{"id":121460,"date":"2003-04-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-04-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ahuja-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-3-april-2003"},"modified":"2016-11-10T09:33:38","modified_gmt":"2016-11-10T04:03:38","slug":"ms-ahuja-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-3-april-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ahuja-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-3-april-2003","title":{"rendered":"M\/S Ahuja Industries Ltd vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 3 April, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
M\/S Ahuja Industries Ltd vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 3 April, 2003<\/div>\n
Author: Bhan<\/div>\n
Bench: Doraiswamy Raju, Ashok Bhan<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  8328 of 2001\n\nPETITIONER:\nM\/s Ahuja Industries Ltd.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of Karnataka & Ors.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 03\/04\/2003\n\nBENCH:\nDoraiswamy Raju & Ashok Bhan\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
BHAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe instant appeal seeks to assail the judgment and order dated 1st
\nFebruary, 2001 passed by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court
\nin Writ Appeal No. 570 of 2001, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned
\norder”) upholding the order of the Single Judge in dismissing the writ
\npetition filed by the appellant challenging the acquisition proceedings
\ninitiated under the The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966
\n(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) including Survey No. 6 (with which the
\nappellant is concerned) measuring 1 acre 30 guntas.  The appellant is
\naggrieved not only with the acquisition proceedings but also with the manner
\nin which the acquisition proceedings have been commenced and proceeded
\nwith under the Act.  According to him the mandatory requirements for the
\ndeclaration of the industrial area as well as issuance of a show cause notice
\nto the appellant to file objections have not been complied with.\n<\/p>\n
\tBefore adverting to the points raised in this appeal it would be
\nnecessary to enumerate the basic facts, which are as under:\n<\/p>\n
\tOn 10th February, 1993 appellant purchased  land ad-measuring 1 acre
\n30 guntas bearing  Survey No.6 by registered sale deed located at  Krishna
\nSagar village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Urban District from
\nKhujam and Rahmath Shariff.  According to the appellant he was put in
\npossession of the said land from the date of sale.  However, his name was
\nnot shown in the revenue record as the land had not been mutated in his
\nname in the record.  The name of one Jacob who had sold the land to the
\nVendor of the appellant is shown in the revenue record.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe said land and surrounding lands were acquired for the purpose of
\nindustrial development under preliminary notification dated 3rd October,
\n1997 (Gazetted on 30th October, 1997) issued under Section 28 (1) of the
\nAct and final declaration dated 21st April, 1998 (Gazetted on 23rd April,
\n1998) issued under Section 28 (4) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\tAppellant being aggrieved by the acquisition proceedings filed the
\nwrit petition in the High Court which was dismissed by the Single Judge by
\nhis order dated 21st November, 2000.  The writ appeal against the said order
\nhas been dismissed by the impugned order.\n<\/p>\n
\tSection 1 of the Act gives the short title, extent and commencement of
\nthe provisions of the Act.  Sub-Section (3) of Section 1 stipulates that the
\nAct shall come into force at once, except Chapter VII, which shall come into
\nforce in such areas and from such date as the State Government may by
\nnotification specify in that behalf.  Section 27 of Chapter VII literally
\nreproduces the said provisions and states that the provisions of the said
\nChapter shall apply to such areas and from such dates as may be notified by
\nthe State Government under sub-section (3) of Section 1.  Section 3 relates
\nto declaration of industrial areas and empowers the State Government to
\ndeclare any area in the State to be an industrial area for purposes of the Act.
\nSection 28 (1) empowers the State Government to give notice of its intention
\nto acquire such land as may in its  opinion be required for the purposes of
\ndevelopment by the Board or for any other purpose in furtherance of the
\nobjects of the Act. Section 28 (2) requires on publication of a notification in
\nsubsection (1), that the State Government shall serve notice upon the owner
\nor where the owner is not the occupier, on the occupier of the land and on all
\nsuch persons known or believed to be interested therein to show cause,
\nwithin thirty days from the date of service of the notice, why the land should
\nnot be acquired.  Sub-clause (3) provides that after  considering the cause, if
\nany, shown by the owner of the land and by any other person interested
\ntherein, and after giving such owner and person an opportunity of being
\nheard, the State Government may pass such orders as it deems fit.   Section
\n28 (4)\tprovides that after passing of the orders under sub-section (3) where
\nthe State Government is satisfied that any land should be acquired for the
\npurpose specified in the notification issued under sub-section (1), can issue a
\ndeclaration by issuing a notification in the official Gazettee made to that
\neffect. Sub-section (5) provides that on the publication in the Official
\nGazettee of the declaration under sub-section (4), the land shall vest
\nabsolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances.\tUnder sub-
\nsection (6) the State Government can call upon by issuing a notice in writing
\nrequiring the person in possession of the land to surrender or deliver the
\npossession within 30 days of the service of the notice.\t Sub-section (7)
\nprovides that if any person refuses or fails to comply with the order then the
\nState Government or any other officer in this behalf may take possession of
\nthe land and may for that purpose use such force as may be necessary.
\nSection 29 provides for payment of compensation and Section 30 makes the
\nprovisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894  applicable mutatis mutandis
\nin respect of the enquiry and award by the Deputy Commissioner, the
\nreference to Court, the apportionment of compensation and the payment of
\ncompensation in respect of the land acquired under Chapter VII.\n<\/p>\n
\tCounsel for the appellant raised two points in this appeal.  Firstly, that
\nChapter VII under which the acquisition proceedings have been initiated
\napply to such areas  from such date as may be notified by the State
\nGovernment under Sub-section (3) of Section 1.\tIn view of the mandate of
\nSection 27,  the acquisition proceedings under Section 28 could only be
\ninitiated after “Chapter VII comes into force” which can only be by way of a
\nnotification under Section 1 (3) of the act.   In this case the notification
\nUnder Section 1 (3) being subsequent to the date of the notification under
\nSection 28 (1) of the Act, namely, that while the preliminary notification
\nunder Section 28 (1) of the Act was prepared on 3rd October, 1997
\n(published in the Gazette on 30th October, 1997), the notification under
\nSection 1(3) bringing into force Chapter VII of the Act was issued on 20th
\nOctober, 1997 (published in the Gazette on 30th October, 1997) was post
\nfacto to the date of preliminary notification and therefore, the entire
\nproceedings emanating from Section 28 (1) of the Act were without any
\nauthority of law, void ab initio and non-est.  Secondly, it was submitted that
\nno notice as mandatorily required under Section 28 (2) and thereafter under
\nSection 28 (6) of the Act were either issued or served on either the owner of
\nthe land or the occupier thereof and if that be so the proceedings for
\nacquisition of the land stood vitiated for non-compliance with the mandatory
\nprovisions of the Act and the principles of natural justice.   According to him
\nthe want of service of notice to the appellant goes to the very root of the
\nmaintainability of the acquisition proceedings and therefore the proceedings
\nof acquisition of land in so far as it concerns the appellant ought to have
\nbeen quashed by the High Court. He also referred to the provisions of
\nSections 127, 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964
\n(hereinafter referred to as “the Land Revenue Act”) which provides for the
\npreparation of the record of rights.  Section 128 (1) of this Act provides that
\na person on acquisition of rights by any mode is required to report orally or
\nin writing of acquisition of proprietary rights to the prescribed officer of the
\nvillage within three months of the acquisition of the said right and the said
\nofficer is required  to give a written acknowledgement of the receipt of the
\nreport to the person making it.\t Under a proviso to this Section the person
\nacquiring a right by  virtue of a registered document is exempted from the
\nobligation to report to the prescribed officer for making the necessary entries
\nin his favour in the record of rights  because sub-Section 4 provides that no
\ndocument shall be registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908, unless
\nthe person liable to pay the registration fee also pays to the registering
\nauthority such fees as may be prescribed for making the necessary entries in
\nthe record of rights and registers referred to in Section 129.\tOn the
\nregistration of such a document, the registering authority is required to make
\na report of the acquisition of the rights to the prescribed officer.   The
\nprescribed officer under Section 129 is required to enter in the register of
\nmutations every report\tmade to him under sub-Section (1) of Section 128 or
\nreceived by him under sub-section (2) or sub-Section (4) of the said Section.
\nRelying upon these provisions of the Land Revenue Act it is contended that
\nan obligation was cast on the registering officer to make a report to the
\nrevenue authority to enter his name in the record of rights and their failure to
\ndo so resulting in non-service of the notice on the appellant depriving him of
\nthe opportunity to file his objections should not act to his detriment or
\ndisadvantage.\n<\/p>\n
\tCounsel appearing for the respondents countered the arguments with
\nreference to the record and the findings recorded by the High Court,
\ncontended that there was no illegality attached to the acquisition
\nproceedings.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe do not find substance in either of the points raised by the counsel
\nfor the appellants.  The term ‘notification’ is defined in Section 2(8) as
\nmeaning a notification published in the official Gazette.  According to
\nSection 28 (1) if at any time in the opinion of the State Government any land
\nis required for the purpose of development by the Board or for any other
\npurpose in furtherance of the objects of this Act, the State Government may
\nby notification, give notice of its intention to acquire such land.  In view of
\nthe definition of the term notification; the notification referred to in Section
\n28 (1) is the notification published in the Official Gazette.  Unless and until
\nthe notification is published in the Official Gazette there is no notification in
\nthe eye of law having regard to section 2 (8).\tIn the present case the
\nnotification under Section 28 (1) was published in the Gazette on 30th
\nOctober, 1997.\tFor all intents and purposes that would be the relevant date.
\nThe date 3rd October, 1997 mentioned in the notification is of no relevance
\nor consequence at all.\tIt is seen that the notification dated 20th October,
\n1997 under Section 1 (3) of the Act applying the provisions of Chapter VII
\nof the land in question and the notification under Section 3 (1) of the Act
\ndeclaring the area as an industrial area for the purpose of the Act and the
\npreliminary notification under Section 28 (1) of the Act giving notice of its
\nintention to acquire  the land for the purpose of development are all gazetted
\non 30th October, 1997.\tThe validity of acquisition proceedings in regard to
\nthe notification under Sections 1 (3), 3(1) and 28 (1) would be the date of
\ntheir publication in the Official Gazette for the purpose of considering the
\nvalidity of the acquisition proceedings.  The notification under Section 28
\n(1) is not vitiated only on the ground that it bears a date earlier to the date of
\nnotification under Section 1(3) or it is published simultaneous with the
\nnotification under Sections 1 (3) and 3 (1) of the Act.\t While it is  true that
\nan occasion for the Government to exercise powers under Section 28(1) may
\ngenerally arise after an area has been notified as an industrial area, yet the
\nScheme underlying the Act does not exclude a situation in which the
\nGovernment may perform all the three functions simultaneously.\tIf the
\nGovernment, on the basis of material, survey and study conducted by its
\nagencies is of the opinion that a given area is suitable for acquisition, then,
\nfor purpose of\tfurtherance of the objects of the Act, it can extend the
\nprovisions of the Act to the said area, constituting the same as an industrial
\narea under Section 3(1) and notify its intention to acquire under Section 28
\nsimultaneously as well.\n<\/p>\n
Reading of Section 28 (1) indicates that if at any time the State
\nGovernment is of the opinion that the land in question is required for the
\npurpose of development by the Board, or for any other purpose in
\nfurtherance of the objects of the Act, the State Government may by
\nnotification give notice of its intention to acquire fresh land.  The question of
\nexercise of  power under Section 28 (1) of the Act, arise at the stage when it
\nchooses to give notice of its intention to acquire such land and not before.
\nThe mere opinion formed without there being the further expression of
\nintention to acquire is of no significance or purpose.\tHence, the relevant
\npoint of time when alone the power under Section 28 (1) can be said to have
\nbeen invoked is the point of time when the intention to acquire the same is to
\nbe  exercised by issuing the notification for publication. By this point of time
\nindisputably in the present case Chapter VII had been brought into force.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the circumstances, there can be no legal objection in all the three
\nprocesses provided  under Sections 1(3), 3(1) and 28 (1) of the Act being
\naccomplished together by publication, on which only the exercise of power
\ncould be said to have been made.  The simultaneous issue of the three
\nnotifications therefore does not constitute a flaw much less one which can
\nrender the acquisition proceedings legally bad or void.\t We have, therefore,
\nno hesitation in rejecting the first contention raised by the counsel for the
\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n
  Admittedly, the appellant’s name is not reflected as owner or
\noccupier of the land in the revenue record.  It is also not in dispute that no
\nnotice was issued to the appellant under Section 28 (3) of the Act. Appellant
\ndid not get his name entered in the revenue records in pursuance to the sale
\nin his favour, the question of serving of any notice on him under the
\ncircumstances did not arise. Respondents have produced RTC extracts for
\nthe year 1995-96 as Annexure R-1 and the notice issued to the notified
\nKathedar under Section 28 (2) of the Act as Annexure R2.   The persons
\nnamed therein as owners\/occupants of Survey No. 6 have been shown as
\nowners\/occupants in the preliminary notification as well. Notices were
\nissued\/served on the owners\/occupants as per the revenue records or their
\nrepresentatives.\n<\/p>\n
This Court in  Winky Dilawari (Smt) & Anr. Vs. Amritsar
\nImprovement Trust, Amritsar, 1996 (11) SCC 644, has taken the view that
\nfailure to serve personal notices on the persons whose names have not been
\nmutated in the official record of rights in pursuance to any sale in their
\nfavour does not vitiate the proceedings for acquisition.  Similar view was
\ntaken in W.B. Housing Board and Ors. Vs. Brijendra Prasad Gupta & Ors.,
\n1997 (6) SCC 207, wherein this Court observed:\n<\/p>\n
” It is no part of the duty of the Collector to
\nmake a roving inquiry into ownership of the
\npersons.  We are of the opinion that the
\nrequirements of the law were met when notices
\nwere served upon the recorded owners as per the
\nRecord of Rights.  Again we do not think in a case
\nlike the present one, it is for the Collector to make
\nenquiries from the registration office to find out if
\nthe land had since been sold by the recorded
\nowners.\t In Winky Dilawari v. Amritsar
\nImprovement Trust,<\/a> (1996) 11 SC 644,  this Court
\nobserved that the public authorities were not
\nexpected to go on making enquiries in the Sub-\n<\/p>\n
Registrar’s office as to who would be the owner of
\nthe property.  The Collector in the present case was
\nthus justified in relying on the official record being
\nthe Record of Rights as to who were the owners of
\nthe land sought to be requisitioned and prudence
\ndid not require any further enquiry to be made.\n<\/p>\n
We are therefore of the view that notices were
\nproperly served under Section 3 (2) of the Act on
\nthe owners of the land.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIt could be seen from the above order that service of notice on a
\nperson shown as owner or occupier in the record of rights is sufficient even
\nthough the said person had already sold the land prior to the said notification
\nunless it is substantiated otherwise that the authorities concerned had the
\nknowledge of the rights or interest of any person other than those found
\nrecorded as owner\/occupier in the Revenue Records.  It is  further held\t that
\nthe Collector is not obliged to make a roving enquiry about the ownership of
\nthe land.  If the name of the purchaser is not yet entered in the record of
\nrights then non-service on such a person does not vitiate the acquisition
\nproceedings.  Admittedly, the appellant had not got his name entered in the
\nrevenue records as owner or occupant of the said land and therefore he could
\nnot complain about non-service of notice on him nor about the failure to
\ngrant a hearing to him.\t  Contention that as per provision of Land Revenue
\nAct there was no obligation on his part to either inform the revenue
\nauthorities about the sale in his favour or to request them to transfer the
\nkatha in  his name cannot stand as it has not been brought on record with
\nreference to any pleadings with supporting documents that in fact the
\nappellant had made payment for making the necessary entries in the record
\nof rights and the register in his name at the time of registration of the sale
\ndeed in his favour.  This apart failure to make entries on the part of the
\nrevenue authorities by itself would not cast any obligation on the authorities
\nunder the Act to make a roving enquiry and try to locate an owner who may
\nhave subsequently purchased the land from the previous owner.  Failure on
\nthe part of the revenue authority to make entry in the register of mutation in
\nfavour of the subsequent owner would not render the acquisition
\nproceedings bad in law on account of non-issuance of notice inviting
\nobjections to the acquisition proceedings or service thereof.\n<\/p>\n
\tFor the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in this appeal
\nand the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India M\/S Ahuja Industries Ltd vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 3 April, 2003 Author: Bhan Bench: Doraiswamy Raju, Ashok Bhan CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 8328 of 2001 PETITIONER: M\/s Ahuja Industries Ltd. RESPONDENT: State of Karnataka & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03\/04\/2003 BENCH: Doraiswamy Raju & Ashok Bhan JUDGMENT: J […]<\/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-121460","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S Ahuja Industries Ltd vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 3 April, 2003 - 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-ahuja-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-3-april-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S Ahuja Industries Ltd vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 3 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ahuja-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-3-april-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-04-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-10T04:03:38+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=\"15 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-ahuja-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-3-april-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-ahuja-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-3-april-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S Ahuja Industries Ltd vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 3 April, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-04-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-10T04:03:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-ahuja-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-3-april-2003\"},\"wordCount\":3004,\"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\\\/ms-ahuja-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-3-april-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-ahuja-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-3-april-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-ahuja-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-3-april-2003\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S Ahuja Industries Ltd vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 3 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-04-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-10T04:03:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-ahuja-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-3-april-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-ahuja-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-3-april-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-ahuja-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-3-april-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S Ahuja Industries Ltd vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 3 April, 2003\"}]},{\"@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":"M\/S Ahuja Industries Ltd vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 3 April, 2003 - 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-ahuja-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-3-april-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S Ahuja Industries Ltd vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 3 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ahuja-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-3-april-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-04-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-10T04:03:38+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ahuja-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-3-april-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ahuja-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-3-april-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S Ahuja Industries Ltd vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 3 April, 2003","datePublished":"2003-04-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-10T04:03:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ahuja-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-3-april-2003"},"wordCount":3004,"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\/ms-ahuja-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-3-april-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ahuja-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-3-april-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ahuja-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-3-april-2003","name":"M\/S Ahuja Industries Ltd vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 3 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-04-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-10T04:03:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ahuja-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-3-april-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ahuja-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-3-april-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ahuja-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-3-april-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S Ahuja Industries Ltd vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 3 April, 2003"}]},{"@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\/121460","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=121460"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/121460\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=121460"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=121460"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=121460"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}