{"id":141685,"date":"1981-05-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1981-05-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-and-ors-vs-ajudhia-nath-and-anr-on-7-may-1981"},"modified":"2016-09-19T01:15:09","modified_gmt":"2016-09-18T19:45:09","slug":"state-of-punjab-and-ors-vs-ajudhia-nath-and-anr-on-7-may-1981","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-and-ors-vs-ajudhia-nath-and-anr-on-7-may-1981","title":{"rendered":"State Of Punjab And Ors vs Ajudhia Nath And Anr on 7 May, 1981"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Punjab And Ors vs Ajudhia Nath And Anr on 7 May, 1981<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1981 AIR 1374, \t\t 1981 SCR (3) 686<\/div>\n
Author: A Koshal<\/div>\n
Bench: Koshal, A.D.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nAJUDHIA NATH AND ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT07\/05\/1981\n\nBENCH:\nKOSHAL, A.D.\nBENCH:\nKOSHAL, A.D.\nDESAI, D.A.\nMISRA, R.B. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1981 AIR 1374\t\t  1981 SCR  (3) 686\n 1981 SCC  (3) 251\n CITATOR INFO :\n APL\t    1983 SC1207\t (14)\n\n\nACT:\n     Punjab Excise  Act and  Rules made thereunder-Principle\nof natural  justice of\tgiving opportunity  to be heard does\nnot come  into play when the demand is merely for payment of\na sum becoming due under the conditions of the licence.\n     Constitution of  India, 1950,  Entry 51  of List  II of\nSchedule VII  read with section 31 of the Punjab Excise Act-\nStill-head duty\t is neither  a duty  of excise\tnor  can  be\nregarded as a tax of any kind whatsoever.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     Condition 8  of the  licence to  run  liquor  vends  in\nvarious parts  of Punjab  during the  financial year 1965-66\nlaid down:  (i) the  licensee  shall  lift  each  month\t the\nproportionate quota  for the  month fixed  for his  vends or\ndeposit\t still-head   duty  realisable\t thereof  (ii)\t Any\ndeficiency in  the amount of still-head duty realisable from\nthe lifting of the full proportionate quota due to the short\nlifting of  the quota  by the licensee or non-deposit of the\nstill-head duty\t may be realised from the amount of security\ndeposited by  the licensee  at the time of grant of licence;\n(iii) the  resultant deficiency\t in the\t amount of  security\nshall be made good by the licensee within seven days of such\nadjustment  and\t  (iv)\tif   there  is\t short\tlifting\t  of\nproportionate quota  or short  deposit\tof  still-head\tduty\ncontinues for  two consecutive\tmonths or the licensee fails\nto make\t up the\t deficiency in the amount of security within\nthe prescribed\tperiod of  seven days,\this licence  may  be\ncancelled in addition to the recovery of still-head duty.\n     Respondent Ajudhia\t Nath who  was granted the necessary\nlicences under\tthe relevant provisions of the Punjab Excise\nAct and\t the Rules framed thereunder, was unable to lift the\nminimum quota  of country  liquor and also failed to deposit\nthe still-head\tduty  which  became  payable  by  him  under\ncondition No.  8. On  an application  made by  him  claiming\nrelief in  the matter  of payment  of sums  which had fallen\ndue, such  relief was  granted to  him in part by the Excise\nand Taxation  Commissioner, Punjab,  on the  ground that the\nliquor trade was badly affected by reason of the movement of\npopulation in  the border  area of  Punjab on account of the\nhostilities which  broke out  between India  and Pakistan in\nthe month  of September\t 1965. Not satisfied with the relief\nso granted  Ajudhia Nath  filed two  petitions under Article\n226 of\tthe Constitution before the High Court of Punjab and\nHaryana claiming,  inter alia,\tthat still-head\t duty was an\nexcise duty  which could  be levied  only on  manufacture of\ngoods and  which he  was not  liable to pay by reason of the\nadmitted fact  he was  not a manufacturer of Liquor and that\nhe was\tnot given  the opportunity  of being  heard  in\t the\nmatter covered\tby the\tapplications  claiming\trelief.\t The\npetitions  were\t allowed  and  the  Letters  Patent  Appeals\npreferred by  the State were dismissed. Hence the appeals by\nspecial leave.\n687\n     Allowing the appeals, the Court\n^\n     HELD: 1.  The demand  for the  short-fall in still-head\nduty was  based on  the terms  of a  binding contract and it\nsought to  enforce the\tliabilities arising  out of mutually\nagreed conditions  of auction.\tSuch a\tdemand could  not be\nequated with  a notice\trequiring the  liquor vendor to show\ncause why  his licence\tshould not be cancelled. Although an\nopportunity of\tbeing heard  has to  be given  to  a  liquor\nvendor when  his licence is sought to be cancelled, the same\nprinciple of  natural justice  does not\t come into play when\nthe demand is merely for payment of a sum becoming due under\nthe conditions\tsubject to  which the  licence was  granted.\n[691 G-H, 692A, E-F]\n     Har Shankar  and others  v. The  Dy. Excise  & Taxation\nCommissioner and others<\/a> [1973] 3 SCR 254; Shyam Lal v. State\nof Punjab,  AIR 1976  SC 2045;\tState of Punjab v. Mulkh Raj\nand Co.,  AIR<\/a> 1977 SC 1550 and The State of Punjab v. Balbir\nSingh and others<\/a>, AIR 1977 SC 1717, followed.\n     2: 1.  A combined\treading of  Entry 51  of List  II of\nSchedule VII  to the Constitution of India and section 31 of\nthe Punjab Excise Act no doubt makes it clear that a duty of\nexcise on  alcoholic liquors  meant  for  human\t consumption\ncannot be  recovered from  a person  unless any\t one of\t the\nthree clauses  of section 31 covers his business activities.\n[693 C-D, 694A]\n     2: 2.  Still-head duty  is not a duty of excise in view\nof the\tdicta laid  down by  the Supreme Court to the effect\nthat the  short fall  in still-head  duty represents nothing\nbut sums  recoverable from  the licensees  under a  contract\nwhich was entered into by them with their eyes open and that\nthey cannot be allowed to have the best of both the words by\nexploiting the\tcontract so  long as  it suits\tthem and  by\nrepudiating it\tif and\twhen  it  does\tnot  work  to  their\nadvantage. [694 B-C]\n     Har Shankar  and others  v. The  Dy. Excise  & Taxation\nCommissioner and  others<\/a>, [1973]  3 SCR 254; State of Punjab\nv. Balbir Singh and others<\/a>, AIR 1977 SC 1717, applied.\n     2: 3.  Condition No.  8 of the licence does not involve\nthe imposition\tof a duty of excise but makes provision only\nfor recovery  of sums  becoming due  under a  contract.\t The\nlicensees are  not connected  in any  manner whatsoever with\nthe  manufacture   of  alcoholic   liquor  and\t there\twas,\ntherefore, no question at all of levying a duty of excise on\ntheir operations  which were  confined merely to the sale of\nliquor\tmanufactured   by  others   and\t which,\t  therefore,\ncommenced  only\t  after\t the   process\tof  manufacture\t was\ncompletely over. [696 E-G]\n     M\/s. Bhajan  Lal Saran  Singh &  Co. v. State of Punjab\nand others<\/a>,  1967 Current  Law Journal\t(Punjab and Haryana)\n460; State  of M.P.  v. Firm  Goppulal, [1976]\t2 SCR  1041;\nExcise Commissioner, U.P., Allahabad and others v. Ram Kumar\nand others<\/a>, [1976] 3 SCC 540, distinguished.\n     3: 1.  On the facts of this case still-head duty cannot\nbe regarded as a tax of some other kind nor can the question\nwhether it does amount to such a tax\n688\n(for levying  which the State lacks authority) be allowed to\nbe raised since it was never raised at any earlier stage and\nits consideration is bound to work prejudice to the cause of\nthe appellants. Further there is no impediment in the way of\nthe  demand   being  regarded\tas  the\t enforcement  of  an\nobligation arising  under the  contracts which the licensees\nhad entered into and exploited so long as the same worked to\ntheir advantage\t and which were fully permissible under sub-\nsection (3)  of section 34 of the Punjab Excise Act. [696 H,\n697 A-B]\n     3: 2.  Clause (b)\tof sub-section\t(3) of section 34 of\nthe Punjab  Excise Act\tallows impositions  of conditions on\ngrant of  the licences\tin addition  to the  payment of\t the\nlicence fees  which is\ta  matter  covered  by\tclause\t(a).\nCondition No.  8 is,  therefore, fully enforceable and there\nis no reason why still-head duty should be regarded as a tax\nof any kind whatsoever. [697 D-E]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1665 and
\n1666 of 1970.\n<\/p>\n
     From the  order dated the 25th July, 1968 of the Punjab
\nand Haryana High Court in LPA Nos. 230 & 240 of 1968.\n<\/p>\n
     M.S. Dhillon for the Appellant in both the appeals.
\n     Tirath Singh  Munjral, G.K.  Arora,  S.S.\tMunjral\t and
\nGautam Bannerjee for the Respondents in both the appeals.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     KOSHAL J.\tBy this\t judgment we  shall dispose of Civil
\nAppeals Nos. 1665 and 1666 of 1970 in which common questions
\nof law have arisen for determination by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
     2. The  facts leading to the two appeals are undisputed
\nand may be briefly stated thus. Licences to run liquor vends
\nin various parts of Punjab during the financial year 1965-66
\nwere sold  by public  auction shortly  before the 1st April,
\n1965. Auctions\twere held  at  numerous\t places\t subject  to
\nidentical conditions  which were  supplied to the bidders in
\nwriting. Condition  No. 8 which is material for our purposes
\nis reproduced below:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “That the  licensee  shall  lift  each  month\t the
\n     proportionate quota  for the  month fixed\tfor his vend\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (s) or  deposit still-head\t duty realisable thereon. In
\n     the event of any deficiency in the amount of still-head
\n     duty  realisable\tfrom  the   lifting  of\t  the\tfull
\n     proportionate quota  due to  the short  lifting of\t the
\n     quota by  the licensee  or non-deposit of the amount of
\n     the  still-head   duty,  the  said\t deficiency  may  be
\n     realised from the amount of security deposited by
\n689<\/span>
\n     him at  the time  of grant\t of licence.  The  resulting
\n     deficiency in the amount of security shall be made good
\n     by the  licensee within  7 days  of such adjustment. In
\n     case the  short lifting of proportionate quota or short
\n     deposit  of   still-head\tduty   continues   for\t two
\n     consecutive months or the licensee fails to make up the
\n     deficiency\t in   the  amount  of  security\t within\t the
\n     prescribed\t period\t of  7\tdays,  his  licence  may  be
\n     cancelled in  addition to the recovery of deficiency in
\n     still-head duty.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Ajudhia Nath who figures as respondent No. 1 in each of
\nthe two\t appeals and  who carries  on  business\t of  selling
\ncountry liquor\teither in  his own  name or  in the name and
\nstyle of  M\/s. Ajudhia\tNath Bal  Mukand (a business concern
\narrayed as  respondent No.  2 in  Civil Appeal\tNo. 1665  of
\n1970) was  the highest bidder for the auctions pertaining to
\n5 villages situated in the district of Amritsar and a couple
\nof villages  in Ferozepur district. Accordingly the auctions
\nwere sanctioned\t in  his  favour  and  he  was\tgranted\t the
\nnecessary licences  under the  relevant\t provisions  of\t the
\nPunjab Excise  Act (hereinafter\t referred to as the Act) and
\nthe rules framed thereunder.\n<\/p>\n
     The licensee  started his\tliquour selling\t business in
\nthe said seven villages on the 1st April, 1965. By the close
\nof the\tfinancial year\t1965-66, however,  he was  unable to
\nlift the  minimum quota of country liquor and also failed to
\ndeposit the  still-head duty  which became  payable  by\t him
\nunder condition\t No. 8 above extracted. He made applications
\nclaiming relief\t in the\t matter of payment of sums which had
\nfallen due and such relief was granted to him in part by the
\nExcise &  Taxation Commissioner,  Punjab, on the ground that
\nsales of  country liquor  had  been  adversely\taffected  by
\nreason of  the movement of population in the border areas of
\nPunjab on account of the hostilities which broke out between
\nIndia and  Pakistan in\tthe month  of  September  1965.\t Not
\nsatisfied with\tthe relief  so granted Ajudhianath filed two
\npetitions under\t article 226  of the  Constitution of  India
\nbefore the  High Court of Punjab and Haryana claiming, inter
\nalia, that still-head duty was an excise duty which could be
\nlevied only  on manufacture  of goods  and which  he was not
\nliable to pay by reason of the admitted fact that he was not
\na manufacturer\tof liquor.  A grouse was also made by him of
\nthe fact  that the  applications claiming  relief  had\tbeen
\ndecided without\t affording to  him an  opportunity of  being
\nheard. One  of those petitions (Civil Writ Petition No. 2034
\nof 1966) related to
\n690<\/span>
\nvends functioning in the two villages of Ferozepur District,
\nwhile the  other (Civil\t Writ Petition\tNos  2035  of  1966)
\ncovered the  5 vends  located in  the 5 villages of Amritsar
\nDistrict. The petitions were allowed by a single order dated
\nthe 9th\t May, 1967  passed by  D.K. Mahajan, J., on the sole
\nground that a similar petition (Civil Writ Petition No. 2021
\nof 1966)  had been  allowed by Gurdev Singh, J., on the 27th
\nMarch, 1966.  The proceedings  for the recovery of the short
\nfall in the deposit of still-head duty by Ajudhia Nath which
\nhad been  initiated by the State of Punjab and its concerned
\nofficers (appellants  Nos. 1  to 4  in each  of the  appeals
\nbefore\tus)   were  quashed  and  the  Excise  and  Taxation
\nCommissioner, Punjab  (appellant No.  2 in both the appeals)
\nwas directed  to dispose  of the  “cases” of the respondents
\n“in accordance with law after hearing the petitioners”. D.K.
\nMahajan, J.,  adopted all the reasons on which Gurdev Singh,
\nJ., had based his order above mentioned.\n<\/p>\n
     Letters Patent Appeals preferred by the 4 appellants to
\nthe  Division\tBench  of  the\tHigh  Court  were  summarily
\ndismissed by  Mehar Singh and Tuli, JJ., for the reason that
\na Letters  Patent Appeal  against  the\tjudgment  of  Gurdev
\nSingh, J., above mentioned had met the same fate.\n<\/p>\n
     It is against the judgment of the Division Bench (which
\nis dated  the 29th  August, 1969)  that each  of the appeals
\nbefore us has been filed.\n<\/p>\n
     3. Mr.  Dhillon, learned counsel for the appellants had
\ndrawn our  attention to\t The State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh
\nand Others,<\/a> which reversed the judgment of Gurdev Singh, J.,
\nmentioned above and has contended that the very basis of the
\nimpugned judgment has consequently fallen to the ground. The
\ncontention is correct. As pointed out in Balbir Singh’s case
\n(supra) the  judgment of  Gurdev Singh,\t J., in\t Civil\tWrit
\nPetition No. 2021 of 1966 had proceeded merely on the ground
\nthat the  petitioner-firm therein  had\tnot  been  given  an
\nopportunity of\tbeing heard in relation to the demand notice
\nissued to  it for  payment of  the still-head  duty  on\t the
\nentire minimum\tquantity  of  liquor  which  that  firm\t was
\nrequired to  lift under\t the licence.  In differing with the
\nview
\n691<\/span>
\nexpressed by  Gurdev Singh,  J., this Court made a reference
\nto the\tfollowing observations\tof Chandrachud,\t J., (as  he
\nthen was)  in Har  Shanker and\tOthers v.  The Dy.  Excise &
\nTaxation Commissioner and Others which was followed in Shyam
\nLal v. State of Punjab
\n\t  “The\tannouncement  of  conditions  governing\t the
\n     auctions was in the nature of an invitation to an offer
\n     to those  who were\t interested in\tthe sale  of country
\n     liquor. The bids given in the auctions were offers made
\n     by\t prospective   vendors\tto   the   Government.\t The
\n     Government’s  acceptance\tof  those   bids   was\t the
\n     acceptance of  willing  offers  made  to  it.  On\tsuch
\n     acceptance, the  contract between\tthe bidders  and the
\n     Government became\tconcluded and  a  binding  agreement
\n     came  into\t  existence  between  them.  The  successful
\n     bidders were then granted licences evidencing the terms
\n     of contract  between them\tand  the  Government,  under
\n     which  they   became  entitled   to  sell\tliquor.\t The
\n     licensees\texploited  the\trespective  licences  for  a
\n     portion of\t the period of their currency, presumably in
\n     expectation of  a profit. Commercial considerations may
\n     have revealed  an error  of  judgment  in\tthe  initial
\n     assessment of  profitability of  the adventure but that
\n     is a normal incident of the trading transactions. Those
\n     who contract  with open eyes must accept the burdens of
\n     the contract along with its benefits. The powers of the
\n     Financial Commissioner  to\t grant\tliquor\tlicences  by
\n     auction and  to collect licence fees through the medium
\n     of auctions  cannot by  writ petitions be questioned by
\n     those who,\t had their  venture  succeeded,\t would\thave
\n     relied upon  those very  powers to found a legal claim.
\n     Reciprocal\t rights\t  and  obligations  arising  out  of
\n     contract do  not depend  for their\t enforceability upon
\n     whether a\tcontracting party  finds it prudent to abide
\n     by the  terms of  the  contract.  By  such\t a  test  no
\n     contract could ever have a binding force.”
\nand concluded  that the\t demand for the short-fall in still-
\nhead duty  was based  on the  term of a binding contract and
\nthat it\t sought to  enforce the\t liabilities arising  out of
\nmutually agreed conditions of auction. Such a demand, in the
\nopinion of this
\n692<\/span>
\nCourt, could  not be  equated with  a notice  requiring\t the
\nliquor vendor  to show\tcause why  his licence should not be
\ncancelled. In  making this  distinction this  Court  further
\nrelied upon  State of Punjab v. Mulkh Raj and Co.<\/a> wherein it
\nwas observed:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “It was also held there that a cancellation of the
\n     licence under  section 36\tof the\tPunjab\tExcise\tAct,
\n     1914, had\tto take\t place\tquasi-judicially  after\t due
\n     service of the notice on the licensee to show cause why
\n     it should not be cancelled. Although, the merits of the
\n     last mentioned  proposition need  not be examined by us
\n     as it  rests on  a\t sound\tfooting,  yet,\twe  find  it
\n     difficult to uphold the order that the demand for a sum
\n     of Rs.  36,636. On account of short-fall should also be
\n     quashed on\t account of  non-compliance  with  rules  of
\n     natural  justice\tin   cancelling\t  the\tlicence\t  in
\n     proceedings under\tsection 36 of the Act. We think that
\n     the two  liabilities were erroneously considered by the
\n     High    Court     to     be     inextricably     linked
\n     up……………………………….
\n     We do  not think  that, even if the respondent ought to
\n     have  been\t  given\t a  hearing  before  cancelling\t the
\n     licence, this  would dispense  with  his  liability  to
\n     deposit the  amount of  balance of\t the licence  fee or
\n     invalidate the notice of demand for it.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Thus, the\tproposition  is\t by  now  well-settled\tthat
\nalthough an  opportunity of being heard has to be given to a
\nliquor vendor  when his\t licence is  sought to be cancelled,
\nthe same  principle of\tnatural justice\t does not  come into
\nplay when the demand is merely for payment of a sum becoming
\ndue under  the conditions  subject to  which the licence was
\ngranted, and  this proposition\tfully covers  these appeals.
\nThe demands for payment of the amount of the still head duty
\nwhich had  become due  under the  contracts accepted  by the
\nrespondents and\t had remained  unpaid were  demands  arising
\nunder condition\t No. 8\tabove extracted\t and had, therefore,
\nresulted from  the terms  of those contracts. No question of
\naffording to  the respondents any opportunity of being heard
\nthus arises and the impugned judgment, is, therefore, liable
\nto be reversed.\n<\/p>\n
693<\/span><\/p>\n
     4.\t Faced\twith  the  above  situation,  Shri  Munjral,
\nlearned counsel\t for the  respondents, raised  the following
\ntwo contentions:\n<\/p>\n
     (a)  Still-head duty  is a\t duty of  excise which could
\n\t  only be levied on a manufacturer and not on a mere
\n\t  vendor of goods manufactured by others.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b)  If the  still-head duty mentioned in condition No.
\n\t  8 above  extracted cannot be regarded as a duty of
\n\t  excise, it  nevertheless amounts  to a tax of some
\n\t  other kind  for  levying  which  the\tState  lacks
\n\t  authority.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     5. Reliance in connection with contention (a) is placed
\non Entry  51 of\t List II forming part of Schedule VII to the
\nConstitution of India and on section 31 of the Punjab Excise
\nAct. The relevant portions of these provisions state:\n<\/p>\n
     Entry 51
\n\t  “Duties  of\tExcise\ton   the   following   goods
\n     manufactured   or\t  produced   in\t   the\t State\t and
\n     countervailing duties  at the  same or  lower rates  on
\n     similar goods  manufactured or  produced  elsewhere  in
\n     India :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (a)  alcoholic liquors for human consumption;…..
\n     Section 31
\n\t  “An excise  duty or  a countervailing duty, as the
\n     case may  be, at  such  rate  or  rates  as  the  State
\n     Government\t shall\t direct,  may\tbe  imposed,  either
\n     generally or  for any  specified  local  area,  on\t any
\n     excisable article-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (a)  imported,   exported    or   transported\t  in
\n\t       accordance with the provisions of section 16;
\n\t       or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (b)  manufactured or\tcultivated under any licence
\n\t       granted under section 20; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (c)  manufactured in\tany distillery\testablished,
\n\t       or any  distillery or  brewery licenced under
\n\t       section 21;…<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
694<\/span><\/p>\n
     These provisions leave no room for doubt that a duty of
\nexcise on  alcoholic liquors  meant  for  human\t consumption
\ncannot be recovered from the respondents because none of the
\n3 clauses  of section  31 covers  their business activities.
\nBut then  the first  part of  contention (a) that still-head
\nduty is\t a duty\t of excise cannot be accepted in view of the
\ndicta in Har Shankar and others v. The Dy. Excise & Taxation
\nCommissioner and  others<\/a> (supra)  and The State of Punjab v.
\nBalbir Singh  and others<\/a>  (supra) to  the  effect  that\t the
\nshort-fall in  still-head duty\trepresents nothing  but sums
\nrecoverable by\tthe appellants under the terms of a contract
\nwhich was  entered into\t by the\t respondents with their eyes
\nopen and  that the latter cannot be allowed to have the best
\nof both\t the worlds by exploiting the contract so long as it
\nsuits them  and by  repudiating it  if and  when it does not
\nwork to their advantage.\n<\/p>\n
     6. Shri  Munjral has  vehemently contended\t that still-
\nhead duty  is only  another name for excise duty inasmuch as
\nit is  nothing more  or less  than a  duty leviable  on\t the
\nmanufacture of\talcoholic liquor.  For this  proposition  he
\nplaces reliance\t on a  Division Bench  judgment of  the High
\nCourt of  Punjab &  Haryana in M\/s. Bhajan Lal Saran Singh &
\nCo. v.\tThe State  of Punjab and others the<\/a> approval of that
\njudgment by  this Court\t in Civil Appeals Nos. 1042 and 1043
\nof 1968\t decided on  21st  August,  1972,  State  of  Madhya
\nPradesh v. Firm Gappulal<\/a> etc. and Excise Commissioner, U.P.,
\nAllahabad  and\t others\t v.  Ram  Kumar\t and  others<\/a>.  These
\nauthorities, however,  are of  no help\tto him\tbecause,  in
\nevery one  of them,  the still-head duty which was mentioned
\nin the\tcondition corresponding\t to condition  No. 8  in the
\npresent case  was either  expressly stated  to be  an excise
\nduty or was assumed to be a duty of that character. In fact,
\nin the\tcase of\t M\/s. Bhajan Lal Saran Singh it was conceded
\non behalf of the State before the High Court that still-head
\nduty was  an excise  duty and  that is why the nature of the
\ncharge as  excise duty was taken for granted before the High
\nCourt as  well as  in this  Court. No  question\t was  either
\nraised or  decided as to whether it could at all be regarded
\nas an  excise duty.  However, in  later cases,\tnamely,\t Har
\nShankar and others v. The Dy. Excise & Taxation Commissioner
\nand others<\/a>,  (supra) and The State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh
\nand  others<\/a>   (supra)  the   demand  for   still-head\tduty
\nrecoverable  under  condition  No.  8  above  extracted\t was
\nspecifically
\n695<\/span>
\nheld to\t be a demand for money which had become due under an
\nobligation created  by terms of the contract. It is too late
\nin the day, therefore, for Shri Munjral to contend that such
\na demand  should be  considered as one covering excise duty.
\nHe, however,  relies on the following passage in Har Shankar
\nand others  v. The  Dy. Excise\t& Taxation  Commissioner and
\nothers<\/a> (supra):\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The second  decision on which the appellants laid
\n     stress was\t rendered by  the High\tCourt of  Punjab and
\n     Haryana in\t Jage Ram v. State of Haryana (C.W. No.<\/a> 1376
\n     of 1961  decided on  March 12,  1968). The\t argument is
\n     that this\tdecision is based on the earlier decision of
\n     the High  Court in\t Bhajan Lal v. State of Punjab (C.W.
\n     No.<\/a> 538  of 1966 decided on February 6, 1967), that the
\n     decision in  Bhajan Lal’s\tcase was confirmed in appeal
\n     by this  Court (C.A. Nos. 1042 and 1043 of 1968 decided
\n     on\t August\t  21,  1972),  that  there  is\tno  material
\n     difference between\t the rules and the procedure adopted
\n     in the  instant cases  and those which were struck down
\n     in Bhajan\tLal’s case  and therefore, the rules and the
\n     procedure followed\t herein must also be struck down for
\n     the  same\t reasons.  This\t  argument   overlooks\t the
\n     significant difference between the rules struck down in
\n     Bhajan Lal’s  case and  in\t Jage  Ram’s  case  and\t the
\n     amended Rules  now in force. Under the old Rule 36 (23-
\n     A) still-head  duty which\twas admittedly in the nature
\n     of excise-duty  was payable  by the  licencee  even  on
\n     quota not\tlifted by  him. The Rule and Condition No. 8
\n     founded on\t it were  therefore struck  down  in  Bhajan
\n     Lal’s case\t as being  beyond the  scope of\t entry 51 of
\n     List II,  the taxable  event under\t the  impugned\tRule
\n     being the sale and not the manufacturer of liquor. Rule
\n     36 was  amended on\t March 31, 1967 in order to meet the
\n     Judgment in  Bhajan Lal’s case but the High Court found
\n     in Jage  Ram’s case  that even  under the amended Rule,
\n     still-head duty  which was in the nature of excise duty
\n     was payable  on unlifted  quota of liquor. The position
\n     obtaining under  the Rules as amended on March 22, 1968
\n     which are\trelevant for  our purposes  is in  principle
\n     different as  the still-head  duty is  now only  0.  64
\n     paise as against Rs. 17.60 per litre which was in force
\n     under the\told Rules  and excise  duty as\tsuch  is  no
\n     longer  payable   on  unlifted   quota.  The  principle
\n     governing the decisions in Bhajan Lal’s
\n696<\/span>
\n     case and  Jage Ram’s  case cannot, therefore, apply any
\n     longer”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (Emphasis supplied)
\n     Special stress  has been  laid by\tShri Munjral  on the
\nunderlined portion  of the passage above extracted and it is
\ncontended by him that the judgments in the cases of Jage Ram
\nand Bhajan  Lal were  neither disapproved nor dissented from
\nbut were  merely distinguished\tin Har\tShankar’s case, that
\nwhile pointing\tout the\t distinction this  Court took it for
\ngranted that in those earlier cases the charge of still-head
\nduty amounted  to an excise duty and that condition No. 8 as
\nobtaining in  the present  case\t being\tidentical  with\t the
\ncorresponding condition in those cases, it must be held that
\nHar Shankar’s  case is an authority for the proposition that
\nthe said  condition No.\t 8 seeks  to levy nothing but excise
\nduty in\t the form  of still-head  duty. A careful perusal of
\nthe passage  cited (which  appears at  first sight  to\tlend
\ncolour to the contention) leaves no room for doubt, however,
\nthat in\t deciding Har  Shankar’s case  this  Court  was\t not
\ncalled upon to adjudicate on the Constitutional propriety of
\ncondition No. 8 above extracted, nor with the question as to
\nthe nature  of the  levy covered by that condition. All that
\nthe Court  said was  that the corresponding condition in Har
\nShankar’s case was a very different condition which could in
\nno manner  be construed\t to levy an excise duty. Besides, it
\nwas pointed  out in the passage above quoted that the still-
\nhead duty mentioned in the relevant condition in the earlier
\ncases (which  was  indentical  with  condition\tNo.  8)\t was
\nadmittedly a  duty of excise-a fact to which we have already
\nadverted while holding that condition No. 8 does not involve
\nthe imposition\tof a  duty of  exercise but  makes provision
\nonly for  recovery of sums becoming due under a contract. We
\nmay also point out that the respondents are not connected in
\nany manner  whatsoever with  the  manufacture  of  alcoholic
\nliquor and  there was,\ttherefore, no  question\t at  all  of
\nlevying a  duty of  excise on  their operations\t which\twere
\nconfined merely to the sale of liquor manufactured by others
\nand which,  therefore, commenced  only after  the process of
\nmanufacture was\t completely over.  For all these reasons, we
\nrepel the contention under examination.\n<\/p>\n
     7. Contention  (b) is  also without  substance and need
\nnot detain  us long.  For one  thing, it was never raised at
\nany earlier  stage and\tits consideration  is bound  to work
\nprejudice to  the cause\t of  the  appellants.  Secondly,  as
\nalready pointed out above, there
\n697<\/span>
\nis no  impediment in the way of the demand being regarded as
\nthe enforcement of an obligation arising under the contracts
\nwhich the respondents had entered into and exploited so long
\nas the\tsame worked  to their advantage and which were fully
\npermissible under  sub-section (3)  of\tsection\t 34  of\t the
\nPunjab Excise Act. That sub-section states :-\n<\/p>\n
     “(3) Every licence,  permit or  pass granted under this
\n\t  Act shall be granted-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (a)  on payment of such fees, if any,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (b)  subject to  such\t restrictions  and  on\tsuch
\n\t       conditions,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (c)  in such form and containing such particulars,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (d)  for such period,
\n\t  as the Financial Commissioner may direct”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     According to  Shri Munjral\t the payment of licence fees
\nis provided  for in  the conditions  of auction\t apart\tfrom
\ncondition  No.\t8  and,\t therefore,  the  latter  cannot  be
\nregarded as providing for anything but the levy of a duty of
\nexcise or  of some other kind. The argument is fallacious in
\nview of\t the language  of clause (b) of the sub-section just
\nabove reproduced.  That\t clause\t allows\t the  imposition  of
\nconditions on  the grant  of a\tlicence, in  addition to the
\npayment of  the licence\t fees which  is a  matter covered by
\nclause (a). Condition No. 8 is, therefore, fully enforceable
\nand there  is  no  reason  why\tstill-head  duty  should  be
\nregarded as a tax of any kind whatsoever.\n<\/p>\n
     8.\t For  the  reasons  stated,  both  the\tappeals\t are
\naccepted  and\tthe  impugned\tjudgment.  which  cannot  be
\nsustained, is  reversed so  that both  the  petitions  under
\narticle 226  of the  Constitution  of  India  filed  by\t the
\nrespondents before  the High  Court and\t accepted by  it are
\ndismissed. However,  we leave  the parties to bear their own
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
V.D.K.\t\t\t\t\t    Appeals allowed.\n698<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Punjab And Ors vs Ajudhia Nath And Anr on 7 May, 1981 Equivalent citations: 1981 AIR 1374, 1981 SCR (3) 686 Author: A Koshal Bench: Koshal, A.D. PETITIONER: STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: AJUDHIA NATH AND ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT07\/05\/1981 BENCH: KOSHAL, A.D. BENCH: KOSHAL, A.D. DESAI, […]<\/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-141685","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Punjab And Ors vs Ajudhia Nath And Anr on 7 May, 1981 - 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\/state-of-punjab-and-ors-vs-ajudhia-nath-and-anr-on-7-may-1981\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Punjab And Ors vs Ajudhia Nath And Anr on 7 May, 1981 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-and-ors-vs-ajudhia-nath-and-anr-on-7-may-1981\" \/>\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=\"1981-05-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-18T19:45:09+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=\"24 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-and-ors-vs-ajudhia-nath-and-anr-on-7-may-1981#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-and-ors-vs-ajudhia-nath-and-anr-on-7-may-1981\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Punjab And Ors vs Ajudhia Nath And Anr on 7 May, 1981\",\"datePublished\":\"1981-05-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-18T19:45:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-and-ors-vs-ajudhia-nath-and-anr-on-7-may-1981\"},\"wordCount\":3550,\"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\\\/state-of-punjab-and-ors-vs-ajudhia-nath-and-anr-on-7-may-1981#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-and-ors-vs-ajudhia-nath-and-anr-on-7-may-1981\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-and-ors-vs-ajudhia-nath-and-anr-on-7-may-1981\",\"name\":\"State Of Punjab And Ors vs Ajudhia Nath And Anr on 7 May, 1981 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1981-05-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-18T19:45:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-and-ors-vs-ajudhia-nath-and-anr-on-7-may-1981#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-and-ors-vs-ajudhia-nath-and-anr-on-7-may-1981\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-and-ors-vs-ajudhia-nath-and-anr-on-7-may-1981#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Punjab And Ors vs Ajudhia Nath And Anr on 7 May, 1981\"}]},{\"@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":"State Of Punjab And Ors vs Ajudhia Nath And Anr on 7 May, 1981 - 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\/state-of-punjab-and-ors-vs-ajudhia-nath-and-anr-on-7-may-1981","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Punjab And Ors vs Ajudhia Nath And Anr on 7 May, 1981 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-and-ors-vs-ajudhia-nath-and-anr-on-7-may-1981","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1981-05-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-18T19:45:09+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":"24 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-and-ors-vs-ajudhia-nath-and-anr-on-7-may-1981#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-and-ors-vs-ajudhia-nath-and-anr-on-7-may-1981"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Punjab And Ors vs Ajudhia Nath And Anr on 7 May, 1981","datePublished":"1981-05-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-18T19:45:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-and-ors-vs-ajudhia-nath-and-anr-on-7-may-1981"},"wordCount":3550,"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\/state-of-punjab-and-ors-vs-ajudhia-nath-and-anr-on-7-may-1981#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-and-ors-vs-ajudhia-nath-and-anr-on-7-may-1981","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-and-ors-vs-ajudhia-nath-and-anr-on-7-may-1981","name":"State Of Punjab And Ors vs Ajudhia Nath And Anr on 7 May, 1981 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1981-05-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-18T19:45:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-and-ors-vs-ajudhia-nath-and-anr-on-7-may-1981#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-and-ors-vs-ajudhia-nath-and-anr-on-7-may-1981"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-and-ors-vs-ajudhia-nath-and-anr-on-7-may-1981#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Punjab And Ors vs Ajudhia Nath And Anr on 7 May, 1981"}]},{"@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\/141685","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=141685"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/141685\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=141685"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=141685"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=141685"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}