{"id":115485,"date":"1954-03-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1954-03-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-m-syed-mohammad-and-company-vs-the-state-of-andhra-with-on-11-march-1954"},"modified":"2018-06-18T14:18:20","modified_gmt":"2018-06-18T08:48:20","slug":"v-m-syed-mohammad-and-company-vs-the-state-of-andhra-with-on-11-march-1954","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-m-syed-mohammad-and-company-vs-the-state-of-andhra-with-on-11-march-1954","title":{"rendered":"V. M. Syed Mohammad And Company vs The State Of Andhra.(With &#8230; on 11 March, 1954"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">V. M. Syed Mohammad And Company vs The State Of Andhra.(With &#8230; on 11 March, 1954<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1954 AIR  314, \t\t  1954 SCR 1117<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S R Das<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Mahajan, Mehar Chand (Cj), Mukherjea, B.K., Das, Sudhi Ranjan, Bose, Vivian, Hasan, Ghulam<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nV.   M. SYED MOHAMMAD AND COMPANY\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE STATE OF ANDHRA.(With Connected Appeal)\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n11\/03\/1954\n\nBENCH:\nDAS, SUDHI RANJAN\nBENCH:\nDAS, SUDHI RANJAN\nMAHAJAN, MEHAR CHAND (CJ)\nMUKHERJEA, B.K.\nBOSE, VIVIAN\nHASAN, GHULAM\n\nCITATION:\n 1954 AIR  314\t\t  1954 SCR 1117\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1955 SC 661\t (205)\n R\t    1957 SC 877\t (16)\n R\t    1958 SC 538\t (12)\n R\t    1960 SC1254\t (3,9)\n RF\t    1992 SC1277\t (85)\n\n\nACT:\n   Constitution\t of India, art. 14-Government of India\tAct,\n1935,  entry  48 in List II of the  Seventh  Schedule-Madras\nGeneral\t Sales Tax Act (IX of 1939)-Whether,ultra vires\t the\nConstitution  or  Government of India Act,  1935-Rule  16(5)\nframed\tunder the Act-Whether ultra vires s. 5 (vi)  of\t the\nAct.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n   Held, that the Madras General Sales Tax Act (IX of 1939),\nis  not\t ultra vires the Government of India  Act,  1935  as\nentry  48  in  List  II\t of  the  Seventh  Schedule  to\t the\nGovernment of India Act, 1936 was wide enough to cover a law\nimposing 'a tax on the purchaser of goods as well as on\t the\nseller.\n   Held, also that inasmuch as there was nothing to  suggest\nthat  the  purchasers of other\tcommodities  were  similarly\nsituated as the purchasers of bides and skins in the present\ncase the Act\n1118\nwas not void under art. 14 of the Constitution on the ground\nthat  the impugned Act singles Out for taxing  purchaser  of\ncertain specified commodities only but leaves out purchasers\nof Mother commodities.\n     Article   14   does  not  forbid\tclassification\t for\nlegislative  purposes provided such classification is  based\non  some  differentia having a reasonable  relation  to\t the\nobject and purpose of the law in question.\n    Rule   16(5)  framed  under\t the  Act  contravenes\t the\nprovisions  of\ts.  5(vi) of the Act but  this\tsub-rule  is\nseverable  and\tdoes not affect the validity  of  the  rules\nwhich  may  otherwise  lie  within the\tambit  of  the\t<a href=\"\/doc\/4354\/\">Act.\n   Chiranjit  Lal  Chowdhury v. The Union of  India<\/a>  ([1950]\nS.C.R.\n869)relied upon.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 187 and 188<br \/>\nof 1953.\n<\/p>\n<p>  Appeals  under  article 132 of the Constitution  of  India<br \/>\nfrom the Judgment and Order, dated the 29th August, 1952, of<br \/>\nthe  High  Court of Judicature at Madras in  Writ  Petitions<br \/>\nNos. 21 and 41 of 1952.\n<\/p>\n<p>   K.V.\t Venkatasubramania Iyer (A.  N. Rangaswami and.\t  S.<br \/>\nK. Aiyangar, with him) for the appellant.<br \/>\n   M.\t  Seshachalapathi for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>   V.K.\t  T.  Chari,  Advocate-General\tof  Madras  (V.\t  V.<br \/>\nRaghavan, with him) for the intervener (State of Madras).<br \/>\n  T. R.\t  Balakrishna  lyer  and  Sardar  Bahadur  for\t the<br \/>\nintervener (State of Travancore-Cochin).\n<\/p>\n<p>     Nittoor  Sreenivasa  Rao, Advocate\t General  Of  Mysore<br \/>\n(Porus\tA.  Mehta, with him) for the  intervener  (State  of<br \/>\nMysore).\n<\/p>\n<p>    Lal\t Narayan Sinha (B.  K. P. Sinha, with him)  for\t the<br \/>\nintervener (State of Bihar).\n<\/p>\n<p> 1954.\t March 11.  The Judgment of the Court was  delivered<br \/>\nby<br \/>\n  DAS J.-These two appeals arise out of Writ Petitions\tNos.<br \/>\n21  &#8216;and 41 -of 1952, filed in the High Court of  Judicature<br \/>\nat Madras under article 226 questioning the validity of\t the<br \/>\nMadras\tGeneral\t Sales\tTax  Act (IX of\t 1939)\tand  of\t the<br \/>\nTurnover and Assessment Rules framed under that Act.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">1119<\/span><\/p>\n<p>  The  petitioners  are\t tanners carrying,  on\tbusiness  in<br \/>\nEluru,\tWest  Godawari District, which is now  part  of\t the<br \/>\nnewly created State of Andhra.\tThey make large purchases of<br \/>\nuntanned  hides\t and skins and after tanning them  in  their<br \/>\ntanneries they export the tanned hides and skins or sell the<br \/>\nsame to local purchasers.  In the High Court the  appellants<br \/>\nimpugned the Act and the rules on the following grounds :-I\n<\/p>\n<p>   (a)\t  The Provincial Legislature had no power under\t the<br \/>\nGovernment  of India Act of 1935 to enact a law\t imposing  a<br \/>\ntax on purchasers;\n<\/p>\n<p>  (b)  The  liability to pay tax on sales is thrown  on\t the<br \/>\npurchaser  not by the statute but by the rules.\t This is  an<br \/>\nunconstitutional  delegation  by  the  legislature  of\t its<br \/>\nfunctions to the executive and the imposition of ,the tax is<br \/>\naccordingly illegal;\n<\/p>\n<p>    (c)\t  The  Act has become void under article 14  of\t the<br \/>\nConstitution,  as it singles out for taxation purchasers  in<br \/>\nsome trades and is, therefore, discriminatory; and\n<\/p>\n<p>    (d)\t  The  rules framed under the Act  are\tinconsistent<br \/>\nwith  the provisions enacted in the body of the Act and\t are<br \/>\nvoid.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t High Court repelled each of the  aforesaid  grounds<br \/>\nexcept\tthat  under item (d).  It held that rule  16(5)\t was<br \/>\nultra  vires in that it offended against section 5  (vi)  of<br \/>\nthe Act and dismissed their applications.  Hence the present<br \/>\nappeals\t by the appellants under the certificate granted  by<br \/>\nthe  High  Court that it was a fit case for appeal  to\tthis<br \/>\ncourt.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Learned  advocate appearing in support of these  appeals<br \/>\nhas  not  pressed  the\tobjection under\t item  (b)  but\t has<br \/>\ninsisted  on  the remaining grounds of\tobjection.   In\t our<br \/>\nopinion the decisions of the High Court on those grounds are<br \/>\nsubstantially well-founded and correct.\t On the question  of<br \/>\nlegislative   competency  the  learned\tadvocate  drew\t our<br \/>\n&#8216;attention to entry 54 in List II of the Seventh Schedule to<br \/>\nthe Constitution of India and argued that this entry clearly<br \/>\nindicated  that entry 48 in List II of the Seventh  Schedule<br \/>\nto the -Government of India Act, 1935; under which the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">145<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">1120<\/span><br \/>\nimpugned Act was passed, was much narrower in its scope\t and<br \/>\ncould not be read as authorise in a the making of a law with<br \/>\nrespect\t to taxes on the purchase of goods.   This  argument<br \/>\nappears\t to  us to be fallacious, for the intention  of\t the<br \/>\nConstituent Assembly as expressed in entry 54 in List II  of<br \/>\nthe  Seventh Schedule to the Constitution cannot be a  guide<br \/>\nfor ascertaining the intention of a totally, different body,<br \/>\nnamely, the British Parliament, in enacting entry 48 in List<br \/>\n11  of the Seventh Schedule to the Government of India\tAct,<br \/>\n1935.\tFurther, we agree with the High Court that entry  48<br \/>\nin  List  II of the Seventh Schedule to\t the  Government  of<br \/>\nIndia  Act,  on a proper construction, was  wide  enough  to<br \/>\ncover  a law imposing tax on the purchaser of goods as\twell<br \/>\nand that the Constituent Assembly in entry 54 of List II  in<br \/>\nthe  Seventh  Schedule\tto the\tConstitution  accepted\tthis<br \/>\nliberal\t construction  of  the corresponding  entry  48\t and<br \/>\nexpressed  in  clearer language what was  implicit  in\tthat<br \/>\ncorresponding entry.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The next point urged by the learned advocate was founded<br \/>\non   article  14  of  the  Constitution.   The\t appellants&#8217;<br \/>\ngrievance  is that the impugned -Act singles out for  taxing<br \/>\npurchasers of certain specified commodities only but  leaves<br \/>\nout  purchasers\t of all other  commodities.   The  principle<br \/>\nunderlying  the equal protection clause of the\tConstitution<br \/>\nhas been dealt with and explained in Chiranjitlal  Chowdhury<br \/>\nv.  The Union of India (1) and several subsequent cases\t and<br \/>\nneed not be reiterated.It is well,settled that the guarantee<br \/>\nof equal protection of\tlaws   does  not  require  that\t the<br \/>\nsame law should be made applicable to all persons.   Article<br \/>\n14,  it\t has been said, does not forbid\t classification\t for<br \/>\nlegislative  purposes, provided that such classification  is<br \/>\nbased  on some differentia having a reasonable\trelation  to<br \/>\nthe  object and purpose of the law in question.\t As  pointed<br \/>\nout by the majority of the Bench which decided\tChiranjitlal<br \/>\nChowdhury&#8217;s case, there is a strong presumption in favour of<br \/>\nthe  validity  of legislative classification and it  is\t for<br \/>\nthose who challenge it as<br \/>\n(1)  [1950] S.C.R.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">1121<\/span><\/p>\n<p>unconstitutional  to allege and prove beyond all doubt\tthat<br \/>\nthe legislation arbitrarily discriminates between  different<br \/>\npersons\t similarly circumstanced.  There is no\tmaterial  on<br \/>\nthe record before us to suggest that the purchasers of other<br \/>\ncommodities  are  similarly situated as\t the  purchasers  of<br \/>\nhides  and  skins.  The majority  decision  in\tChiranjitlal<br \/>\nChowdhury&#8217;s  case(1) clearly applies to the case  before  us<br \/>\nand  there  is no getting away from the\t position  that\t the<br \/>\nappellants before us have not discharged the burden of proof<br \/>\nthat,  according to the majority decision, was upon them  to<br \/>\ndo.\n<\/p>\n<p>  Lastly, the learned advocate urges that rule 16(5) clearly<br \/>\ncontravenes  the  provisions of section 5(vi)  of  the\tAct.<br \/>\nThis  sub-rule has been held to be ultra vires by, the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  and, indeed, the learned Advocate-General  of  Madras<br \/>\ndid not in the High Court, as before ,us, dispute that\trule<br \/>\n16(5)  was  repugnant  to  section  5(vi).   That  sub-rule,<br \/>\nhowever, affects only unlicensed dealers and the  appellants<br \/>\nwho are admittedly licensed dealers are not affected by that<br \/>\nsub-rule.  Further, it has not been suggested before us that<br \/>\nthe  appellants\t were  ever called upon to pay\tany  tax  on<br \/>\npurchase of hides or skins in respect of Which tax had\tbeen<br \/>\npreviously  paid by some prior purchaser.  That sub-rule  is<br \/>\nclearly\t severable  and cannot affect the  validity  of\t the<br \/>\nrules  which may otherwise be within the ambit of  the\tAct.<br \/>\nOur  attention has not been drawn to any other infirmity  in<br \/>\nthe rules.\n<\/p>\n<p>   In  the premises there is no substance in  these  appeals<br \/>\nwhich must, therefore, be dismissed with costs.<br \/>\n Appeals dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Agent for the respondent and for the interveners, States  of<br \/>\nMadras, Mysore and Bihar: R. H. Dhebar.\n<\/p>\n<p>(1) [1950] S.C.R. 869.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">1122<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India V. M. Syed Mohammad And Company vs The State Of Andhra.(With &#8230; on 11 March, 1954 Equivalent citations: 1954 AIR 314, 1954 SCR 1117 Author: S R Das Bench: Mahajan, Mehar Chand (Cj), Mukherjea, B.K., Das, Sudhi Ranjan, Bose, Vivian, Hasan, Ghulam PETITIONER: V. M. SYED MOHAMMAD AND COMPANY Vs. RESPONDENT: [&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-115485","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>V. M. Syed Mohammad And Company vs The State Of Andhra.(With ... on 11 March, 1954 - 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\/v-m-syed-mohammad-and-company-vs-the-state-of-andhra-with-on-11-march-1954\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"V. M. Syed Mohammad And Company vs The State Of Andhra.(With ... on 11 March, 1954 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-m-syed-mohammad-and-company-vs-the-state-of-andhra-with-on-11-march-1954\" \/>\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=\"1954-03-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-18T08:48:20+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-m-syed-mohammad-and-company-vs-the-state-of-andhra-with-on-11-march-1954#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-m-syed-mohammad-and-company-vs-the-state-of-andhra-with-on-11-march-1954\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"V. M. Syed Mohammad And Company vs The State Of Andhra.(With &#8230; on 11 March, 1954\",\"datePublished\":\"1954-03-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-18T08:48:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-m-syed-mohammad-and-company-vs-the-state-of-andhra-with-on-11-march-1954\"},\"wordCount\":1202,\"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\\\/v-m-syed-mohammad-and-company-vs-the-state-of-andhra-with-on-11-march-1954#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-m-syed-mohammad-and-company-vs-the-state-of-andhra-with-on-11-march-1954\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-m-syed-mohammad-and-company-vs-the-state-of-andhra-with-on-11-march-1954\",\"name\":\"V. M. Syed Mohammad And Company vs The State Of Andhra.(With ... on 11 March, 1954 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1954-03-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-18T08:48:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-m-syed-mohammad-and-company-vs-the-state-of-andhra-with-on-11-march-1954#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-m-syed-mohammad-and-company-vs-the-state-of-andhra-with-on-11-march-1954\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-m-syed-mohammad-and-company-vs-the-state-of-andhra-with-on-11-march-1954#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"V. M. Syed Mohammad And Company vs The State Of Andhra.(With &#8230; on 11 March, 1954\"}]},{\"@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":"V. M. Syed Mohammad And Company vs The State Of Andhra.(With ... on 11 March, 1954 - 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\/v-m-syed-mohammad-and-company-vs-the-state-of-andhra-with-on-11-march-1954","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"V. M. Syed Mohammad And Company vs The State Of Andhra.(With ... on 11 March, 1954 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-m-syed-mohammad-and-company-vs-the-state-of-andhra-with-on-11-march-1954","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1954-03-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-18T08:48:20+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-m-syed-mohammad-and-company-vs-the-state-of-andhra-with-on-11-march-1954#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-m-syed-mohammad-and-company-vs-the-state-of-andhra-with-on-11-march-1954"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"V. M. Syed Mohammad And Company vs The State Of Andhra.(With &#8230; on 11 March, 1954","datePublished":"1954-03-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-18T08:48:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-m-syed-mohammad-and-company-vs-the-state-of-andhra-with-on-11-march-1954"},"wordCount":1202,"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\/v-m-syed-mohammad-and-company-vs-the-state-of-andhra-with-on-11-march-1954#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-m-syed-mohammad-and-company-vs-the-state-of-andhra-with-on-11-march-1954","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-m-syed-mohammad-and-company-vs-the-state-of-andhra-with-on-11-march-1954","name":"V. M. Syed Mohammad And Company vs The State Of Andhra.(With ... on 11 March, 1954 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1954-03-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-18T08:48:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-m-syed-mohammad-and-company-vs-the-state-of-andhra-with-on-11-march-1954#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-m-syed-mohammad-and-company-vs-the-state-of-andhra-with-on-11-march-1954"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-m-syed-mohammad-and-company-vs-the-state-of-andhra-with-on-11-march-1954#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"V. M. Syed Mohammad And Company vs The State Of Andhra.(With &#8230; on 11 March, 1954"}]},{"@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\/115485","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=115485"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/115485\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=115485"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=115485"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=115485"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}