ramesh-etc-on-4-february-1997"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-vs-urmila-ramesh-etc-on-4-february-1997#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Commissioner Of … vs Urmila Ramesh Etc on 4 February, 1997"}]},{"@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\/114895","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=114895"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/114895\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=114895"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=114895"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=114895"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}