{"id":124590,"date":"1960-11-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1960-11-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-ms-ratilal-vadilal-and-bros-on-15-november-1960"},"modified":"2016-07-06T04:29:10","modified_gmt":"2016-07-05T22:59:10","slug":"the-state-of-bombay-vs-ms-ratilal-vadilal-and-bros-on-15-november-1960","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-ms-ratilal-vadilal-and-bros-on-15-november-1960","title":{"rendered":"The State Of Bombay vs M\/S. Ratilal Vadilal And Bros on 15 November, 1960"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The State Of Bombay vs M\/S. Ratilal Vadilal And Bros on 15 November, 1960<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1961 AIR 1106, \t\t  1961 SCR  (2) 367<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Hidayatullah<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Hidayatullah, M.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nTHE STATE OF BOMBAY\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nM\/S.  RATILAL VADILAL AND BROS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n15\/11\/1960\n\nBENCH:\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\nBENCH:\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\nKAPUR, J.L.\nSHAH, J.C.\n\nCITATION:\n 1961 AIR 1106\t\t  1961 SCR  (2) 367\n CITATOR INFO :\n D\t    1962 SC1326\t (4)\n R\t    1973 SC 804\t (11)\n\n\nACT:\nSales\t Tax--'Dealer'--Meaning\t  of--Appeal   by    special\nleave--When available--Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 (Bom.\t III\nof   1953),   ss.  27(1),  (b),\t (c),\t30(1),\t 34(1)\t and\n(2)--Constitution of India, Art. 136.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nOne Nanalal Karsandas, who was a brick manufacturer, held  a\npriority certificate for purchasing coal under the  Colliery\nControl Order and purchased a certain quantity of coal\tfrom\nM\/s.  S. G. Rungta Colliery through the respondents who were\ncommission agents.  The respondents applied to the Collector\nfor determining whether they could be described as \"dealers\"\nunder  the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953.\tThe  Collector\theld\nthat  they  were  dealers but the Sales\t Tax  Tribunal\theld\notherwise.  No step was taken thereafter for a reference  to\nthe High\n368\nCourt  under ss. 34(1) and 30(1) of the Act.  On  appeal  by\nthe State of Bombay by special leave,\nHeld,  that  the  respondents  could  not  be  described  as\n\"dealers\"  under the Act as the nature of their business  as\ndisclosed  by them did not show that they were carrying\t on\nthe  business  of selling goods in the State of\t Bombay\t but\nwere  only  commission\tagents\tarranging  sales  to   other\npersons.\nThe  proper  course for the appellant was to move  the\tHigh\nCourt  and  exhaust  all his remedies  before  invoking\t the\njurisdiction   of  this\t court\tunder  Art.   136   of\t the\nConstitution.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 429 of 1959.<br \/>\nAppeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated<br \/>\nDecember 6, 1957 of the former Bombay Sales Tax Tribunal  in<br \/>\nAppeal No.6 of 1956.\n<\/p>\n<p>C.   K.\t Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, H. R.  Khanna<br \/>\nand R. H. Dhebar, for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>N.   A. Palkhivala, S. P. Mehta, J. B. Dadachanji, Rameshwar<br \/>\nNath and P. L. Vohra, for the respondents.<br \/>\n1960.  November 15.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered<br \/>\nby<br \/>\nHIDAYATULLAH,  J.-The State of Bombay has appealed  to\tthis<br \/>\nCourt with special leave, against an order of the Sales\t Tax<br \/>\nTribunal,  Bombay,  dated  December 6, 1957,  by  which\t the<br \/>\nTribunal  allowing the appeal before it, set aside an  order<br \/>\nof  the\t Collector of Sales Tax passed under s.\t 27  of\t the<br \/>\nBombay Sales Tax Act, 1953.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  respondents,  Ratilal Vadilal &amp; Bros.,  are  commission<br \/>\nagents doing business as clearing and transport contractors.<br \/>\nOn  June  25, 1954, they applied to the Collector  of  Sales<br \/>\nTax,  Bombay,  under  ss.  27(a), (b) and  (c)\tof  the\t Act<br \/>\ndescribing the nature of their business, citing one instance<br \/>\nthereof,  for  determination of the  question  whether\tthey<br \/>\ncould be called &#8220;dealers &#8221; within the Act.  The Collector by<br \/>\nhis order held that they were dealers, and were required  to<br \/>\nregister themselves under the Act.  On appeal, the  Tribunal<br \/>\nheld  otherwise,  and  hence this appeal  by  the  State  of<br \/>\nBombay.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">369<\/span><\/p>\n<p>It appears that no action was taken to ask for &#8216;a  reference<br \/>\nto  the\t High Court of Bombay under s. 34(1) read  with\t ss.<br \/>\n30(1)  and (2) of the Act.  We have frequently noticed\tthat<br \/>\nall  the  remedies which are open to an\t appellant  are\t not<br \/>\nfirst exhausted before moving this Court.  Ordinarily,\tthis<br \/>\nCourt  will not allow the High Court to be bypassed in\tthis<br \/>\nmanner, and the proper course for an appellant is to exhaust<br \/>\nall  his remedies before invoking the jurisdiction  of\tthis<br \/>\nCourt  under  Art. 136.\t In the present case,  however,\t the<br \/>\nmatter is simple, and the learned counsel for the respondent<br \/>\nrequested  us  to determine the question, stating  that\t his<br \/>\nclient\twho was a small trader and who made the\t application<br \/>\nfor  the clarification of the law, would be dragged  through<br \/>\nCourts once again, if we were to decide this appeal on\tthis<br \/>\nshort point.  In view of this, though we decide this appeal,<br \/>\nwe  must  not be held to lay down a cursus curiae  for\tthis<br \/>\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  matter  relates to a time after  the  Colliery  Control<br \/>\nOrder,\t1945, came into force.\tUnder that Order, no  person<br \/>\ncould acquire or purchase coal from a colliery except  under<br \/>\nauthority of the Central Government for which purpose he had<br \/>\nto  obtain  a  priority\t certificate  from  the\t State\tCoal<br \/>\nController.   Under  the scheme of the\tOrder,\tdel  credere<br \/>\nagents were allowed to act and to charge a commission of one<br \/>\nrupee per ton of coal.\n<\/p>\n<p>One Nanalal Karsandas, a brick manufacturer, was allotted  a<br \/>\npriority  certificate in respect of 22 tons of coal on\tJune<br \/>\n17, 1954.  He dealt with M\/s.  S.C. Rungta Colliery, Burhar,<br \/>\nthrough the respondents.  The consignment was in the name of<br \/>\nKarsandas,  but\t the bill was sent by the  Colliery  to\t the<br \/>\nrespondents, and the respondents, in their turn, made out  a<br \/>\nbill in which they charged, in addition to the amount of the<br \/>\nbill  of the Colliery, a sum of Rs. 22 as their\t commission.<br \/>\nThe   liability\t to  pay  the  Colliery\t rested\t  upon\t the<br \/>\nrespondents,   but  they  claimed  to  be  acting  as\tmere<br \/>\n&#8220;middlemen  &#8221;  between\tthe  Colliery  and  Karsandas.\t The<br \/>\nrespondents stated that their business was along these lines<br \/>\nwith  other  constituents also, and asked the  Collector  to<br \/>\ndetermine  whether  they  could be  described  as  &#8220;dealers&#8221;<br \/>\nwithin the Act, and required registration.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">370<\/span><\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Dealer\t &#8221; in the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, is defined  as<br \/>\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;dealer\t &#8221; means any person who carries on the\tbusiness  of<br \/>\nselling\t  goods\t in  the  State\t of  Bombay,   whether\t for<br \/>\ncommission,   remuneration  or\totherwise&#8230;&#8221;\t(Explanation<br \/>\nomitted).\n<\/p>\n<p>It  would appear that to be a dealer, the person must  carry<br \/>\non  the\t business of selling goods in the State\t of  Bombay.<br \/>\nThe short question in this case, therefore, was whether\t the<br \/>\nrespondents  were carrying on such a business in respect  of<br \/>\ncoal.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  scheme of the Control Order shows that no sale of\tcoal<br \/>\ncould  take place except to a person holding a\tcertificate.<br \/>\nA sale otherwise was in contravention of the Control  Order.<br \/>\nThe certificate which has been produced in the case,  though<br \/>\nmade out in the name of the respondents, shows the  consumer<br \/>\nas  the consignee.  It is thus plain that there was no\tsale<br \/>\nby the Colliery to the respondents, but directly to  Karsan-<br \/>\ndas,  though  through the agency of  the  respondents.\t The<br \/>\nrespondents also, when they made out the bill to  Karsandas,<br \/>\nmentioned that he was the consignee, and that they were only<br \/>\ncharging   their  &#8221;  middlemen\t&#8221;  commission.\t  In   these<br \/>\ncircumstances,\tit  is difficult to hold that  the  Colliery<br \/>\nsold  coal to the respondents, and that they, in turn,\tsold<br \/>\nit  to Karsandas.  There were no two sales  involved;  there<br \/>\nwas  only  one\tsale, and that was by the  Colliery  to\t the<br \/>\nconsumer.   The respondents never became owners by  purchase<br \/>\nfrom the Colliery, because the Colliery would not have\tsold<br \/>\ncoal to them, nor could they have bought it unless they\t had<br \/>\nobtained a certificate.\t The position of the respondents was<br \/>\nmerely\tthat  of agents, arranging the sale to\ta  disclosed<br \/>\npurchaser,  though guaranteeing payment to the\tColliery  on<br \/>\nbehalf of their principal.  In view of what we have said, no<br \/>\nbusiness of selling coal was disclosed in the instance cited<br \/>\nbefore\tthe  Collector, and the order of  the  Tribunal\t was<br \/>\ncorrect on the facts placed before it.\n<\/p>\n<p>In  the result, the appeal fails and will be dismissed\twith<br \/>\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n<p>Appeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t\t    371<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India The State Of Bombay vs M\/S. Ratilal Vadilal And Bros on 15 November, 1960 Equivalent citations: 1961 AIR 1106, 1961 SCR (2) 367 Author: Hidayatullah Bench: Hidayatullah, M. PETITIONER: THE STATE OF BOMBAY Vs. RESPONDENT: M\/S. RATILAL VADILAL AND BROS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15\/11\/1960 BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. KAPUR, [&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-124590","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>The State Of Bombay vs M\/S. Ratilal Vadilal And Bros on 15 November, 1960 - 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\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-ms-ratilal-vadilal-and-bros-on-15-november-1960\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The State Of Bombay vs M\/S. Ratilal Vadilal And Bros on 15 November, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-ms-ratilal-vadilal-and-bros-on-15-november-1960\" \/>\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=\"1960-11-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-05T22:59:10+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\\\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-ms-ratilal-vadilal-and-bros-on-15-november-1960#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-ms-ratilal-vadilal-and-bros-on-15-november-1960\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The State Of Bombay vs M\\\/S. Ratilal Vadilal And Bros on 15 November, 1960\",\"datePublished\":\"1960-11-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-05T22:59:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-ms-ratilal-vadilal-and-bros-on-15-november-1960\"},\"wordCount\":984,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-ms-ratilal-vadilal-and-bros-on-15-november-1960#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-ms-ratilal-vadilal-and-bros-on-15-november-1960\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-ms-ratilal-vadilal-and-bros-on-15-november-1960\",\"name\":\"The State Of Bombay vs M\\\/S. Ratilal Vadilal And Bros on 15 November, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1960-11-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-05T22:59:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-ms-ratilal-vadilal-and-bros-on-15-november-1960#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-ms-ratilal-vadilal-and-bros-on-15-november-1960\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-ms-ratilal-vadilal-and-bros-on-15-november-1960#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The State Of Bombay vs M\\\/S. Ratilal Vadilal And Bros on 15 November, 1960\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The State Of Bombay vs M\/S. Ratilal Vadilal And Bros on 15 November, 1960 - 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\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-ms-ratilal-vadilal-and-bros-on-15-november-1960","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The State Of Bombay vs M\/S. Ratilal Vadilal And Bros on 15 November, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-ms-ratilal-vadilal-and-bros-on-15-november-1960","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1960-11-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-05T22:59:10+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\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-ms-ratilal-vadilal-and-bros-on-15-november-1960#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-ms-ratilal-vadilal-and-bros-on-15-november-1960"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The State Of Bombay vs M\/S. Ratilal Vadilal And Bros on 15 November, 1960","datePublished":"1960-11-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-05T22:59:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-ms-ratilal-vadilal-and-bros-on-15-november-1960"},"wordCount":984,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-ms-ratilal-vadilal-and-bros-on-15-november-1960#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-ms-ratilal-vadilal-and-bros-on-15-november-1960","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-ms-ratilal-vadilal-and-bros-on-15-november-1960","name":"The State Of Bombay vs M\/S. Ratilal Vadilal And Bros on 15 November, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1960-11-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-05T22:59:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-ms-ratilal-vadilal-and-bros-on-15-november-1960#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-ms-ratilal-vadilal-and-bros-on-15-november-1960"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-ms-ratilal-vadilal-and-bros-on-15-november-1960#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The State Of Bombay vs M\/S. Ratilal Vadilal And Bros on 15 November, 1960"}]},{"@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\/124590","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=124590"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/124590\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=124590"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=124590"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=124590"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}