{"id":141210,"date":"2003-03-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-03-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahavir-mirror-industries-vs-the-designated-authority-on-13-march-2003"},"modified":"2017-12-14T13:58:30","modified_gmt":"2017-12-14T08:28:30","slug":"mahavir-mirror-industries-vs-the-designated-authority-on-13-march-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahavir-mirror-industries-vs-the-designated-authority-on-13-march-2003","title":{"rendered":"Mahavir Mirror Industries vs The Designated Authority on 13 March, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Mahavir Mirror Industries vs The Designated Authority on 13 March, 2003<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n In the High Court of Judicature at Madras\n\nDated: 13\/03\/2003\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice P.K.MISRA\n\nWrit Petition No. 44506  of 2002 and Writ Petition No. 44507 of 2002\nand W.P.Nos.3193 and 3194 of 2003\n\nMahavir Mirror Industries\nrep. by its Proprietor                  ....  Petitioner in W.P.Nos.\n                                                44506 &amp; 44507 of 2002\n\nM\/s. Monika Exim International\nLtd. Rep by its\nManaging Director                               Petitioner in W.P.Nos.\n                                                3193 and 3194 of 2003\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The Designated Authority\n   Director General of Anti\n   Dumping and Allied Duties\n   Ministry of Commerce and Industry\n   Government of India\n   New Delhi.\n2. The Union of India\n   rep. by Secretary to Government\n   Ministry of Finance\n   New Delhi.\n3. All India Flat Glass\n   Manufacturer's Association\n   4-7C DDA Shopping Centre\n   Friends Colony\n   New Delhi.5.                  ...    Respondents in W.P.<\/pre>\n<p>                                        Nos.44506 &amp; 44507\/2002<\/p>\n<p>1. The Designated Authority<br \/>\n   Director General of Anti<br \/>\n   Dumping and Allied Duties<br \/>\n   Ministry of Commerce and Industry<br \/>\n   Government of India<br \/>\n   New Delhi.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. The Union of India<br \/>\n   rep. by Secretary to Government<br \/>\n   Ministry of Commerce and Industry<br \/>\n   New Delhi.\n<\/p>\n<p>3. All India Flat Glass<br \/>\n   Manufacturer&#8217;s Association<br \/>\n   4-7C DDA Shopping Centre<br \/>\n   Friends Colony<br \/>\n   New Delhi.5.                         Respondents in W.P.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                        Nos. 3193 &amp; 3194\/2003<\/p>\n<p>                Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India<br \/>\nfor the issue of Writ of Declaration as stated therein.\n<\/p>\n<p>For petitioners :  Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy<br \/>\n                Senior Counsel<br \/>\n                for M\/s.  Vijay Narayan<br \/>\n                Mr.V.T.Gopalan<br \/>\n                Senior Counsel<br \/>\n                for Mr.Gajendran<br \/>\nFor respondents :  Mr.Harish N.Salve<br \/>\n                Senior Counsel<br \/>\n                M\/s.Ramasubramaniam &amp;<br \/>\n                Associates for R3<br \/>\n                Mr.A.Kalaiselvam<br \/>\n                ACGSC for R2<br \/>\n                Mr.Krishnasrinivasan<br \/>\n                for M\/s.  Ramasubramaniam &amp;<br \/>\n                Associates.\n<\/p>\n<p>:J U D G M E N T T<\/p>\n<p>                Though the matter was  listed  for  considering  the  petition<br \/>\nfiled  by  the  second  respondent  (interim  order of stay) by consent of the<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the parties, the writ petition, itself was heard on merit,<br \/>\nalong with the other two writ petitions raising similar  questions  where  the<br \/>\nvery  same  learned  counsels  are  appearing for the writ petitioners and the<br \/>\nrespondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>                2.  In all these writ petitions, the prayer has been made  for<br \/>\nquashing  the  preliminary  findings  dated  20.11.2002  under the proceedings<br \/>\nNo.14\/19\/2002-DGAD.  It has been further prayed that Rule  7  of  the  Customs<br \/>\nTariff (Identification Assessment and Collection of AntiDumping Duty on Dumped<br \/>\nArticles  and for determination of injury) Rules 1995 (hereinafter referred to<br \/>\nas &#8220;the Rules&#8221;) as illegal and unconstitutional.\n<\/p>\n<p>                3.  Section 9A of the  Customs  Tariff  Act  1975  hereinafter<br \/>\ncalled  as  &#8216;the  Act&#8217;  empowers the Central Government to impose Anti-Dumping<br \/>\nduty on any article exported from any country in to India  at  less  than  its<br \/>\nnormal value.    Section 9-B (2) empowers the Central Government to make rules<br \/>\nwhich may provide in the manner in which investigation may  be  made  and  the<br \/>\nfactor  which  should  be considered at any stage of investigation and for all<br \/>\nmatters connected with such investigation.  In exercise of rule  making  power<br \/>\nunder Section  9B  (2)  of  the Rules 19 95 have been framed.  The validity of<br \/>\nRule 7 having been challenged is extracted hereunder:\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;Rule 7:  Confidential Information:\n<\/p>\n<p>        1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (2)93) and (7), sub<br \/>\nrule (2) of rule 12, sub-rule (4) of rule 15 and sub-rule (4) of rule 17,  the<br \/>\ncopies  of  applications  received  under sub-rule (1) of rule 5, or any other<br \/>\ninformation provided to the designated authority on a  confidential  basis  by<br \/>\nany party in the course of investigation, shall, upon the designated authority<br \/>\nbeing  satisfied  as  to  its confidentiality, be treated as such by it and no<br \/>\nsuch information shall be  disclosed  to  any  other  party  without  specific<br \/>\nauthorization of the party providing such information.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2)   The  designated  authority  may  require  the  parties  providing<br \/>\ninformation on confidential basis to furnish no-confidential  summary  thereof<br \/>\nand if, in the opinion of a party providing such information, such information<br \/>\nis  not  susceptible  of  summary,  such  party  may  submit to the designated<br \/>\nauthority a statement of reasons why summarization is not possible.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3)  Notwithstanding  anything  contained  in  sub-rule  (2),  if   the<br \/>\ndesignated  authority is satisfied that the request for confidentiality is not<br \/>\nwarranted or the supplier of the information is either unwilling to  make  the<br \/>\ninformation  public or to authorize its disclosure in a generalized or summary<br \/>\nform, it may disregard such information.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        It is also appropriate to notice some of the other relevant rules:<br \/>\nRule  5  relating to initiation of investigation and rule 6 which incorporates<br \/>\nprinciples governing investigations.\n<\/p>\n<p>Rule 12 provides that designated authority shall  record  preliminary  finding<br \/>\nregarding  export price, normal value and margin of dumping, and in respect of<br \/>\nthe imports from specified countries, the injury to the domestic industry.<br \/>\nRule 13 empowers the Central Government to levy provisional duty on the  basis<br \/>\nof the preliminary findings recorded by the designated authority.<br \/>\nRule  16 mandates the designated authority to inform all interested parties of<br \/>\nthe essential facts under consideration which forms the basis for its decision<br \/>\nbefore giving its final findings as contemplated under Rule 17.<br \/>\nRule 18 empowers the Central Government to levy duty within  three  months  of<br \/>\nthe date of publication of final findings by the designated authority.<br \/>\nRule 21 (2) envisages that if, the antidumping duty fixed after the conclusion<br \/>\nof  the  investigation  is lower than the provisional duty already imposed and<br \/>\ncollected, the differential shall be refunded to the importer.<br \/>\nRule 21 (3) provides that if the  provisional  duty  imposed  by  the  Central<br \/>\nGovernment  is  withdrawn in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (4) of<br \/>\nrule 18, the provisional duty already imposed and collected, if any, shall  be<br \/>\nrefunded to the importer.\n<\/p>\n<p>                4.  In the present case, on the basis of the application filed<br \/>\nby the third respondent herein, the first  respondent  (Designated  Authority)<br \/>\nhad  initiated  proceedings  and  thereafter  notified  the  customers  of the<br \/>\nexporting country and also issued notice to the  interested  party,  including<br \/>\nthe present  petitioners.   The question in the present writ petitions relates<br \/>\nto import of flat glass from countries like Indonesia and China.\n<\/p>\n<p>                5.  The grievance of the petitioners is to the effect that  on<br \/>\nseveral  occasions,  the  petitioners under various letters, had requested for<br \/>\ngiving an opportunity of  personal  hearing  and  had  also  called  upon  the<br \/>\nDesignated  Authority\/complainant  to  furnish  the details of various aspects<br \/>\nwhich had been withheld by applying  the  rule  of  confidentiality  envisaged<br \/>\nunder  Rule  7  and  subsequently  without following the principles of natural<br \/>\njustice, the Designated Authority has submitted his preliminary findings.  The<br \/>\nlegality of such preliminary  findings  and  validity  of  Rule  7  have  been<br \/>\nquestioned in these writ petitions.\n<\/p>\n<p>                6.  Eventhough the legality and propriety of the conclusion in<br \/>\nthe  preliminary findings have been challenged on several grounds indicated in<br \/>\nthe writ petitions, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the  petitioners  has<br \/>\nconfined  his  submissions  to two points viz., the validity of Rule 7 and the<br \/>\nquestion of non-compliance of principles of natural justice, in the  shape  of<br \/>\ngiving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n<p>                7.   The validity of Rules 7 has been challenged herein on the<br \/>\nground that the said rule does not furnish any guideline and gives an absolute<br \/>\ndiscretion  to  the  Designated  Authority  to  withhold  furnishing  of   any<br \/>\ninformation   on   the  alleged  ground  of  confidentiality  claimed  by  the<br \/>\ncomplainant.  It has been submitted that  while  inviting  the  exporters  and<br \/>\nimporters  to respond to the particulars furnished by the complainant, many of<br \/>\nthe  columns  have  been  left   blank   by   applying   the   principles   of<br \/>\nconfidentiality.\n<\/p>\n<p>                8.  The question of validity of Rule 7 had earlier been raised<br \/>\nin several  other  writ  petitions, namely, W.P.Nos.3008 of 2002 batch.  While<br \/>\nupholding the validity of Rule 7 in those writ petitions on 15.5 .2002, it was<br \/>\nobserved as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;It has to be  noticed  that  the  designated  authority  is  a  high  ranking<br \/>\nexperienced  officer in the rank of Joint Secretary to the Central Government.<br \/>\nHe is expected to act  according  to  the  purpose  for  which  the  statutory<br \/>\nprovisions  relating  to antidumping have been incorporated in the Act and the<br \/>\nRules have been framed.  It is obvious  that  he  has  to  be  guided  by  the<br \/>\nindications given  in  the  Act as well as the Rules.  Merely because there is<br \/>\nsome apprehension that the authority may be abused in a given case  is  not  a<br \/>\nground to  set  the Rule at naught.  Any abuse in the matter of exercising the<br \/>\ndiscretion conferred under Rule  7  can  be  corrected  if  necessary  by  the<br \/>\nappellate  authority  and  there  is  no  substance  in the contentions raised<br \/>\nrelating to invalidity of such rule.\n<\/p>\n<p>                9.   Learned  counsel  appearing  for  the   petitioners   has<br \/>\nsubmitted that the aforesaid decision is now the subject matter of the appeal,<br \/>\npending  before  the Division Bench of this Court and, therefore, the question<br \/>\nof validity of Rule 7 has to be reconsidered.\n<\/p>\n<p>                10.  When a decision is rendered by a  Court  of  Record  such<br \/>\ndecision,  apart  from being binding on the parties to the litigation, becomes<br \/>\nprecedent for the very same court  as  well  as  Courts  subordinate  to  such<br \/>\ncourts.   Merely because an appeal is filed and is pending, &#8221; precedent&#8221; value<br \/>\nof a decision is not taken away.  In the present case, in the normal course, I<br \/>\nam bound to follow the earlier decision.\n<\/p>\n<p>                11.  Apart from  the  reasoning  given  in  the  said  earlier<br \/>\ndecision,  it  is  apparent  that  the  exercise  undertaken by the Designated<br \/>\nAuthority under the rules is administrative and legislative in  nature.    The<br \/>\nscheme  of  the Act and the Rules makes it clear that the designated authority<br \/>\nis required to make his recommendations which may or may not  be  accepted  by<br \/>\nthe  Central  Government  while  considering  the  question  of  imposition of<br \/>\nprovisional duty or final duty as is envisaged under Rule 18.\n<\/p>\n<p>                12.  The question as to whether any duty is to be  imposed  or<br \/>\nnot and  the  extent  of such duty is essentially legislative in nature.  Such<br \/>\nduty, as per Section 9A can be imposed by following the procedure contemplated<br \/>\nunder the  said  Act.    The  authority  exercised,  still  continues  to   be<br \/>\nadministrative and legislative in nature.  But for the provisions contained in<br \/>\nSection 9-A, 9-B and the rules, no opportunity was required to be given before<br \/>\nimposing any  duty.    If  a  person  has no inherent right of being heard, he<br \/>\ncannot claim any such right beyond the provisions which contemplate giving  of<br \/>\nsuch opportunity.    In such view of the matter, the validity of Rule 7 cannot<br \/>\nbe challenged on the ground of unguided discretion having  been  conferred  on<br \/>\nthe authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>                13.  Apart from the above, it appears that the materials which<br \/>\nhave been withheld have not been utilised in the preliminary findings.  It may<br \/>\nbe  that  the  materials which had been withheld, were relevant at the initial<br \/>\nstage when the Designated Authority decided to initiate the proceedings  under<br \/>\nRule 5(1).  Initiation of the proceeding itself is not under challenge and the<br \/>\nrelevancy of those materials, has, therefore, receded into background.  In the<br \/>\npresent case, the designated authority, while giving his preliminary findings,<br \/>\nhas  referred  to  the  information  furnished  by  the  exporters  of various<br \/>\ncountries and the preliminary findings is not at all based on any  information<br \/>\nfurnished by the complainant.  In other words, the petitioner has not suffered<br \/>\nany  prejudice  on  account  of  the with holding of the information since the<br \/>\nconclusion are based merely on the information furnished by the exporters from<br \/>\nwhom the petitioner has imported materials.    It  is  not  the  case  of  the<br \/>\npetitioners  that  the petitioners and the exporters from whom the petitioners<br \/>\nhave imported have got conflict of interest.\n<\/p>\n<p>                14.   Learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  petitioners   has<br \/>\nsubmitted that the rules provide for giving an opportunity of personal hearing<br \/>\nto the petitioner and as such opportunity having not been given, the procedure<br \/>\nhas been vitiated.\n<\/p>\n<p>                15.   It  is  well  settled law that the principles of natural<br \/>\njustice, are not embodied rules and the nature and extent of compliance within<br \/>\nthe  principles  of  natural  justice  would  always  depend  upon  facts  and<br \/>\ncircusmtances  of  a  given case, as well as the interpretation of the various<br \/>\nrules.  It is, of  course,  true  that  a  matter  of  normal  principle,  the<br \/>\nprinciples  of  natural  justice  should  be  read  into the provisions of the<br \/>\nstatute, unless  applicability  of  such  principles  of  natural  justice  is<br \/>\nexpressly or  impliedly excluded.  It is to be noticed that in rules 6(vi) the<br \/>\nrule making authority has merely used the expression that such authority  &#8220;may<br \/>\nallow&#8221;  the interested party or its representative &#8220;to present the information<br \/>\nrelevant to the investigation orally&#8221; and there is no mandatory direction that<br \/>\nthe designated authority is bound to allow such an opportunity.  On the  other<br \/>\nhand,  the  language used in under Rules 6(2)(3) and (5) of the Rules, appears<br \/>\nto be mandatory in nature.  More over under rule  6(6)  the  oral  information<br \/>\nshall  be  taken  into  consideration  by  the  designated  authority, only if<br \/>\nsubsequently such information is reproduced in writing.  It is not the case of<br \/>\nthe  petitioners  that  they  were  prevented  from  furnishing  any  relevant<br \/>\ninformations in writing.\n<\/p>\n<p>                16.   As  already  indicated,  several other grounds have been<br \/>\nraised in the writ petitions challenging  the  propriety  of  the  conclusions<br \/>\nreached by the Designated Authority, but at the time of hearing of the matter,<br \/>\nas  already  indicated, learned Senior Counsel has raised only two contentions<br \/>\nwhich have been considered and negatived in  the  preceding  paragraph.    The<br \/>\nother  contentions  raised  in the grounds in the writ petitions have not been<br \/>\npressed into service and relate to the propriety of the findings and regarding<br \/>\nthe sufficiency of the materials.\n<\/p>\n<p>                17.  It is settled law that in a writ of Certiorari, the  High<br \/>\nCourt  cannot  act as an appellate authority over the decision of the inferior<br \/>\nCourt or Tribunal.  The High Court is required to examine the decision  making<br \/>\nprocess and not the propriety of the decision itself on merits.\n<\/p>\n<p>                18.   Moreover,  the  conclusions are merely recommendatory in<br \/>\nnature and if any provisional duty is imposed under Rule 15, and  no  duty  is<br \/>\nimposed ultimately,  the  duty collected is liable to be refunded.  More over,<br \/>\nat the time of giving final findings, it is  always  open  to  the  designated<br \/>\nauthority  to  reconsider  the  matter  and  the  preliminary findings are not<br \/>\nbinding as such.  In such view of the matter, the other grounds raised in  the<br \/>\nwrit petitions also appear to be without any substance.\n<\/p>\n<p>                19.  For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the<br \/>\nwrit petitions which are accordingly dismissed.  Connected W.P.M.Ps.  are also<br \/>\ndismissed.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index :Yes<br \/>\nInternet :Yes<\/p>\n<p>kvsg<\/p>\n<p>To\n<\/p>\n<p>1.  The Designated Authority<br \/>\nDirector General of Anti<br \/>\nDumping and Allied Duties<br \/>\nMinistry of Commerce and Industry<br \/>\nGovernment of India<br \/>\nNew Delhi.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The Union of India<br \/>\nrep.  by Secretary to Government<br \/>\nMinistry of Finance<br \/>\nNew Delhi.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.  All India Flat Glass<br \/>\nManufacturer&#8217;s Association<br \/>\n4-7C DDA Shopping Centre<br \/>\nFriends Colony<br \/>\nNew Delhi.5.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.  The Union of India<br \/>\nrep.  by Secretary to Government<br \/>\nMinistry of Commerce and Industry<br \/>\nNew Delhi.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Mahavir Mirror Industries vs The Designated Authority on 13 March, 2003 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated: 13\/03\/2003 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice P.K.MISRA Writ Petition No. 44506 of 2002 and Writ Petition No. 44507 of 2002 and W.P.Nos.3193 and 3194 of 2003 Mahavir Mirror Industries rep. by its Proprietor [&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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-141210","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Mahavir Mirror Industries vs The Designated Authority on 13 March, 2003 - 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\/mahavir-mirror-industries-vs-the-designated-authority-on-13-march-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mahavir Mirror Industries vs The Designated Authority on 13 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahavir-mirror-industries-vs-the-designated-authority-on-13-march-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-03-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-14T08:28:30+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahavir-mirror-industries-vs-the-designated-authority-on-13-march-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahavir-mirror-industries-vs-the-designated-authority-on-13-march-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mahavir Mirror Industries vs The Designated Authority on 13 March, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-03-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-14T08:28:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahavir-mirror-industries-vs-the-designated-authority-on-13-march-2003\"},\"wordCount\":2291,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahavir-mirror-industries-vs-the-designated-authority-on-13-march-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahavir-mirror-industries-vs-the-designated-authority-on-13-march-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahavir-mirror-industries-vs-the-designated-authority-on-13-march-2003\",\"name\":\"Mahavir Mirror Industries vs The Designated Authority on 13 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-03-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-14T08:28:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahavir-mirror-industries-vs-the-designated-authority-on-13-march-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahavir-mirror-industries-vs-the-designated-authority-on-13-march-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahavir-mirror-industries-vs-the-designated-authority-on-13-march-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mahavir Mirror Industries vs The Designated Authority on 13 March, 2003\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mahavir Mirror Industries vs The Designated Authority on 13 March, 2003 - 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\/mahavir-mirror-industries-vs-the-designated-authority-on-13-march-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mahavir Mirror Industries vs The Designated Authority on 13 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahavir-mirror-industries-vs-the-designated-authority-on-13-march-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-03-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-14T08:28:30+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahavir-mirror-industries-vs-the-designated-authority-on-13-march-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahavir-mirror-industries-vs-the-designated-authority-on-13-march-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mahavir Mirror Industries vs The Designated Authority on 13 March, 2003","datePublished":"2003-03-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-14T08:28:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahavir-mirror-industries-vs-the-designated-authority-on-13-march-2003"},"wordCount":2291,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahavir-mirror-industries-vs-the-designated-authority-on-13-march-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahavir-mirror-industries-vs-the-designated-authority-on-13-march-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahavir-mirror-industries-vs-the-designated-authority-on-13-march-2003","name":"Mahavir Mirror Industries vs The Designated Authority on 13 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-03-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-14T08:28:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahavir-mirror-industries-vs-the-designated-authority-on-13-march-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahavir-mirror-industries-vs-the-designated-authority-on-13-march-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahavir-mirror-industries-vs-the-designated-authority-on-13-march-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mahavir Mirror Industries vs The Designated Authority on 13 March, 2003"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/141210","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=141210"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/141210\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=141210"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=141210"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=141210"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}