{"id":129105,"date":"2007-08-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-08-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-maharashtra-state-vs-lloyds-steel-industries-ltd-on-14-august-2007"},"modified":"2015-01-12T04:41:03","modified_gmt":"2015-01-11T23:11:03","slug":"the-maharashtra-state-vs-lloyds-steel-industries-ltd-on-14-august-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-maharashtra-state-vs-lloyds-steel-industries-ltd-on-14-august-2007","title":{"rendered":"The Maharashtra State &#8230; vs Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd on 14 August, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The Maharashtra State &#8230; vs Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd on 14 August, 2007<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: A.K.Mathur, Markandey Katju<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  3551 of 2006\n\nPETITIONER:\nThe Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd\n\nRESPONDENT:\nLloyds Steel Industries Ltd\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 14\/08\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nA.K.MATHUR &amp; MARKANDEY KATJU\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3551  OF 2006<\/p>\n<p>1.\tThis appeal under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter for<br \/>\nshort &#8220;the Act&#8221;) is directed against the judgment passed by the Appellate Tribunal for<br \/>\nElectricity (hereinafter for short &#8220;the Appellate Tribunal&#8221;) dated 5th April, 2006 in<br \/>\nAppellant&#8217;s appeal No. 191\/2005 and the order dated 2nd June, 2006 passed by the<br \/>\nAppellate Tribunal in Review Petition No. 3\/2006 and I.A. No. 60\/2006.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tIt is not necessary for us to go into the detailed facts.  Suffice it to say that the<br \/>\nrespondent company approached the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission<br \/>\n(hereinafter for short referred to as &#8220;the Commission&#8221;) with the grievance that a<br \/>\ndemand notice dated 26.8.2002 issued by the  Appellant&#8217;s Wardha office be declared as<br \/>\nillegal and may be set aside and quashed and the respondent company be permitted to<br \/>\navail power supply to the limit of 90 MVA without recovery of any additional charge<br \/>\neither on account of service connection charges or the service line charges and to<br \/>\nfurther direct the appellant herein to refund the amount of Rs. 227.9 lakhs so collected<br \/>\nfor re-instatement of the contract demand to the original level of 90 MVA along with<br \/>\ninterest @ 12% from the date of payment till the date of refund.  The respondent<br \/>\ncompany was a consumer of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board and originally<br \/>\nthey had   a connection of 90 MVA  which was subsequently reduced to 80 MVA and<br \/>\nfinally to 56 MVA on a request made by the company.  Thereafter again they applied in<br \/>\nJune, 2002  for enhancement of their contract demand upto 90 MVA.  Their request<br \/>\nfor enhancement of contract demand upto 90 MVA was granted though it was clearly<br \/>\nmentioned in the order dated 12.8.2001 while reducing the contract demand to 56<br \/>\nMVA that in case enhancement of contract demand was subsequently required by the<br \/>\nrespondent company, it would attract payment of service line and other charges as per<br \/>\nthen prevailing conditions of supply.  However, the regular supply of 90 MVA was<br \/>\nrestored on the request of the respondent company.  The supply of 90 MVA was<br \/>\nrestored in June, 2002 and thereafter a demand was raised in terms of letter dated<br \/>\n02.08.2001 for service line charges, which was agreed to be paid by the respondent<br \/>\ncompany, but in installments.  Aggrieved against the said order the respondent-<br \/>\ncompany filed a petition before the Commission on the ground that the demand of<br \/>\nRs.227.9 lakhs so raised for reinstatement of contract demand of 90 MVA is not<br \/>\nproper.  An objection was raised before the Commission that the Commission has no<br \/>\njurisdiction in the matter in view of Section 42 of the Act and that the consumer should<br \/>\napproach the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and thereafter, if still aggrieved,<br \/>\nthe Ombudsman created under the Act for redressal of their grievances.  The<br \/>\nCommission over-ruled this objection by making a reference to some decision of the<br \/>\nBombay High Court and proceeded to assume jurisdiction and directed the refund of<br \/>\nthe aforesaid amount to the respondent company.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tAggrieved against the said order dated  18th October, 2005, the Maharashtra<br \/>\nState Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (hereinafter for short &#8220;MSEDCL&#8221;)<br \/>\napproached the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity created under the Act.  The<br \/>\nAppellate Tribunal vide its order dated 5th April, 2006 affirmed the order passed by<br \/>\nthe Commission.  Thereafter a review petition was filed by the MSEDCL before the<br \/>\nAppellate Tribunal, which was also rejected vide order dated 2nd June, 2006.<br \/>\n\tAggrieved against both these orders, the   MSEDCL has approached this<br \/>\nCourt by the present appeal under Section 125 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tWe have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tThe basic question which arises for our consideration in this appeal is whether<br \/>\nthe individual consumer can approach the Commission under the Act or not.  \t6.<br \/>\n\tFor deciding this question, the relevant provision is Section 42(5) of the Act,<br \/>\nwhich reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n<p>42. Duties of distribution licensees and open access.-\n<\/p>\n<p>(1)\tx x x x x x<\/p>\n<p>(2)\tx x x x x x <\/p>\n<p>(3)\tx x x x x x<\/p>\n<p>(4)\tx x x x x x <\/p>\n<p>(5) Every distribution licensee shall, within six months from the<br \/>\nappointed date or date of grant of licence, whichever is earlier,<br \/>\nestablish a forum for redressal of grievances of the consumers<br \/>\nin accordance with the guidelines as may be specified by the<br \/>\nState Commission.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tAs per the aforesaid provision, if any grievance is made by a consumer, then<br \/>\nthey have a remedy under Section 42(5) of the Act and according to sub-section (5)<br \/>\nevery distribution licensee has to appoint a forum for redressal of grievances of the<br \/>\nconsumers.  In exercise of this power the State has already framed The Maharashtra<br \/>\nElectricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum  and<br \/>\nOmbudsman) Regulations, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as &#8220;2003 Regulations&#8221;)  and<br \/>\ncreated Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Ombudsman.  Under these 2003<br \/>\nRegulations a proper forum for redressal of the grievances of individual consumers<br \/>\nhas been created by the Commission.  Therefore, now by virtue of sub-section (5) of<br \/>\nSection 42 of the Act, all the individual grievances of consumers have to be raised<br \/>\nbefore this forum only.  In the face of this statutory provision we fail to understand<br \/>\nhow could the Commission acquire jurisdiction to decide the matter when a forum has<br \/>\nbeen created under the Act for this purpose.  The matter should have been left to the<br \/>\nsaid forum.  This question has already been considered and decided by a Division<br \/>\nBench of the Delhi High Court in the cases of Suresh Jindal Vs. BSES Rajdhani Power<br \/>\nLtd. &amp; Ors.  reported in 132 (2006) DLT 339 (DB) and Dheeraj Singh  Vs. BSES<br \/>\nYamuna Power Ltd. and we approve of these decisions.  It has been held in these<br \/>\ndecisions that the Forum and Ombudsman have power to grant interim orders.  Thus a<br \/>\ncomplete machinery has been provided in Section 42(5) and 42(6) for redressal of<br \/>\ngrievances of individual consumers.  Hence wherever a Forum\/Ombudsman have been<br \/>\ncreated the consumers can only resort to these bodies for redressal of their grievances.<br \/>\nTherefore, not much is required to be discussed on this issue. As the aforesaid two<br \/>\ndecisions correctly lay down the law when an individual consumer has a grievance he<br \/>\ncan approach the forum created under sub-section (5) of Section 42 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tIn this connection, we may also refer to Section 86 of the Act which lays down<br \/>\nthe functions of the State Commission.  Sub-Section (1) (f) of the said Section lays down<br \/>\nthe adjudicatory function of the State Commission which does not encompass within its<br \/>\ndomain complaints of individual consumers.  It only provides that the Commission can<br \/>\nadjudicate upon the disputes between the licensees and generating companies and to<br \/>\nrefer any such dispute for arbitration.  This does not include in it an individual<br \/>\nconsumer.  The proper forum for that is Section 42(5) and thereafter Section 42(6)<br \/>\nread with Regulations of 2003 as referred to hereinabove.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\tTherefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the<br \/>\nopinion that the view taken by the Commission as well as the Appellate Authority are<br \/>\nunsustainable and they have erred in coming to the conclusion that the Commission<br \/>\nhas jurisdiction.  Consequently, we set aside the order dated 18th October, 2005 passed<br \/>\nby the Commission and the orders dated 5th April,  2006 and 2nd June, 2006 passed by<br \/>\nthe Appellate Authority and remit the matter to the proper Forum created under<br \/>\nSection 42(5) of the Act to decide the grievance of the respondent herein in accordance<br \/>\nwith law.  We make it clear that we have not made any observation with regard to the<br \/>\nmerits of the demand raised by the appellant upon the respondent company and it will<br \/>\nbe open for the proper forum to adjudicate the same.  The payment, if any, made by<br \/>\nthe company will not operate as an estoppel against the respondent company.  We hope<br \/>\nthat the forum will decide the matter expeditiously.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\tWith the above observations, the appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India The Maharashtra State &#8230; vs Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd on 14 August, 2007 Bench: A.K.Mathur, Markandey Katju CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 3551 of 2006 PETITIONER: The Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd RESPONDENT: Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14\/08\/2007 BENCH: A.K.MATHUR &amp; MARKANDEY KATJU JUDGMENT: J U D G [&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-129105","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 Maharashtra State ... vs Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd on 14 August, 2007 - 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-maharashtra-state-vs-lloyds-steel-industries-ltd-on-14-august-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Maharashtra State ... vs Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd on 14 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-maharashtra-state-vs-lloyds-steel-industries-ltd-on-14-august-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-08-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-01-11T23:11:03+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-maharashtra-state-vs-lloyds-steel-industries-ltd-on-14-august-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-maharashtra-state-vs-lloyds-steel-industries-ltd-on-14-august-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Maharashtra State &#8230; vs Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd on 14 August, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-08-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-11T23:11:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-maharashtra-state-vs-lloyds-steel-industries-ltd-on-14-august-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1317,\"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-maharashtra-state-vs-lloyds-steel-industries-ltd-on-14-august-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-maharashtra-state-vs-lloyds-steel-industries-ltd-on-14-august-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-maharashtra-state-vs-lloyds-steel-industries-ltd-on-14-august-2007\",\"name\":\"The Maharashtra State ... vs Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd on 14 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-08-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-11T23:11:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-maharashtra-state-vs-lloyds-steel-industries-ltd-on-14-august-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-maharashtra-state-vs-lloyds-steel-industries-ltd-on-14-august-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-maharashtra-state-vs-lloyds-steel-industries-ltd-on-14-august-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Maharashtra State &#8230; vs Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd on 14 August, 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:\\\/\\\/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 Maharashtra State ... vs Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd on 14 August, 2007 - 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-maharashtra-state-vs-lloyds-steel-industries-ltd-on-14-august-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Maharashtra State ... vs Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd on 14 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-maharashtra-state-vs-lloyds-steel-industries-ltd-on-14-august-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-08-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-01-11T23:11:03+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-maharashtra-state-vs-lloyds-steel-industries-ltd-on-14-august-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-maharashtra-state-vs-lloyds-steel-industries-ltd-on-14-august-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Maharashtra State &#8230; vs Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd on 14 August, 2007","datePublished":"2007-08-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-11T23:11:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-maharashtra-state-vs-lloyds-steel-industries-ltd-on-14-august-2007"},"wordCount":1317,"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-maharashtra-state-vs-lloyds-steel-industries-ltd-on-14-august-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-maharashtra-state-vs-lloyds-steel-industries-ltd-on-14-august-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-maharashtra-state-vs-lloyds-steel-industries-ltd-on-14-august-2007","name":"The Maharashtra State ... vs Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd on 14 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-08-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-11T23:11:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-maharashtra-state-vs-lloyds-steel-industries-ltd-on-14-august-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-maharashtra-state-vs-lloyds-steel-industries-ltd-on-14-august-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-maharashtra-state-vs-lloyds-steel-industries-ltd-on-14-august-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Maharashtra State &#8230; vs Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd on 14 August, 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:\/\/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\/129105","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=129105"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/129105\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=129105"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=129105"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=129105"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}