{"id":118602,"date":"2007-06-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-06-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-p-agesncies-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-june-2007-2"},"modified":"2018-05-05T16:58:57","modified_gmt":"2018-05-05T11:28:57","slug":"ms-m-p-agesncies-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-june-2007-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-p-agesncies-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-june-2007-2","title":{"rendered":"M\/S.M.P. Agesncies vs State Of Kerala on 7 June, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S.M.P. Agesncies vs State Of Kerala on 7 June, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\n No. 13 of 2006()\n\n\n1. M\/S.M.P. AGESNCIES, PARIS ROAD,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA.\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.G.SHIVA DASS\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN\n\n Dated :07\/06\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                              H.L.Dattu,C.J. & K.T.Sankaran,J.\n\n                             ----------------------------------------------\n\n                                 O.T.Appeal No.13 of 2006\n\n                             ----------------------------------------------\n\n\n                             Dated, this the 7th day of June, 2007\n\n\n                                            JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
H.L.Dattu,C.J.\n<\/p>\n
                  The   appellant   before   us   is   a   dealer   registered   under   the   Kerala<\/p>\n
Value Added Tax  Act,  2003 (“Act” for  short).  The  appellant is the distributor of<\/p>\n
“Ujala   Supreme”   and   “Ujala   Stiff   &   Shine”.   They   are   the   brand   names   of<\/p>\n
M\/s.Jyothy   Laboratories   Limited,   Panissery,   Koonamoochy   P.O.,   Thrissur.   The<\/p>\n
appellant purchases these products and effects sale to the wholesalers and the<\/p>\n
wholesalers thereafter effects sale to retailers.\n<\/p>\n
                  2. After  introduction of the Act,  the assessee filed  an application<\/p>\n
under   Section   94   of   the   Act   read   with   Rule   78   of   the   Rules   before   the<\/p>\n
Commissioner  of   Commercial  Taxes   with  a   request  to  clarify   whether   they are<\/p>\n
justified   in   selling   the   aforesaid   two   products   at   4%   under   the   Act.   Along   with<\/p>\n
their application, they had produced the details of the products and also the test<\/p>\n
results   of   Bombay   Textile   Research   Association,   Mumbai,   the   expert   opinion<\/p>\n
from Institute of Chemical Technology, University of Mumbai, etc.<\/p>\n
                  3.   The   Commissioner   of   Commercial   Taxes,   after   hearing   the<\/p>\n
representative of the assessee, has passed an order dated 25.10.2006. In that it<\/p>\n
was stated as under:\n<\/p>\n
                   “M\/s.M.P.Agencies,   Trissur   has   filed   an   application   for<\/p>\n
          clarification u\/s.94 of KVAT Act 03 requesting to clarify the rate of<\/p>\n
          tax on “Ujala Supreme” and “Ujala stiff and shine”.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                   Authorised Representative of the applicant was heard, and<\/p>\n
          the contentions of the applicant were examined in detail. The items<\/p>\n
          “Ujala   Supreme”   and   “Ujala   stiff   and   shine”   are   commercially<\/p>\n
          known   as   instant   whiteners.   The   consumers   are   purchasing   the<\/p>\n
          commodity   for   their   ultimate   use.   Admittedly,   the   Raw   Material<\/p>\n
          purchased by the manufacturer are subjected to certain processes<\/p>\n
          and   are   marked   as   a   commercially   different   commodity,   “instant<\/p>\n
O.T.Appeal No.13 of 2006                                – 2 –<\/span><\/p>\n
          whitener”, in the brand name “Ujala”, which is used as a laundry<\/p>\n
          whitener at the end point.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
                    As   per   SRO   82\/06,   Government   have   notified   list   of<\/p>\n
          commodities   coming   under   12.5%   category   and   laundry<\/p>\n
          brighteners have been brought under this category vide entry 27.<\/p>\n
          Since there is a specific entry for the commodity as above, it will<\/p>\n
          rightly fall under the said entry, taxable at 12.5%.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                    The point raised are clarified accordingly”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   4.   Sri.G.Shiva   Dass,   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the<\/p>\n
appellant, apart from others, would submit  that   the   Commissioner   without<\/p>\n
adverting   to   any   one   of   the   contentions   canvassed   by   the   assessee’s<\/p>\n
representative   and   without   considering   any   one   of   the   clarifications,   expert’s<\/p>\n
opinion,   report   of   Research   Association,   etc.,   has   proceeded   to   pass   the<\/p>\n
impugned   order.   Therefore,   it  is  contended   that   the   said   order   is  violative   of<\/p>\n
Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution and also arbitrary, capricious, etc.<\/p>\n
                   5.   Sri.V.V.Ashokan,   learned   Special   Government   Pleader<\/p>\n
(Taxes) would submit, by referring to the commodity, that the Commissioner is<\/p>\n
justified in holding that  the sale effected by the assessee is exigible to tax at<\/p>\n
12.5%.\n<\/p>\n
                   6.   Application   for   clarification   can   be   filed   under   Section   94   of<\/p>\n
the Act. An assessee can seek clarification as to whether, for the purpose of<\/p>\n
the Act, any person is a dealer; any transaction is a sale; any particular dealer<\/p>\n
is   required   to   be   registered;   any   tax   is   payable   in   respect   of   any   sale   or<\/p>\n
purchase,   or   if   tax   is   payable,   the   point   and   the   rate   thereof;   or   any   activity<\/p>\n
carried out in any goods amounts to or results in the manufacture of goods.\n<\/p>\n
                   7.   Sub-section   (2)   of   Section   94   of   the   Act   envisages   that   the<\/p>\n
Commissioner   shall,   after   giving   the   parties   to   the   dispute   a   reasonable<\/p>\n
opportunity   to   put   forward   their   case   and   produce   evidence   and   after<\/p>\n
considering   such   evidence   and  hearing   the   parties,   pass   appropriate   orders.\n<\/p>\n
O.T.Appeal No.13 of 2006                               – 3 –<\/span><\/p>\n
The said section is relevant for the purpose of this case. Therefore, the same<\/p>\n
is extracted. It reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
           “The   Commissioner   shall   decide   the   question   after   giving   the<\/p>\n
           parties   to   the   dispute   a   reasonable   opportunity   to   put   forward<\/p>\n
           their   case   and   produce   evidence   and   after   considering   such<\/p>\n
           evidence and hearing the parties”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   8.   In   the   instant   case,   an   application   came   to   be   filed   by   the<\/p>\n
assessee,  inter   alia,   seeking   a   clarification   from   the   Commissioner   as   to<\/p>\n
whether   they  are   justified   in  selling   their   products,   viz.,   “Ujala  Supreme”  and<\/p>\n
“Ujala   Stiff   and   Shine”,   at   4%   under   the   Act.   It   is   an   admitted   position   that<\/p>\n
along   with   their   application,   they   had   produced   before   the   Commissioner<\/p>\n
enough and more evidence in support of that claim, including the test reports<\/p>\n
from  a  reputed  laboratory and  also  an  opinion  from  the  Institute  of  Chemical<\/p>\n
Technology.\n<\/p>\n
                   9. The assessee also had appeared before the Commissioner of<\/p>\n
Commercial Taxes.\n<\/p>\n
                   10.  Under  sub-section (2)   of   Section  94  of  the   Act,   apart   from<\/p>\n
affording   an   opportunity   of   hearing   to   the   parties   and   producing   evidence<\/p>\n
before him, the Commissioner is expected to consider such evidence and pass<\/p>\n
appropriate orders.\n<\/p>\n
                   11.   In   the   instant   case,   the   Commissioner   without   even<\/p>\n
adverting   to   any   one   of   the   evidence   produced   by   the   assessee,   by   merely<\/p>\n
relying upon how the commodity is understood in the commercial circles, has<\/p>\n
proceeded to observe that the sale of the products by the assessee requires to<\/p>\n
be taxed at 12.5%. This view of  the Commissioner is contrary to sub-section<\/p>\n
(2) of Section 94 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
                   12. The orders  passed by the Commissioner under Section 94<\/p>\n
O.T.Appeal No.13 of 2006                            – 4 –<\/span><\/p>\n
of   the   Act   is   not   only   binding   on   the   assessee,   but   also   binding   on   the<\/p>\n
assessees   who   are   similarly   placed.   Further,   it   is   binding   on   the   assessing<\/p>\n
authority. In cases of  this nature,   it is  expected of  the Commissioner  to  deal<\/p>\n
with the subject which is before him for clarification in detail and then offer his<\/p>\n
opinion   by   way   of   an   order.   In   the   instant   case,   the   Commissioner   has   not<\/p>\n
done   that   exercise.   This   action   of   the   Commissioner,   in   our   opinion,   is<\/p>\n
arbitrary,   illegal   and   improper.   Therefore,   the   order   passed   by   the<\/p>\n
Commissioner requires to be set aside and the matter requires to be  remitted<\/p>\n
back   to   the   Commissioner   for   a   fresh   decision,   keeping   in   view   the<\/p>\n
observations made by us in the course of the order. Accordingly, the following:\n<\/p>\n
                                             Order<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
         (i)     The appeal is allowed.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         (ii)     The   impugned   order   passed   by   the   Commercial   Taxes   dated<\/p>\n
25.10.2006 is set aside.\n<\/p>\n
         (iii)     The  matter is remitted back to the Commissioner of Commercial<\/p>\n
Taxes to redo the matter in accordance with law after adverting to the evidence<\/p>\n
produced by the appellant in support of its case and claim.\n<\/p>\n
         (iv)    All other contentions of the parties are left open.\n<\/p>\n
         Ordered accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
         Consequently, I.A.No.3527 of 2006 is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                       H.L.Dattu<\/p>\n
                                                                    Chief Justice<\/p>\n
                                                                    K.T.Sankaran<\/p>\n
                                                                          Judge<\/p>\n
vku\/DK.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court M\/S.M.P. Agesncies vs State Of Kerala on 7 June, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM No. 13 of 2006() 1. M\/S.M.P. AGESNCIES, PARIS ROAD, … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA. … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.G.SHIVA DASS For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon’ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU The […]<\/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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-118602","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S.M.P. Agesncies vs State Of Kerala on 7 June, 2007 - 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\/ms-m-p-agesncies-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-june-2007-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S.M.P. Agesncies vs State Of Kerala on 7 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-p-agesncies-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-june-2007-2\" \/>\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=\"2007-06-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-05T11:28:57+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-p-agesncies-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-june-2007-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-p-agesncies-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-june-2007-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\/S.M.P. Agesncies vs State Of Kerala on 7 June, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-06-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-05T11:28:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-p-agesncies-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-june-2007-2\"},\"wordCount\":1090,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-p-agesncies-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-june-2007-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-p-agesncies-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-june-2007-2\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-p-agesncies-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-june-2007-2\",\"name\":\"M\/S.M.P. Agesncies vs State Of Kerala on 7 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-06-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-05T11:28:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-p-agesncies-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-june-2007-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-p-agesncies-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-june-2007-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-p-agesncies-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-june-2007-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\/S.M.P. Agesncies vs State Of Kerala on 7 June, 2007\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"M\/S.M.P. Agesncies vs State Of Kerala on 7 June, 2007 - 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\/ms-m-p-agesncies-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-june-2007-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S.M.P. Agesncies vs State Of Kerala on 7 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-p-agesncies-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-june-2007-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-06-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-05T11:28:57+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-p-agesncies-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-june-2007-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-p-agesncies-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-june-2007-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S.M.P. Agesncies vs State Of Kerala on 7 June, 2007","datePublished":"2007-06-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-05T11:28:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-p-agesncies-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-june-2007-2"},"wordCount":1090,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-p-agesncies-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-june-2007-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-p-agesncies-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-june-2007-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-p-agesncies-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-june-2007-2","name":"M\/S.M.P. Agesncies vs State Of Kerala on 7 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-06-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-05T11:28:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-p-agesncies-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-june-2007-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-p-agesncies-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-june-2007-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-p-agesncies-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-june-2007-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S.M.P. Agesncies vs State Of Kerala on 7 June, 2007"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/118602","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=118602"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/118602\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=118602"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=118602"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=118602"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}