{"id":140790,"date":"1969-01-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1969-01-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padrauna-rajkrishna-sugar-works-vs-land-reforms-commissioner-u-p-on-31-january-1969"},"modified":"2015-01-25T18:39:51","modified_gmt":"2015-01-25T13:09:51","slug":"padrauna-rajkrishna-sugar-works-vs-land-reforms-commissioner-u-p-on-31-january-1969","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padrauna-rajkrishna-sugar-works-vs-land-reforms-commissioner-u-p-on-31-january-1969","title":{"rendered":"Padrauna Rajkrishna Sugar Works … vs Land Reforms Commissioner, U.P. & … on 31 January, 1969"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Padrauna Rajkrishna Sugar Works … vs Land Reforms Commissioner, U.P. & … on 31 January, 1969<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1969 AIR 897, \t\t 1969 SCR (3) 468<\/div>\n
Author: S C.<\/div>\n
Bench: Shah, J.C.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nPADRAUNA RAJKRISHNA SUGAR WORKS LTD. & ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nLAND REFORMS   COMMISSIONER, U.P. & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n31\/01\/1969\n\nBENCH:\nSHAH, J.C.\nBENCH:\nSHAH, J.C.\nRAMASWAMI, V.\nGROVER, A.N.\n\nCITATION:\n 1969 AIR  897\t\t  1969 SCR  (3) 468\n 1969 SCC  (1) 485\n\n\nACT:\nU.P.  Zamindari\t Abolition  & Land Reforms Act\t(U.P.  1  of\n1951), ss. 279 and 286-Dues under other statutes recoverable\nas  arrears of land revenue-Whether restrictions  under\t ss.\n279 and 286(1) applicable.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe amount of dues under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 the\nU.P. Sugar Factories Control Act. 1938 and the\tCo-operative\nSocieties  Act,\t 1912 were recoverable as  arrears  of\tland\nrevenue.   Section 286(1) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition  &\nLand  Reforms  Act  provides that if  any  arrears  of\tland\nrevenue\t could\tnot  be recovered by any  of  the  processes\nmentioned  in cls. (a) to (e) of s. 279, the  Collector\t may\nrealise the same by attachment and sale of the interests  of\nthe  defaulter\tin  any\t other\timmovable  property  of\t the\ndefaulter, and s. 286(2) provided that money recoverable  as\narrears\t of I\" revenue, may be recovered by  process  \"under\nthis section\" from any immovable property of the  defaulter.\nAs the appellant company was unable to meet its\t liabilities\nin respect of income-tax dues, sugar cess and the amount due\nfor  cane  supplied  to it, the immovable  property  of\t the\ncompany were sold to meet the dues.  The appelant challenged\nthe  sale  contending that (i) the immovable  prop\"  of\t the\ncompany would be attached and sold only after the  processes\nprescribed  in cls. (a) to (a) of a. 279 ie. by the  age  of\nmovable\t properties  were  resorted to; (ii)  the  sale\t was\nillegal or irregular as the Collector ignored the intimation\nof  the Income-tax Officer staying the sale for recovery  of\nincome-tax;  and  (iii)\t the appellant\twas  prevented\tfrom\nraising funds for making the deposit as provided by r.\t285H\n(of  the rules framed under the Act) for setting  aside\t the\nsale  as  the  purchaser was  appointed\t as  the  Authorised\nController  and put in possession of all the  properties  of\nthe appellant.\tDismissing the appeal this Court,\nHELD  : (i) Power to recover arrears of land revenue from  a\ndefaulter is governed by the processes mentioned in cls. (a)\nto  (e)\t of s. 279 of the Act and s. 286(1)  places  certain\nrestrictions upon the power of the Collector to recover land\nrevenue\t by  attachment\t and sale of lands  other  than\t the\nholding\t in respect of which the land revenue is  due.\t But\nthe restrictions on the power of the Collector operated only\nwhen land revenue is in arrears.  Restrictions, if any, upon the p\nower of the Collector to recover dues under  statutes,\nas arrears of land revenue arise, from the statute which  is\nthe source of the liability and not from the U.P.  Zamindari\nAbolition  &  Land Reforms Act, which merely  sets  out\t the\nprocesses for recovery of the dues.  To hold that sub-s. (2)\nof  s. 286 requires the Collector in the first\tinstance  to\nrecover\t out  of  the  movable property\t or  by\t arrest\t and\ndetention of the defaulter before immovable property of\t the\ndefaulter  is attached and sold is to amend the\t substantive\nprovisions  of the Acts under which the liability for  money\ndue is recoverable as land revenue.  For instance, under  a.\n46  of the Income-tax Act, 1922, the powers  exercisable  by\nthe Collector in recovering arrears of income-tax, which are\nrecoverable as arrears of land revenue are not restricted to\nthe Land Revenue Code; the Collector is entitled to exercise\nall the powers of' a Civil Court for the purpose of recovery\nof  an\tamount due under a decree under the  Code  of  Civil\nProcedure, an the Code, of Civil procedure im-\n\t\t\t    469\nposes no obligations to recover the dues by sale of movables\nor by arrest and detention of the defaulter before immovable\nproperty  may be attached. The provisions of the Act,  which\nauthorise  recovery  of\t sums of money as  arrears  of\tland\nrevenue, do not require the Collector to follow any sequence\nof  the\t processes  for recovery; it  is  competent  to\t the\nCollector  to resort to any process prescribed by s. 279  in\naid of recovery of the dues which are recoverable as arrears\nof land revenue, [473 H-474 D; 475 H]\n(ii) The  sale was not illegal or irregular for\t the  reason\nthat the Collector ignored the intimation of the  Income-tax\nOfficer\t staying the sale for recovery of  income-tax  dues.\nThe  immovable property could have been put up for sale\t for\nrecovery  of sugar cane cess and the cane price\t which\twere\nmany times more than the income-tax dues. [476 G]\n(iii)\t  There\t was  no force in the  contention  that\t the\nappellant  was\tunable to raise funds and make\tthe  deposit\nunder  r.  285H\t because the  purchaser\t was  appointed\t the\nAuthorised  Controller,\t who  took  possession\tof  all\t the\nproperties  of the Company.  The appellant could not  comply\nwith the provision of r. 285H for having the sale set  aside\nas the movables were not sufficient to enable the  appellant\nto raise the amount required for deposit under r. 285H. [476\nH]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 130 of 1966.
\nAppeal from the judgment and decree dated December 13,\t1961
\nof  the\t Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No.  217  of
\n1958.\n<\/p>\n
C.   K.\t Daphtary, B. Sen, J, P, Goyal and A. Banerjee,\t for
\nthe appellants.\n<\/p>\n
C.   B. Agarwala and O. P. Rana, for respondents Nos. 1,  2,
\n3 and 8.\n<\/p>\n
T.   A. Ramachandran and R. N. Sachthey, for respondent No.\n<\/p>\n
4.
\nM.   C.\t Chagla, G. D. Srivastava, B. Datta and J. B.  Pada-
\nchanji, for respondents Nos. 5 and 6.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nShah, J. The Padrauna Rajkrishna Sugar Works Ltd.hereinafter
\ncalled\t‘the Company carried on the business of\t manufacture
\nand  sale of sugar and supply of electricity.\tThe  Company
\nwas in financial difficulties in 1954 and was unable to meet
\nits  obligations.  The principal liabilities of the  Company
\nin   July  1955\t were  Rs.  81,821-2-0\tdue  as\t  income-tax
\nprovisionally  assessed for the assessment year\t 1952-53  in
\nrespect\t of  which an order for recovery was made  under  s.
\n46(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922; Rs. 5,64,301-14-9 due  as
\nsugarcane  cess under s. 29 of the Sugar  Factories  Control
\nAct,  1938,  for  the years 1952-53  to,  1954-55:  and\t Rs.
\n1,92,053-12-3  due  by\tthe  Company  to  the\tCo-operative
\nDevelopment Union Ltd. as arrears of cane price for the year
\n1954-55.\n<\/p>\n
470<\/span><\/p>\n
By  order  dated July 14, 1954, issued under  the  Essential
\nSupplies  (Temporary  Powers) Act, the\tGovernment  of\tU.P.
\nappointed the Collector, Deoria as the Authorised Controller
\nof the Company.\t On August 8, 1955 the Land Reforms  Commis-
\nsioner\tsanctioned the proposal submitted by the  Collector,
\nDeoria, to sell the holdings and the property of the Company
\nfor realizing Rs. 8,38,176-13-0.  Sardar Jagjit Singh, Chief
\nEngineer,  Indian  Institute of\t Sugar\tTechnology,  Kanpur,
\nvalued the movables belonging to the Company i.e. tools\t and
\nworkshop  plant, mill stores, spare parts and  furniture  at
\nRs.  7\t,  64,817\/-,and the lands and  the  factory  at\t Rs.
\n23,75,000\/-.   Thereafter a sale proclamation was issued  on
\nOctober\t 4,  1955, for recovery of the total amount  of\t Rs.
\n8,38,176-13-0.\tThe sale was fixed for November 8, 1955.  In
\nthe first instance only the movables were put up for sale by
\nthe  Collector, Deoria, but the highest bid offered was\t Rs.
\n2,75,000\/-.   The Collector then put up for sale the  immov-
\nable property for which a bid of Rs. 13,50,000\/-was made and
\naccepted.   The movables were then put up for sale, and\t the
\nhighest bid for Rs. 2,75,000\/- was accepted.  The purchasers
\nof both the lots were the Cawnpore Sugar Works Ltd., through
\ntheir  managing\t agent Tulsidas Mundra-respondent No.  7  in
\nthis appeal.\n<\/p>\n
On December 6, 1955, the Company moved an application before
\nthe Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, under r. 285-1 of\t the
\nU.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules praying that
\nthe sale be set aside.\tThe Commissioner rejected the  peti-
\ntion,  observing that an application under r. 285-1  of\t the
\nU.P.  Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules,  1952,  to
\nset  aside a sale on the ground of material irregularity  or
\nmistake\t in publishing or conducting a sale may\t be  granted
\nonly  if  the applicant proves to the  satisfaction  of\t the
\nCommissioner  that  he has sustained substantial  injury  by
\nreason of such irregularity or mistake, and that no material
\nirregularity  or  mistake  was proved  to  be  committed  in
\npublishing  or conducting the sale, far less, a\t mistake  or
\nirregularity  which could have caused substantial injury  to
\nthe  applicant.\t The sale was confirmed by order dated\tJuly
\n2, 1956, by the Land Reforms Commissioner.
\nOn, July 30, a petition was moved by the Company in the High
\nCourt  of Allahabad for a writ in the nature  of  certiorari
\nquashing the order dated June 25, 1956, of the Commissioner,
\nGorakhpur  Division.  The petition was dismissed by Oak,  J.
\nIn  appeal under the Letters Patent the order was  confirmed
\nby  the High Court.  Mukherji, J., was of the view  that  s.
\n286 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act did
\nnot oblige the Collector to exhaust the processes prescribed
\nby,  cls. (a) to (e) in s. 279 of that Act before  resorting
\nto the sale of immovable property of the Company and that it
\nwas not proved that
\n\t\t\t    471<\/span>
\nthere\twas  any  material  irregularity  or   mistake_\t  in
\npublishing  or conducting the sale or that  any\t substantial
\ninjury had resulted to the Company., Jagadish Sahai, J., was
\nof the view that s. 2861(2) of the U.P. Zamindari  Abolition
\nand  Land  Reforms  Act provides that  where  an  amount  is
\nrecoverable  as arrears of land revenue, the  Collector\t has
\nfirst to attempt under cls. (a) to (e) of s.279 to  recover
\nthe amount due, and if he is unable to recover the  amount,,
\nhe may proceed to sell the immovable\t   property of\tthe
\ndefaulter.   But the learned Judge was of the  opinion\tthat
\nthe  provision was merely directory and not.  mandatory.  He
\nobserved:\n<\/p>\n
 “……..   the  provision  relating  to  the
\n\t      exhaustion  of the processes  contemplated  by
\n\t      clauses  (a) to (e) of section 279 of the\t Act
\n\t      is merely directory. In view of the provisions
\n\t      of   the various\tActs   which   make   the
\n\t      realization  of sums becoming due under  those
\n\t      Acts as arrears of land revenue and in view of
\n\t      the  provisions of the Act the, Collector\t has
\n\t      got  a  duty  and a  statutory  obligation  to
\n\t      realise  those sums. He has no  discretion  in
\n\t      the matter. Consequently I read the words “may
\n\t      realise  the  same from the  interest  of\t the
\n\t      defaulter\t in any immovable property” in\tsub-
\n\t      section  (1)  or “may be\trecovered  from\t any
\n\t      immovable\t property of the defaulter” in\tsub-
\n\t      section  (2) as meaning that if the  Collector
\n\t      does not succeed in- recovering the amount  by
\n\t      having recourse to the processes mentioned  in
\n\t      clauses  (a) to (e) of section 279 of the\t Act
\n\t      he  shall\t sell  immovable  property  of\t the
\n\t      defaulter.”\n<\/p>\n
     The  learned  Judge also observed\tthat  the  Collector
\nacted inviolation of the statutory provision contained\tin
\ns.  286(2)  of\tthe Act in selling  the\t immovable  property
\nbefore selling the movable property, but the sale could\t not
\nbe  set aside, because substantial injury was not  shown  to
\nhave  been caused.  The Company has appealed to\t this  Court
\nagainst\t the order passed by the ‘High Court confirming\t the
\norder passed by Oak, J.\n<\/p>\n
In this appeal, it is urged in the first instance, that\t the
\nCompany\t possessed  stocks of sugar of value  exceeding\t the
\nliability for payment of Rs. 8,38,000\/- odd.  But the stocks
\nof sugar were not mentioned in the Collector’s report to the
\nLand  Reforms Commissioner : they were not included  in\t the
\nsale  proclamation  as property put up for sale, nor  were
\nthey  valued  in  the report of Sardar\tJagjit\tSingh.\t The
\nCompany asserted in the petition ,before the High Court that
\nit  possessed stocks of sugar worth Rs. 9 lakhs.  which\t had
\nnot  been,  attached earlier, but no  such.  contention\t was
\nadvanced in support of the application for setting.\n<\/p>\n
472<\/span><\/p>\n
aside the sale before the Commissioner, nor was any argument
\nadvanced before the High Court.\t It appears that the  stocks
\nof sugar were mortgaged separately and the amount for  which
\nthey were mortgaged was not included in the claim, made\t for
\nwhich the property of the Company was to be put up for sale.
\nIt was then urged that under S. 286(2) of Act 1 of 1951, the
\nCollector,  was bound in the first instance to exhaust,\t the
\nprocesses for recovery of arrears prescribed by cls. (a)  to\n<\/p>\n
(e)  of S. 279 of the Act and he could not attach  and\tsell
\nimmovable property of the Company until those processes were
\nexhausted.   It\t was  urged that s. 286(2) of  the  Act\t was
\nmandatory and the Collector not having sold the movables  in
\nthe first instance, the sale must be declared void.
\nThe amount for the recovery of which the sale of the  assets
\nof the Company was held, included income-tax dues, sugarcane
\ncess  and the amount due for cane supplied to the  Company.
\nThis  amount  was  recoverable as arrears  of  land  revenue
\nbecause\t of  the provisions of the  Indian  Income-tax\tAct,
\n1922,  the U.P. Sugar Factories Control Act, 1938,  and\t the
\nCo-operative Societies Act 1912.  Section 286(2) of the U.P.
\nZamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act provides:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Sums of money recoverable as arrears of\tland
\n\t      revenue,\tbut  not  due  in  respect  of\t any
\n\t      specific\tland,  may be recovered\t by  process
\n\t      under   this  section  from   any immovable
\n\t      property of the defaulter.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Though the amount for which the property was put up for sale
\nwas  recoverable as arrears of land revenue, no part  of  it
\nwas  due in respect of any specific land.  The amount  could
\nprima facie be recovered from the immovable property of\t the
\ndefaulter.   But  relying upon the  expression\t“under\tthis
\nsection” in S. 286(2) of Act 1 of 1951 it was contended that
\nthe immovable property of the Company could be attached\t and
\nsold only after the processes prescribed in s. 279 cls. (a)
\nto  (e)\t were resorted to and the Collector  was  unable  to
\nrecover the dues.  It was urged that this is the true effect
\nof  s. 286(1) and s. 279 of Act 1 of 1951.   Section  286(1)
\nprovides :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “It  any\tarrears of land\t revenue  cannot  be
\n\t      recovered by any of the processes mentioned in
\n\t      clauses  (a)  to\t(e)  of\t Section  279,\t the
\n\t      Collector\t may realize the same by  attachment
\n\t      and  sale of the interest of the defaulter  in any
\n other\t immovable   property\tof   the
\n\t      defaulter.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Section 279 of the Act set-, out the procedure for  recovery
\nof land revenue.  The section as it stood at the. date of We
\nprovided
\n\t\t\t    473<\/span>
\n\t      An arrear of land revenue may be recovered  by
\n\t      any one or more of the following processes :\n<\/p>\n
\t      (a)   by\tserving\t a  writ  of  demand  or   a
\n\t      citation to appear on any defaulter,\n<\/p>\n
\t      (b)   by arrest and detention of his person,.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (c)   by\tattachment and sale of\this  movable
\n\t      property including produce,\n<\/p>\n
\t      (d)   by attachment of the holding in  respect
\n\t      of which the arrear is due,\n<\/p>\n
\t      (e)   by\tsale  of the holding in\t respect  of
\n\t      which the arrear is due.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (f)   by\t attachment   and  sale\t  of   other
\n\t      immovable property of the defaulter.”\n<\/p>\n
Section\t 280 deals with the mode of recovery  prescribed  by
\ncl.  (a) of s. 279; s. 281 with the mode prescribed  by\t cl.\n<\/p>\n
(b)  i.e. by arrest and detention; and s. 282 with the\tmode
\nprescribed  by\tcl. (c) i.e. by attachment and sale  of\t the
\nmovable\t property including produce.  Section 284  sets\t out
\nthe  procedure for sale of the holding in respect  of  which
\nthe  arrear  was due and s. 286(1) deals with the  power  to
\nproceed.  against  the interest of the\tdefaulter  in  other
\nimmovable property.\n<\/p>\n
For  recovery of arrears of land revenue, the  Collector  is
\nbound to resort to one or more of the processes mentioned in
\ns. 279 read with ss. 280, 282, 284 & 285 of the Act,  before
\nhe  attaches  and  sells  the  immovable  property  of\t the
\ndefaulter,  other than the holding in respect of  which\t the
\nland revenue is due.  That clearly follows from the terms of
\nsub-s.\t(1) of s. 286.\tSubsection (2) of s. 286  makes\t the
\nsame process applicable for recovery of sums of money  which
\nare  recoverable  as  arrears  of  land\t revenue.   But\t the
\nliability to pay the amount so recoverable arises by  virtue
\nof the provisions of other Acts and is not due in respect of
\nany  holding  of the defaulter.\t It is only  recoverable  as
\narrears of, land revenue by virtue of the provisions of\t the
\nAct under which the liability has arisen.  Since U.P. Act  1
\nof 1951 provides by s. 286(2) that sums of money recoverable
\nas  arrears  of\t land  revenue may  be\trecovered  from\t any
\nimmovable   property   of  the\tdefaulter,   the   procedure
\nprescribed by the Act applies to such recovery.\t Because  of
\nthe  use’ of the expression “under this section”  in  sub-s.
\n(2)  of\t s. 286 it is not intended that the  Collector\tmust
\nresort in the first instance to the processes prescribed  by
\ncls.  (a)  to (e) before he resorts to cl. (f), of  s.\t279.
\nCls. (d) & (e) of s. 279 have no application, where  income-
\ntax  dues and sugarcane cess or cane price  are\t recoverable
\nfrom  the defaulter : and cl. (b) is inapplicable where\t the
\ndefaulter is an artificial person like a Company.  Power  to
\nrecover arrears of land reve-\n<\/p>\n
414<\/span><\/p>\n
nue from a defaulter is governed by the processes  mentioned
\nin  S.\t279 cls. (a) to (e), and s.  286(1)  places  certain
\nrestrictions upon the power of the Collector to recover land
\nrevenue\t by  attachment and sale of lands  other  than\tthe
\nholding\t in respect of which the land revenue is  due.\t But
\nthe restrictions-on the power of the Collector operate\tonly
\nwhen  land revenue is in arrears.  Restrictions if any\tupon
\nthe  power  of\tthe Collector to recover  dues\tunder  other
\nstatutes, as arrears of land revenue arise from the  statute
\nwhich  is the source of the liability and not from Act 1  of
\n1951 which merely sets out the processes for recovery of the
\ndues.\n<\/p>\n
To hold that sub-s. (2) of s. 286 requires the Collector  in
\nthe first instance to recover out of the movable property or
\nby  arrest and detention of the defaulter  before  immovable
\nproperty  of the defaulter is attached and sold is to  amend
\nthe  substantive  provisions  of the Acts  under  which\t the
\nliability for money due is recoverable as land revenue.\t For
\ninstance  ,  under s. 46 (2) of the Indian  Income-tax\tAct,
\n1922, it is provided
\n\t      “The  Income-tax Officer may forward  \/to\t the
\n\t      Collector\t a certificate’ under his  signature
\n\t      specifying  the amount of arrears due from  an
\n\t      assessee,\t and  the Collector, on\t receipt  of
\n\t      such  certificate,  shall proceed\t to  recover
\n\t      from   such  assessee  the  amount   specified
\n\t      therein  as  if  it were an  arrear  of  land
\n\t      revenue. :\n<\/p>\n
\t      Provided\tthat without prejudice to any  other
\n\t      powers  of  the Collector in this\t behalf,  he
\n\t      shall  for the purpose of recovering the\tsaid
\n\t      amount have the powers which under the Code of
\n\t      Civil  Procedure,\t 1908 (V of 1908),  a  Civil
\n\t      Court  has for the purpose of the recovery  of
\n\t      aim amount due under a decree.\n<\/p>\n
The  power  exercisable,  by  the  Collector  in  recovering
\narrears\t of income-tax which are recoverable as\t arrears  of
\nland  revenue are, it is clear, not restricted to  the\tLand
\nRevenue Code: the Collector is entitled to exercise all\t the
\npowers\tof a Civil Court for the purpose of recovery  of  an
\namount due under a decree under the Code of Civil Procedure,
\nand  the  Code of Civil Procedure imposes no  obligation  to
\nrecover\t the  dues  by sale of movables\t or  by\t arrest\t and
\ndetention of the defaulter before, immovable property may be
\nattached.   Section  51\t of  the  Code\tof  Civil  Procedure
\nprovides:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Subject to such conditions and limitations as
\n\t      may  be  prescribed,  the Court  may,  on\t the
\n\t      application   of\tthe   decree-holder,   order
\n\t      execution of the decree-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a) by\t delivery     of    any\t    property
\n\t      specifically decreed;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b) by\t attachment  and  sale\tor  by\tsale
\n\t      without attachment of any property;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      475<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      (c)   by arrest and detention in prison;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (d)   in\tsuch other manner as the  nature  of
\n\t      ‘the relief granted may require
\n\t      Provided……………..<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
By virtue of 0. 2 1 r. 30(e) of the Code of Civil  Procedure
\nsimultaneous execution both against the property and person
\nof the judgment-debtor is allowed.  To hold, therefore, that
\nin  seeking to recover income-tax dues the Collector  is  in
\nthe  first  instance,  by virtue of sub-s. (2)\tof  s.\t286,
\nrestricted to the recovery of arrears by attachment and sale
\nof  movables  or by arrest and detention in  prison  of\t the
\ndefaulter and it he cannot recover the amount then and then
\nonly  to  have\trecourse to the immovable  property  of\t the
\njudgment-debtor\t is  to seek to amend both  the,  Income-tax
\nAct, 1922, as well as the Code of Civil Procedure.  The U  .
\nP.  Legislature is competent to alter the provisions of\t the
\nIncome-tax Act.\n<\/p>\n
We  are,  therefore,  unable  to  agree\t with  the   opinion
\nexpressed  by jagadish Sahai, S., that the use of the  words
\n“under\tthis  ,section” points to the applicability  of\t the
\nwhole  section\ti.e.  subsection (1) in\t the  recovery\tdues
\nrecoverable under sub-section (2) of section 286, and  “that
\nthe  two sub-sections have got to be read together  and\t the
\neffect\tof sub-section (2) is that even in  connection\twith
\nthe  recovery  of  miscellaneous dues  as  arrears  of\tland
\nrevenue it is permissible to sell immovable property of\t the
\ndefaulter but subject to what is provided for in sub-section
\n(1)”.\tWe are also unable to agree with  the  observations
\nmade by the learned Judge that
\n\t      “…….. if sub-section (2) of section 286 of
\n\t      the  Act\twere  to be read  in  isolation\t and
\n\t      detached\tfrom subsection (1) it would  become
\n\t      impossible  to  administer  the  same.\tSub-\n<\/p>\n
\t      section (2) only provides that the arrears  of
\n\t      miscellaneous  dues may be recovered from\t any
\n\t      immovable\t property of the  defaulter  without
\n\t      specifying the manner in which they are to be
\n\t      recovered, that is to say, without  indicating
\n\t      whether\tit  would  be  recovered  from\t the
\n\t      usufruct of the property or by its sale or  by
\n\t      mortgage or lease.”\n<\/p>\n
The  provisions of the Act which authorise recovery of\tsums
\nof  money  as  arrears of land revenue do  not\trequire\t the
\nCollector  to  follow  any sequence  of\t the  processes\t for
\nrecovery: it is competent to the Collector to ‘resort to any
\nprocess prescribed by s. 279 in aid of recovery of the\tdues
\nwhich  are  recoverable as arrears of land revenue.   It  is
\nunnecessary in the circumstances to
\n476<\/span>
\nconsider  whether the provisions of s. 286(1) are  mandatory
\nor directory.\n<\/p>\n
It  was\t urged\tin the alternative that\t after\tselling\t the
\nimmovable property which realized more than Rs.\t 23,50,000\/-
\nthe Collector should not have sold the movable property, for
\nthe  claim for which the properties of the Company were\t put
\nup  for\t sale, was only Rs. 8,38,176-13-0.  At\tfirst  blush
\nthere is force in this argument.  Why the Collector  thought
\nit  necessary  to  sell the  movables  after  the  immovable
\nproperty  was knocked down to the Cawnpore Sugar Works\tLtd.
\nfor   Rs.  23,50,000\/-\twas  never  explained.\t After\t the
\nimmovable property belonging to the Company was knocked down
\nto  the purchasers for an amount of Rs. 23,50,000\/-  it\t was
\napparently  not\t necessary to hold the auction for  sale  of
\nmovables  valued at Rs. 7,64,817\/- and to accept a  bid\t of
\nonly Rs. 2,75,000\/-.  The argument that the movables were of
\nno  use to any person other than the purchaser of  immovable
\nproperty is without substance.\tThe movables sold we’re\t the
\ntools  and  workshop  plant, mill stores,  spare  parts\t and
\nfurniture, and it is difficult to accept the contention that
\nthese  movables\t were of no value except to  the  purchaser.
\nBut  the Company raised no contention in this behalf  before
\nthe Commissioner, nor in the petition before the High Court.
\nThe  question was also not argued before the High  Court  in
\nthat form.  We cannot at this stage investigate the  reasons
\nwhy  movables valued at Rs. 7,64,817\/- were put up for\tsale
\nand  sold when it was not necessary to sell them to  realise
\nthe dues.\n<\/p>\n
It  was\t then  urged that the  Income-tax  Officer  had,  by
\nintimation  dated December 11, 1954, asked the Collector  to
\nstay  the  sale proceeding for recovery of  income-tax\tdues
\namounting to Rs. 81,821-2-0.  For some reason, which is\t not
\nclear from the record, the Collector ignored the  intimation
\ngiven  by  the Income-tax Officer and proceeded to  put\t the
\nproperty  to  sale.   He included the  amount  in  the\tsale
\nproclamation,  overruling the protests of the  Company,\t and
\nsold  the properties for recovery of a\tconsolidated  amount
\nwhich  included\t Rs. 81,821-2-0 due as income-tax.   But  on
\nthat  account  the  sale is not illegal\t or  irregular.\t  An
\namount\texceeding  Rs.\t7  lakhs  was  recoverable  for\t the
\nsugarcane cess and the cane price and the immovable property
\nof the Company could have been put up for sale for  recovery
\nof those dues.\tThe sale is not proved to be vitiated on the
\nground of any material irregularity or mistake in publishing
\nor  conducting it, and it is therefore not liable to be\t set
\naside.\n<\/p>\n
It  was\t finally  con that the Company\twas  prevented\tfrom
\nexercising  its\t right under r. 285-H of  the  rules  framed
\nunder U.P. Act 1 of 1951, because the purchaser at the\tsale
\nwas   appointed,  by  order  of\t the   Central\t Government,
\nAuthoriged Con-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    477<\/span><\/p>\n
troller\t of  the  factory  of  the  Company,  and  all\t the
\nproperties  of the ‘Company were put in +.he  possession  of
\nthe purchaser, and that the Company  was unable to raise the
\nrequisite amount to be deposited under r.  285-H.  Under  r.
\n285-H  any person whose holding or other immovable  property
\nhas  been sold under the Act may, at any time within  thirty
\ndays from the date of sale, apply to have the sale set aside
\non his depositing in the Collector’s office-\n<\/p>\n
\t      (a)   for\t payment  to the  purchaser,  a\t sum
\n\t      equal  to 5 per cent. of the  purchase  money;
\n\t      and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   for\t payment on account of\tthe  arrear,
\n\t      the  amount specified in the  proclamation  in
\n\t      Z.A. Form 74 as that for the recovery of which
\n\t      the  sale was ordered, less any amount  which
\n\t      may,  since the date of such  proclamation  of
\n\t      sale, have been paid on that account; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (c)   the cost of the sale.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
If  the deposit is made, the Collector shall pass  an  order
\nsetting aside the sale.\t It was open to the Company under r.
\n285-H  even after the bids were accepted to deposit  5\tper
\ncent. of the sum realised by sale of the immovable  property
\nand to pay the amount due for the recovery of which the sale
\nwas  ordered and the cost of the sale.\tBut no\tattempt\t was
\nmade to deposit the amounts mentioned in cls. (a), (b) & (c)
\nof r. 285-H.  The contention that the Company was unable  to
\nmake the deposit under Rule 285-H because the purchaser\t was
\nappointed  Authorised Controller was also not raised  before
\nthe  Commissioner and the High Court.  The argument that  if
\nthe movable property had not been sold, the Company may have
\nraised the amount liable to be deposited under cls. (a), (b)
\n&  (c), but by sale of those properties and purchase of\t the
\nsame  by  a  person  who  was  shortly\tafter  the  purchase
\nappointed  the Authorised Controller prevented\tthe  Company
\nfrom  exercising the right under r. 285-H  is  hypothetical.
\nAgain even that argument was not raised before the  Commis-
\nsioner, nor in the petition, nor in the arguments before the
\nHigh  Court.  Evidently, the Company was required to  comply
\nwith  the  provisions of r. 285-H for having  the  sale\t set
\naside  to  deposit an amount of Rs. 9,50,000\/-\tbesides\t the
\ncost  of the sale.  Even if the movables had not been  sold,
\nand  assuming that they were of the value of Rs.  7,64,817\/-
\nthe  movables were not sufficient to enable the\t Company  to
\nraise the amount required for deposit under r. 285-H.
\nThe contentions raised by the Company fail and the appeal is
\ndismissed.  We are, however, of the view, especially because
\nof  the action of the Collector in putting the\tmovables  to
\nsale even
\nSup CI\/69-12
\n478<\/span>
\nafter the immovable property realised an amount very much in
\nexcess of the dues, and ignoring the intimation sent by\t the
\nIncome-tax  Officer to stay the sale proceeding,  which\t has
\ninvolved  the  Company in loss of  property  of\t substantial
\nvalue,\tthat  the  parties  should  bear  their\t own   costs
\nthroughout.\n<\/p>\n
Y.P.\t\t\t\t   Appeal dismissed.\n479<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Padrauna Rajkrishna Sugar Works … vs Land Reforms Commissioner, U.P. & … on 31 January, 1969 Equivalent citations: 1969 AIR 897, 1969 SCR (3) 468 Author: S C. Bench: Shah, J.C. PETITIONER: PADRAUNA RAJKRISHNA SUGAR WORKS LTD. & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: LAND REFORMS COMMISSIONER, U.P. & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31\/01\/1969 […]<\/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-140790","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nPadrauna Rajkrishna Sugar Works ... vs Land Reforms Commissioner, U.P. & ... on 31 January, 1969 - 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\/padrauna-rajkrishna-sugar-works-vs-land-reforms-commissioner-u-p-on-31-january-1969\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Padrauna Rajkrishna Sugar Works ... vs Land Reforms Commissioner, U.P. & ... on 31 January, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padrauna-rajkrishna-sugar-works-vs-land-reforms-commissioner-u-p-on-31-january-1969\" \/>\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=\"1969-01-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-01-25T13:09:51+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=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padrauna-rajkrishna-sugar-works-vs-land-reforms-commissioner-u-p-on-31-january-1969#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padrauna-rajkrishna-sugar-works-vs-land-reforms-commissioner-u-p-on-31-january-1969\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Padrauna Rajkrishna Sugar Works … vs Land Reforms Commissioner, U.P. & … on 31 January, 1969\",\"datePublished\":\"1969-01-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-25T13:09:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padrauna-rajkrishna-sugar-works-vs-land-reforms-commissioner-u-p-on-31-january-1969\"},\"wordCount\":3843,\"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\/padrauna-rajkrishna-sugar-works-vs-land-reforms-commissioner-u-p-on-31-january-1969#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padrauna-rajkrishna-sugar-works-vs-land-reforms-commissioner-u-p-on-31-january-1969\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padrauna-rajkrishna-sugar-works-vs-land-reforms-commissioner-u-p-on-31-january-1969\",\"name\":\"Padrauna Rajkrishna Sugar Works ... vs Land Reforms Commissioner, U.P. & ... on 31 January, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1969-01-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-25T13:09:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padrauna-rajkrishna-sugar-works-vs-land-reforms-commissioner-u-p-on-31-january-1969#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padrauna-rajkrishna-sugar-works-vs-land-reforms-commissioner-u-p-on-31-january-1969\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padrauna-rajkrishna-sugar-works-vs-land-reforms-commissioner-u-p-on-31-january-1969#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Padrauna Rajkrishna Sugar Works … vs Land Reforms Commissioner, U.P. & … on 31 January, 1969\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Padrauna Rajkrishna Sugar Works ... vs Land Reforms Commissioner, U.P. & ... on 31 January, 1969 - 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\/padrauna-rajkrishna-sugar-works-vs-land-reforms-commissioner-u-p-on-31-january-1969","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Padrauna Rajkrishna Sugar Works ... vs Land Reforms Commissioner, U.P. & ... on 31 January, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padrauna-rajkrishna-sugar-works-vs-land-reforms-commissioner-u-p-on-31-january-1969","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1969-01-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-01-25T13:09:51+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":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padrauna-rajkrishna-sugar-works-vs-land-reforms-commissioner-u-p-on-31-january-1969#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padrauna-rajkrishna-sugar-works-vs-land-reforms-commissioner-u-p-on-31-january-1969"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Padrauna Rajkrishna Sugar Works … vs Land Reforms Commissioner, U.P. & … on 31 January, 1969","datePublished":"1969-01-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-25T13:09:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padrauna-rajkrishna-sugar-works-vs-land-reforms-commissioner-u-p-on-31-january-1969"},"wordCount":3843,"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\/padrauna-rajkrishna-sugar-works-vs-land-reforms-commissioner-u-p-on-31-january-1969#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padrauna-rajkrishna-sugar-works-vs-land-reforms-commissioner-u-p-on-31-january-1969","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padrauna-rajkrishna-sugar-works-vs-land-reforms-commissioner-u-p-on-31-january-1969","name":"Padrauna Rajkrishna Sugar Works ... vs Land Reforms Commissioner, U.P. & ... on 31 January, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1969-01-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-25T13:09:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padrauna-rajkrishna-sugar-works-vs-land-reforms-commissioner-u-p-on-31-january-1969#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padrauna-rajkrishna-sugar-works-vs-land-reforms-commissioner-u-p-on-31-january-1969"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padrauna-rajkrishna-sugar-works-vs-land-reforms-commissioner-u-p-on-31-january-1969#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Padrauna Rajkrishna Sugar Works … vs Land Reforms Commissioner, U.P. & … on 31 January, 1969"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/140790","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=140790"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/140790\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=140790"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=140790"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=140790"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}