{"id":130127,"date":"2009-12-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-12-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-gujarat-ambuja-cement-limited-on-3-december-2009"},"modified":"2015-06-20T17:06:22","modified_gmt":"2015-06-20T11:36:22","slug":"union-of-india-and-others-vs-gujarat-ambuja-cement-limited-on-3-december-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-gujarat-ambuja-cement-limited-on-3-december-2009","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India And Others vs Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited on 3 December, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Union Of India And Others vs Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited on 3 December, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>FAO No. 4077 of 2009                                        [1]\n\n                IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA\n                         AT CHANDIGARH\n\n                                     CM No.19025-CII of 2009 and\n                                     FAO No. 4077 of 2009 (O&amp;M)\n                                     Date of decision: 3.12.2009\n\nUnion of India and others\n                                                       .. Appellants\n               v.\n\nGujarat Ambuja Cement Limited\n                                                       .. Respondent\n\n\n\nCORAM:         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL\n\nPresent:       Mr. Puneet Kumar Jindal, Advocate for the appellants.\n\n               Mr. Vishal Sodhi, Advocate for the respondent.\n                            ...\n<\/pre>\n<p>Rajesh Bindal J.\n<\/p>\n<p>               CM No. 19025-CII of 2009<br \/>\n               This is an application for condonation of delay of 170 days in filing<br \/>\nthe appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>               For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 170 days in<br \/>\nfiling the appeal is condoned.\n<\/p>\n<p>               The application stands disposed of.\n<\/p>\n<p>               FAO No. 4077 of 2009<br \/>\n               Northern Railway is in appeal against the judgment dated<br \/>\n24.11.2008, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench,<br \/>\nChandigarh (for short, `the Tribunal), whereby the respondent has been held<br \/>\nentitled to refund of Rs. 58,820\/- on account of excess freight paid to the<br \/>\nappellants along with costs and interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of<br \/>\nthe claim petition till realisation thereof.\n<\/p>\n<p>               Briefly, the facts, as noticed by the Tribunal in the impugned<br \/>\njudgment, are that the respondent, who is a manufacturer of cement, is having its<br \/>\nmanufacturing unit at village Daburji, Rupnagar. In regular course of business, the<br \/>\nrespondent despatches cement to various places in the country. On 5.7.2005,<br \/>\nMinistry of Railways, Railway Board issued Circular No. 40 granting concession<br \/>\nof 15% on the freight for the Incremental Traffic booked from siding by the<br \/>\nconsignor during non-peak period from July to September. This concession was<br \/>\n FAO No. 4077 of 2009                                           [2]<\/p>\n<p>available in terms of rakes beyond 110% loaded during the corresponding month<br \/>\nof the previous year. In September, 2004, the respondent had booked 10 rakes for<br \/>\ntransportation of cement, whereas in September, 2005 it had booked 11.5 rakes for<br \/>\ntransportation of cement. As the same was more than 110%, if compared with the<br \/>\nrakes loaded in September, 2004, the respondent applied for refund of the freight<br \/>\nin terms of the circular by way of letter\/notice dated 7.10.2005. The excess freight<br \/>\npaid, according to the respondent, was Rs. 58,820\/-. The claim having been<br \/>\nrejected, the matter came to the Tribunal. The Tribunal having accepted the claim<br \/>\nof the respondent, Northern Railway is before this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>               Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the respondent was<br \/>\nnot entitled to the benefit of the circular as the same did not have retrospective<br \/>\napplication. He further submitted that even if it is considered that the circular was<br \/>\napplicable in the case of the respondent, still it did not comply with the pre-<br \/>\nconditions thereof as the Incremental Traffic, as was required to be eligible for the<br \/>\nbenefit, was not there. It is specifically provided for in the circular that   fraction<br \/>\nof rake was to be reckoned as one rake. The earlier rakes booked by the respondent<br \/>\nbeing `10&#8242;, 110% thereof would be 11.1 and if the fraction of a rake is considered<br \/>\nas full, there was, in fact, no traffic beyond 110%, for which the respondent could<br \/>\nclaim refund of the freight as the rakes booked by it for transportation of cement in<br \/>\nSeptember, 2005 were merely 11.5. Another argument raised was that the claim<br \/>\nhaving not been made at the time of booking of the rakes could not be raised later<br \/>\non, as the respondent had foregone its claim for the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>               On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that<br \/>\nthe case of the respondent is squarely covered under the circular. To contend that<br \/>\nthe respondent is seeking benefit for any period prior to the issuance of the<br \/>\ncircular is totally misconceived as the circular is dated 5.7.2005, whereas the<br \/>\nmaterial was despatched by the respondent in September, 2005. As regards<br \/>\ncalculation also, it was submitted that the calculation projected by the appellants is<br \/>\ntotally wrong, as even in terms of the example given in the circular, 110% of 10<br \/>\nwould come out to 11 and the respondent having booked 11.5 rakes, it was<br \/>\ncertainly entitled to concessional rate for .5 rake beyond 11 rakes. The prayer is for<br \/>\ndismissal of the appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>               Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.<br \/>\n               As the claim of the parties in the present case revolves around the<br \/>\ninterpretation of the terms used in circular dated 5.7.2005, it would be relevant to<br \/>\nextract the same, which is as under:\n<\/p>\n<pre> FAO No. 4077 of 2009                                             [3]\n\n               \"3.0    Other terms and conditions.\n               3.1     The aforementioned concessions will be admissible to traffic\n                       originating from siding.\n               3.2     The aforementioned concessions will be admissible for traffic\n                       in   rakes   consisting    of   covered     wagons   like   BCN\/\n<\/pre>\n<p>                       BCNAHS\/BCZ\/BCXN etc. including two point rakes booked<br \/>\n                       to approved combination of destination point.\n<\/p>\n<p>               3.3     &#8220;Incremental Traffic&#8221; for granting the above freight<br \/>\n                       concession shall be the traffic, in terms of rakes, beyond<br \/>\n                       110% of the number of rakes loaded during the corresponding<br \/>\n                       month of the previous year. For this purpose, fraction of a<br \/>\n                       rake shall be reckoned as one rake. For example, if the traffic<br \/>\n                       loaded from a siding in July, 2004 was 12 rakes, freight<br \/>\n                       concession will be granted if the loading in July 2005 exceeds<br \/>\n                       14 rakes (12 rakes x 110% = 13.2 rakes; rounded off to 14<br \/>\n                       rakes) and the freight concession will be applicable from 15th<br \/>\n                       rake onward at the time of booking.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>               As far as facts of the case are concerned, it is not disputed that in<br \/>\nSeptember, 2004, the respondent booked 10 rakes for transportation of cement and<br \/>\nin September, 2005, it booked 11.5 rakes. It was also not disputed that except the<br \/>\ninterpretation of clause 3.3 of the circular, the respondent fulfilled all other<br \/>\nconditions to be eligible to claim benefit of concessional freight under the circular.\n<\/p>\n<p>               Clause 3.3 of the circular, which is the root cause of the dispute<br \/>\nbetween the parties, provides that &#8220;Incremental Traffic&#8221; for granting the benefit of<br \/>\nconcessional freight shall be the traffic, in terms of rakes, beyond 110% of the<br \/>\nnumber of rakes loaded during the corresponding month of the previous year. For<br \/>\nthis purpose, fraction of a rake is to be reckoned as one rake. The clause even<br \/>\ngives an example as to how calculation of 110% is to be made and also how<br \/>\nfraction of a rake has to be dealt with. It provides that in case on earlier occasion<br \/>\n12 rakes were booked and at subsequent stage, the booking exceeds 14 rakes (12<br \/>\nrakes x 110%= 13.2 rakes; rounded off to 14 rakes), the freight concession will be<br \/>\napplicable from 15th rake onward at the time of booking.\n<\/p>\n<p>               In the present case, the respondent had booked 10 rakes in<br \/>\nSeptember, 2004. It is totally misconceived to present a calculation stating that<br \/>\n110% of 10 would be `11.1&#8242; and in case, the fraction is to be rounded off to next<br \/>\nhigher number, the same will be `12&#8242; and the booking in the corresponding<br \/>\nsubsequent period by the respondent being only `11.5&#8242;, it will not be entitled to the<br \/>\n FAO No. 4077 of 2009                                          [4]<\/p>\n<p>benefit of concessional freight. The fact remains that 110% of 10 would be `11&#8242;<br \/>\nand not `11.1&#8242;, as is sought to be projected and the same in round figure for any<br \/>\nbooking thereafter, the respondent would be entitled to concessional freight, which<br \/>\nin the present case, is 11.5 and the respondent raised claim for concessional freight<br \/>\nonly qua the load beyond 11 rakes which, in my opinion, could not be rejected by<br \/>\nthe Railways and claim for refund to that effect has rightly been accepted by the<br \/>\nTribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p>               As far as the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that the<br \/>\ncircular in question could not be applied retrospectively is concerned, the same<br \/>\ndoes not carry any weight, as the circular is dated 5.7.2005, whereas the claim for<br \/>\nconcessional freight has been made by the respondent for the rakes loaded in<br \/>\nSeptember, 2005, which is after the issuance of the circular. No provision in the<br \/>\ncircular has been referred to, to raise a plea that it provided for a provision in terms<br \/>\nof which the periods which are to be compared for &#8220;incremental traffic&#8221; should be<br \/>\nafter the issuance of the circular.\n<\/p>\n<p>       Even the third contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant<br \/>\nregarding the claim having not been made at the initial stage is also to be noticed<br \/>\nand rejected, considering the fact that no provision of the circular has been referred<br \/>\nto, to submit that in case the claim is not made at the time of booking, the same<br \/>\nshall be deemed to be foregone.\n<\/p>\n<p>       For the reasons stated above, the present appeal is dismissed being without<br \/>\nany merit. Considering the fact that there was total non-application of mind at the<br \/>\ntime of taking decision for filing appeal in a petty matter and projecting a wrong<br \/>\ncalculation, in my opinion, the appellants deserve to be burdened with costs, which<br \/>\nare quantified at Rs. 10,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                          (Rajesh Bindal)<br \/>\n                                                                Judge<br \/>\n3.12.2009<br \/>\nmk\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Punjab-Haryana High Court Union Of India And Others vs Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited on 3 December, 2009 FAO No. 4077 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.19025-CII of 2009 and FAO No. 4077 of 2009 (O&amp;M) Date of decision: 3.12.2009 Union of India and others .. Appellants [&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":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-130127","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Union Of India And Others vs Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited on 3 December, 2009 - 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\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-gujarat-ambuja-cement-limited-on-3-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India And Others vs Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited on 3 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-gujarat-ambuja-cement-limited-on-3-december-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-20T11:36:22+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\\\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-gujarat-ambuja-cement-limited-on-3-december-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-gujarat-ambuja-cement-limited-on-3-december-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India And Others vs Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited on 3 December, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-20T11:36:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-gujarat-ambuja-cement-limited-on-3-december-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1341,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-gujarat-ambuja-cement-limited-on-3-december-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-gujarat-ambuja-cement-limited-on-3-december-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-gujarat-ambuja-cement-limited-on-3-december-2009\",\"name\":\"Union Of India And Others vs Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited on 3 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-20T11:36:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-gujarat-ambuja-cement-limited-on-3-december-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-gujarat-ambuja-cement-limited-on-3-december-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-gujarat-ambuja-cement-limited-on-3-december-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India And Others vs Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited on 3 December, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Union Of India And Others vs Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited on 3 December, 2009 - 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\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-gujarat-ambuja-cement-limited-on-3-december-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India And Others vs Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited on 3 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-gujarat-ambuja-cement-limited-on-3-december-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-20T11:36:22+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\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-gujarat-ambuja-cement-limited-on-3-december-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-gujarat-ambuja-cement-limited-on-3-december-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India And Others vs Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited on 3 December, 2009","datePublished":"2009-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-20T11:36:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-gujarat-ambuja-cement-limited-on-3-december-2009"},"wordCount":1341,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-gujarat-ambuja-cement-limited-on-3-december-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-gujarat-ambuja-cement-limited-on-3-december-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-gujarat-ambuja-cement-limited-on-3-december-2009","name":"Union Of India And Others vs Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited on 3 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-20T11:36:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-gujarat-ambuja-cement-limited-on-3-december-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-gujarat-ambuja-cement-limited-on-3-december-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-others-vs-gujarat-ambuja-cement-limited-on-3-december-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India And Others vs Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited on 3 December, 2009"}]},{"@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\/130127","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=130127"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/130127\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=130127"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=130127"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=130127"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}