{"id":115813,"date":"1967-10-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1967-10-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ram-vilas-service-ltd-vs-raman-raman-private-ltd-anr-on-20-october-1967"},"modified":"2019-03-09T16:05:35","modified_gmt":"2019-03-09T10:35:35","slug":"sri-ram-vilas-service-ltd-vs-raman-raman-private-ltd-anr-on-20-october-1967","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ram-vilas-service-ltd-vs-raman-raman-private-ltd-anr-on-20-october-1967","title":{"rendered":"Sri Ram Vilas Service Ltd., &#8230; vs Raman &amp; Raman Private Ltd., &amp; Anr on 20 October, 1967"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Sri Ram Vilas Service Ltd., &#8230; vs Raman &amp; Raman Private Ltd., &amp; Anr on 20 October, 1967<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1968 AIR  748, \t\t  1968 SCR  (2)\t 14<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S Sikri<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Sikri, S.M.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nSRI RAM VILAS SERVICE LTD., KUMBAKONAM\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nRAMAN &amp; RAMAN PRIVATE LTD., &amp; ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n20\/10\/1967\n\nBENCH:\nSIKRI, S.M.\nBENCH:\nSIKRI, S.M.\nSHAH, J.C.\nSHELAT, J.M.\n\nCITATION:\n 1968 AIR  748\t\t  1968 SCR  (2)\t 14\n\n\nACT:\nMotor  Vehicles\t Act  (4  of 1939). s.\t48(3)  and  r.\t208-\nVariation   of\tRoute-Jurisdiction  of\tRegional   Transport\nAuthority--Madras Act (1) of 19 ), S. 5 (1).\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  appellant's  application  for  variation  of  a   route\nextending beyond 24 kilometers was accepted by the  Regional\nTransport Authority.  The respondent, who had unsuccessfully\nobjected  before the Authority filed a writ petition in\t the\nHigh Court to quash the order.\tThe High Court accepted\t the\nwrit  petition\tholding that any variation in excess  of  24\nkilometers  was\t ex  facie  illegal  and  violation  of\t the\nintendment of the legislature enacting Madras Act 3 of 1964.\nwhich  amended\tthe  Motor Vehicles Act.   In  appeals\tthis\nCourt,\nHELD : The Regional Transport Authority had authority  under\nr.  208\t to  vary the permit and  nothing  contained  in  s.\n48(3)(xxi)  of the Motor Vehicles Act limited its  power  in\nrespect\t of  the distance covered by the variation  in\tthis\ncase. [19A]\nSection\t 5(1)  of  Madras Act 3 of 1964 made  the  route  or\nroutes or the area specified in every stage carriage  permit\ngranted\t before\t the  commencement of  the  Amending  Act  a\ncondition attached to such permit tinder sub-s. (3) of s. 48\nof the Principal Act; it did not that s. 48(3)(xxi) shall be\ndeemed to be  condition attached to every such permit. [18c]\nThe  High Court erred in holding that s. 48(3)(xxi)  of\t the\nAct,  is  amended.  by itself gave  power  to  the  Regional\nTransport Authority to vary the route within certain limits.\nThis  power Could be exercised only if a condition  to\tthat\neffect\twas put in the permit. In the case of the  appellant\nthe  permit contained a condition similar to  the  condition\nmentioned  in s. 48 (3) (xxi) before its amendment by Act  3\nof  f  964.  Therefore, for the purpose of  this  appeal  s.\n48(3)(xxi). is amendment has to be treated ,is non-existent.\n[18E-G]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 258 of 1967.<br \/>\nAppeal front the judgment and order dated October 3, 1966 of<br \/>\nthe Madras High Court in Writ Petition No. 1159 of 1966.<br \/>\n G.  Ramaswamy, R. Gopalakrishnan and K. K.  Venugopal,\t for<br \/>\nthe appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>M.N. Ranghachari, M.K. Ramamurthy, Shyamala Pappu and Vineet<br \/>\nKumar, for respondent No.1<br \/>\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nSikri,\tJ.  This appeal by certificate granted by  the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt of Madras is directed against its order dated  October<br \/>\n3, 1966,<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> 15<\/span><br \/>\nallowing  the  writ  petition filed under Art.\t226  of\t the<br \/>\nConstitution by M\/s Raman &amp; Raman (P) Ltd., Kumbakonam,\t and<br \/>\nquashing  the  order of the  Regional  Transport  Authority,<br \/>\nThanjavur,  dated  March  28,  1966,  whereby  the  Regional<br \/>\nTransport   Authority  had  granted  the   application\t for<br \/>\nvariation of the route Sirkali to, Kumbakonam of M\/s Sri Ram<br \/>\nVilas  Service\tLtd.  Kumbakonam, in respect  of  two  stage<br \/>\ncarriages.\n<\/p>\n<p>On  December 9, 1965, the application of M\/s Sri  Ram  Vilas<br \/>\nService Ltd., Kumbakonam for variation of the route  Sirkali<br \/>\nto,  Kumbakonam\t was notified under s. 57(3)  of  the  Motor<br \/>\nVehicles  Act,\t1939.\tM\/s Raman &amp; Raman  (P)\tLtd.,  among<br \/>\nothers,\t filed objections and after hearing the\t objections,<br \/>\nby  order  dated  March 28,  1966,  the\t Regional  Transport<br \/>\nAuthority, Thanjavur, granted the application as,  according<br \/>\nto it, the variation applied for was in the interest of\t the<br \/>\ntravelling  public.  The distance covered by  the  variation<br \/>\nextended  beyond 24 kilometers.\t M\/s Raman &amp; Raman (P)\tLtd.<br \/>\nfiled  the  petition under Art 226 of  the  Constitution  to<br \/>\nquash the order of the Regional Transport Authority.<br \/>\nThe  question  which arises in this appeal  is\twhether\t the<br \/>\nRegional  Transport Authority had jurisdiction to  vary\t the<br \/>\nroute  by  extending  it beyond 24  kms.   The\tHigh  Court,<br \/>\nfollowing its earlier decision in M\/s Swami Motor  Transport<br \/>\n(P)  Ltd.  v.  M\/s Murugan  Transports,\t Tiruchirapalli\t and<br \/>\nOthers(1)   held  that\t&#8220;any  variation\t in  excess  of\t  24<br \/>\nkilometers  would be ex facie illegal and violation  of\t the<br \/>\nintendment of the legislature enacting Act 3 of 1964.&#8221;<br \/>\nThe answer to the question posed above depends upon the true<br \/>\nconstruction  of  some sections of the Motor  Vehicles\tAct,<br \/>\n1939.  as  amended  by\tthe Madras Act\tIII  of\t 1964.\t The<br \/>\nrelevant statutory provisions are as follows :<br \/>\n&#8220;48(1).\t Subject to the provisions of section 47, a Regional<br \/>\nTransport  Authority may on an application made to it  under<br \/>\nsection\t 46,  grant a stage carriage pen-nit  in  accordance<br \/>\nwith  the application or with such modification as it  deems<br \/>\nfit or refuse to grant such a permit;\n<\/p>\n<p>Provided that no such permit shall be granted in respect  of<br \/>\nany route or area not specified in the, application.<br \/>\n(3)The\tRegional  Transport Authority, if  it  decides\tto<br \/>\ngrant  a  stage carriage permit, may grant  the\t permit\t for<br \/>\nservice of stage carriages of a specified description or for<br \/>\none or more particular stage carriages, and may, subject  to<br \/>\nany rules that may be made under this Act,<br \/>\n(1)  Writ  Petition  No.  3744\tof  1965,  judgement   dated<br \/>\nSeptember 7, 1966.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">16<\/span><\/p>\n<p>attach\tto  the\t permit any one or more\t of  the,  following<br \/>\nconditions, namely :\n<\/p>\n<p>(i)that\t the  stage carriage or stage carriages\t shall\tbe<br \/>\nused  only on a specified route or routes or in a  specified<br \/>\narea.\n<\/p>\n<p>     .\t .   .\t  .    .    .\t .    .\t   .\t.    .\t .\n<\/p>\n<p>(xxi)that  the Regional Transport Authority, may  after<br \/>\ngiving notice of not less than one month :\n<\/p>\n<p>(a)vary, extend or curtail the route or routes or the area<br \/>\nspecified in the permit.\n<\/p>\n<p>Provided that in the case of-\n<\/p>\n<p>(i)variation,  the  termini shall not be altered  and  the<br \/>\ndistance covered by variation shall not exceed 24 kms.\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii)extension  of  the distance covered\t by  the  extension<br \/>\nshall not exceed 24 kms. from the termini<br \/>\n(aa) vary any other condition of the permit.&#8221;<br \/>\n&#8220;S.  57(8).   An application to vary the conditions  of\t any<br \/>\npermit\tother than a temporary permit by the inclusion of  a<br \/>\nnew  route  or\troutes or a new area or\t by  the  variation,<br \/>\nextension  or  curtailment of the route or  routes  or\tarea<br \/>\nspecified in the permit or in the case of a stage  ,carriage<br \/>\npermit,\t by  increasing\t the number of\tservices  above\t the<br \/>\nspecified  maximum,  or in the case of a  contract  carriage<br \/>\npermit by increasing the number of vehicles, covered by\t the<br \/>\npermit shall be treated as an application for the grant of a<br \/>\nnew permit.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Rule  208.  (a)  Upon application made in  writing  by\t the<br \/>\nholder\tof any permit, the Transport Authority may,  at\t any<br \/>\ntime,  in  its\tdiscretion, vary the permit or\tany  of\t the<br \/>\nconditions  thereof subject to the provisions  ,of  sub-rule\n<\/p>\n<p>(b).\n<\/p>\n<p>(b)If  the application is for the variation of the  permit<br \/>\nby the inclusion of an additional vehicle or vehicles or  if<br \/>\nthe grant of variation would authorize transport  facilities<br \/>\nmaterially  different from those authorized by the  original<br \/>\npermit\t the  Transport\t Authority  shall  deal\t  with\t the<br \/>\napplication  as\t if  it were an application  for  a  permit.<br \/>\nProvided  that nothing contained in this rule shall  prevent<br \/>\nthe  Transport Authority or its Secretary, if authorized  in<br \/>\nthis behalf, from summarily rejecting an application for the<br \/>\nvariation of a stage carriage permit<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">17<\/span><br \/>\nso  as to provide transport facilities on a road  which\t has<br \/>\nbeen or is certified to be unfit for motor vehicular traffic<br \/>\nby  an officer not below the rank of Divisional Engineer  of<br \/>\nthe Highways Department.\n<\/p>\n<p>(c)Every application for variation of conditions of permit<br \/>\nunder sub-section (8) of section 57 of the Act in respect of<br \/>\na transport vehicle shall be. in form PVA.\n<\/p>\n<p>(d)The provisions of rules 163(b) shall, mutatis mutandis,<br \/>\napply  to application for the variation of a permit  or\t the<br \/>\nvariation  of the counter-signature, if any, thereof by\t the<br \/>\ninclusion of an additional vehicle sanctioned subject to the<br \/>\nproduction of the registration certificate of the additional<br \/>\nvehicle.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Section 5 of the Madras Act III of 1964, reads as follows<br \/>\n&#8221; 5(1).\t Notwithstanding anything contained in the principal<br \/>\nAct,  the  route or routes or the area\tspecified  in  every<br \/>\nstage  carriage\t permit granted before the  commencement  of<br \/>\nthis Act shall be deemed to be a condition attached to\tsuch<br \/>\npermit under sub-section (3) of section 48 of the  principal<br \/>\nAct,  as if this Act were in force on the date of  grant  of<br \/>\nsuch permit.\n<\/p>\n<p>(2)Notwithstanding any judgment or order of any Court, all<br \/>\nproceedings  taken for the grant of, and all  orders  passed<br \/>\ngranting  any  variation, extension or\tcurtailment  of\t the<br \/>\nroute  or routes or the area specified in a  stage  carriage<br \/>\npermit\tbefore\tthe commencement of this Act  by  the  State<br \/>\nTransport Authority or by a Regional Transport Authority  or<br \/>\nby  an authority or person to whom the powers and  functions<br \/>\nof  the\t State Transport Authority or a\t Regional  Transport<br \/>\nAuthority have been delegated, or by an authority exercising<br \/>\nthe  powers of appeal or revision against the orders of\t the<br \/>\nState Transport Authority or a Regional Transport Authority,<br \/>\nshall  not be deemed to, be invalid merely by reason of\t the<br \/>\nfact  that  the State Transport Authority  or  the  Regional<br \/>\nTransport  Authortiy,  as the case may be, had no  power  to<br \/>\ngrant such variation, extension or curtailment and all\tsuch<br \/>\nproceedings taken or orders passed shall be deemed always to<br \/>\nhave  been  validly taken or passed in accordance  with\t law<br \/>\nnotwithstanding\t the  distance covered by the  variation  or<br \/>\nextension exceeded twenty-four kilometers.&#8221;<br \/>\nThe learned counsel for the respondent contends that s. 4  8<br \/>\n3  (xxi), as amended, operates whether a condition  to\tthat<br \/>\neffect\thas been put in a permit or not.  But we are  unable<br \/>\nto read s. 48<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">18<\/span><br \/>\nin this sense. Section\t48  (3)\t clearly  enables   the<br \/>\nRegional Transport Authorityto attach to the permit any or<br \/>\none  of the twenty- one conditions.  It may in a  particular<br \/>\ncase put one or two or more of the condition,; or it may put<br \/>\nall  the conditions.  It seems to be common ground  that  if<br \/>\nany  of\t the  first twenty conditions in  s.  48(3)  is\t not<br \/>\nattached  to a permit it will not have effect.\t What  makes<br \/>\ncondition (xxi) different is hard to appreciate.  If  condi-<br \/>\ntion  (xxi)  as amended is not attached to a  permit  it  is<br \/>\ndifficult  to see how the Regional Transport  Authority\t can<br \/>\nderive\tany power from the existence of S. 48 (3)  (xxi)  in<br \/>\nthe Act.  Section 5 (1) of Act If of 1964 makes the route or<br \/>\nroutes or the area specified in every stage carriage  permit<br \/>\ngranted\t before\t the  commencement of  the  Amending  Act  a<br \/>\ncondition  attached to such permit tinder subsection (3)  of<br \/>\nsection\t 48  of the principal Act; it does not say  that  s.<br \/>\n48(3)  (xxi) shall be deemed to be a condition\tattached  to<br \/>\nevery such permit. The\tlearned counsel for the\t respondent<br \/>\nsays that this was theintention of the amendment, but  if<br \/>\nthis was so, the intention has not been carried out.<br \/>\nIt  was\t argued before us that the  history  of\t legislation<br \/>\nsupports the interpretation placed by the High Court but, in<br \/>\nour view, the Act as it stands amended by Act III of 1964 is<br \/>\nquite clear and it  is\t not   necessary  to  go  into\t the<br \/>\nhistory of the legislation.\n<\/p>\n<p>It  seems  to us that the High Court erred in  holding\tthat<br \/>\ns.   48\t (3)  (xxi) of the Act, as amended, by\titself\tgave<br \/>\npower to the Regional Transport Authority to vary the  route<br \/>\nwithin\tcertain limits.\t This power, in our View,  Would  be<br \/>\nexercisable only if a condition to that effect is put in the<br \/>\npermit.\t In the case of the appellant we saw the permit\t and<br \/>\nwhat  it contained was a condition similar to the  condition<br \/>\nmentioned in s. 48 (3) (xxi) before its amendment by Act  If<br \/>\n1  of  1964.  Therefore, for the purpose of this  appeal  we<br \/>\nmust treat s. 48 (3) (xxi), as amended, as nonexistent.\t  If<br \/>\ns. 48(3)(xxi), as amended, is treated as non-existent,\tthen<br \/>\nthere can be no difficulty in coming to the conclusion\tthat<br \/>\nno limitation had been placed on the powers of the  Regional<br \/>\nTransport Authority in respect of the grant of\tapplications<br \/>\nfor  variation\tof  the route.\tThe order  of  the  Regional<br \/>\nTransport  Authority  cannot, therefore,  be  challenged  as<br \/>\nbeing beyond its jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n<p>Another\t question that was debated before us was whether  r.<br \/>\n208  of\t the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules,  extracted  above,<br \/>\nconfer\tpowers on a Transport Authority to vary\t permits  or<br \/>\nwhether it is merely a procedural rule.\t It seems to us that<br \/>\nas the Act stands at present, r. 208 does confer power on  a<br \/>\ntransport  authority  to  vary\tall  kinds  of\tpermits\t  or<br \/>\nconditions attached therein.  This power is exercised on  an<br \/>\napplication made in writing by the holder of any permit.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">19<\/span><\/p>\n<p>It follows from the above reasoning that the Regional Trans-<br \/>\nport  Authority had the authority under r. 208 to  vary\t the<br \/>\npermit and nothing contained in s. 48 (3) (xxi) limited\t its<br \/>\npower in respect of the distance covered by the variation in<br \/>\nthis, case.\n<\/p>\n<p>We may mention that it was argued before us that s. 57(8) is<br \/>\nnot  merely procedural but also implies a power\t to  receive<br \/>\napplications and vary the conditions in a permit.  This\t may<br \/>\nbe  so,\t but  it is not necessary to  decide  in  this\tcase<br \/>\nbecause\t in  Madras  r. 208 clearly  confers  power  on\t the<br \/>\nTransport Authority to vary the conditions of the permit.<br \/>\nIn the result the appeal is allowed and the judgment of\t the<br \/>\nHigh  Court  set aside.\t The appellant will have  the  costs<br \/>\nincurred in. this Court.\n<\/p>\n<pre>Y.P.\t\t\t\tAppeal alloweded\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">20<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Sri Ram Vilas Service Ltd., &#8230; vs Raman &amp; Raman Private Ltd., &amp; Anr on 20 October, 1967 Equivalent citations: 1968 AIR 748, 1968 SCR (2) 14 Author: S Sikri Bench: Sikri, S.M. PETITIONER: SRI RAM VILAS SERVICE LTD., KUMBAKONAM Vs. RESPONDENT: RAMAN &amp; RAMAN PRIVATE LTD., &amp; ANR. DATE OF [&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-115813","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>Sri Ram Vilas Service Ltd., ... vs Raman &amp; Raman Private Ltd., &amp; Anr on 20 October, 1967 - 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\/sri-ram-vilas-service-ltd-vs-raman-raman-private-ltd-anr-on-20-october-1967\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sri Ram Vilas Service Ltd., ... vs Raman &amp; Raman Private Ltd., &amp; Anr on 20 October, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ram-vilas-service-ltd-vs-raman-raman-private-ltd-anr-on-20-october-1967\" \/>\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=\"1967-10-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-09T10:35:35+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-ram-vilas-service-ltd-vs-raman-raman-private-ltd-anr-on-20-october-1967#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-ram-vilas-service-ltd-vs-raman-raman-private-ltd-anr-on-20-october-1967\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sri Ram Vilas Service Ltd., &#8230; vs Raman &amp; Raman Private Ltd., &amp; Anr on 20 October, 1967\",\"datePublished\":\"1967-10-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-09T10:35:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-ram-vilas-service-ltd-vs-raman-raman-private-ltd-anr-on-20-october-1967\"},\"wordCount\":1875,\"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\\\/sri-ram-vilas-service-ltd-vs-raman-raman-private-ltd-anr-on-20-october-1967#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-ram-vilas-service-ltd-vs-raman-raman-private-ltd-anr-on-20-october-1967\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-ram-vilas-service-ltd-vs-raman-raman-private-ltd-anr-on-20-october-1967\",\"name\":\"Sri Ram Vilas Service Ltd., ... vs Raman &amp; Raman Private Ltd., &amp; Anr on 20 October, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1967-10-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-09T10:35:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-ram-vilas-service-ltd-vs-raman-raman-private-ltd-anr-on-20-october-1967#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-ram-vilas-service-ltd-vs-raman-raman-private-ltd-anr-on-20-october-1967\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-ram-vilas-service-ltd-vs-raman-raman-private-ltd-anr-on-20-october-1967#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sri Ram Vilas Service Ltd., &#8230; vs Raman &amp; Raman Private Ltd., &amp; Anr on 20 October, 1967\"}]},{\"@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":"Sri Ram Vilas Service Ltd., ... vs Raman &amp; Raman Private Ltd., &amp; Anr on 20 October, 1967 - 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\/sri-ram-vilas-service-ltd-vs-raman-raman-private-ltd-anr-on-20-october-1967","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sri Ram Vilas Service Ltd., ... vs Raman &amp; Raman Private Ltd., &amp; Anr on 20 October, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ram-vilas-service-ltd-vs-raman-raman-private-ltd-anr-on-20-october-1967","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1967-10-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-09T10:35:35+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ram-vilas-service-ltd-vs-raman-raman-private-ltd-anr-on-20-october-1967#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ram-vilas-service-ltd-vs-raman-raman-private-ltd-anr-on-20-october-1967"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sri Ram Vilas Service Ltd., &#8230; vs Raman &amp; Raman Private Ltd., &amp; Anr on 20 October, 1967","datePublished":"1967-10-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-09T10:35:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ram-vilas-service-ltd-vs-raman-raman-private-ltd-anr-on-20-october-1967"},"wordCount":1875,"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\/sri-ram-vilas-service-ltd-vs-raman-raman-private-ltd-anr-on-20-october-1967#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ram-vilas-service-ltd-vs-raman-raman-private-ltd-anr-on-20-october-1967","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ram-vilas-service-ltd-vs-raman-raman-private-ltd-anr-on-20-october-1967","name":"Sri Ram Vilas Service Ltd., ... vs Raman &amp; Raman Private Ltd., &amp; Anr on 20 October, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1967-10-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-09T10:35:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ram-vilas-service-ltd-vs-raman-raman-private-ltd-anr-on-20-october-1967#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ram-vilas-service-ltd-vs-raman-raman-private-ltd-anr-on-20-october-1967"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ram-vilas-service-ltd-vs-raman-raman-private-ltd-anr-on-20-october-1967#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sri Ram Vilas Service Ltd., &#8230; vs Raman &amp; Raman Private Ltd., &amp; Anr on 20 October, 1967"}]},{"@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\/115813","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=115813"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/115813\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=115813"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=115813"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=115813"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}