{"id":143775,"date":"1960-04-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1960-04-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-chandaji-kubaji-co-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-29-april-1960"},"modified":"2015-05-08T18:37:37","modified_gmt":"2015-05-08T13:07:37","slug":"ms-chandaji-kubaji-co-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-29-april-1960","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-chandaji-kubaji-co-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-29-april-1960","title":{"rendered":"M\/S. Chandaji Kubaji & Co vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 29 April, 1960"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
M\/S. Chandaji Kubaji & Co vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 29 April, 1960<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1960 AIR 990<\/div>\n
Author: S Das<\/div>\n
Bench: Das, S.K.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nM\/S.  CHANDAJI KUBAJI & CO.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n29\/04\/1960\n\nBENCH:\nDAS, S.K.\nBENCH:\nDAS, S.K.\nKAPUR, J.L.\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\n\nCITATION:\n 1960 AIR  990\n\n\nACT:\nReview-Grounds\tfor-Whether allowable on Party's  own  deli-\nberate\tnegligence and intentional withholding\tof  evidence\nMadras\tGeneral Sales Tax Act, 1939 (Mad.  Act IX Of  1939),\ns. 12A(6) (a).\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe appellant company was a dealer in ghee and groundnut oil\netc.  The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer assessed it to sales\ntax for the year 1948-49 on a turnover of Rs. 28,69,151\t and\nodd.   Similarly  for  the year 1949-50\t the  appellant\t was\nassessed  to  sales tax on a turnover of Rs.  28,72,o83\t and\nodd.   The  appellant challenged these assessments  and\t its\nappeal\tbefore the Commercial Tax Officer having failed\t the\ntwo  matters came up in second appeal before the  Sales\t Tax\nAppellate  Tribunal.  In the Tribunal the appellant did\t not\nplace  any materials in support of its contentions  and\t the\ntwo  appeals were disposed of by the Tribunal  holding\tthat\nthe  appellant\twas  correctly assessed to  sales  tax.\t  In\nrespect\t of  the  aforesaid  orders  of\t the  Tribunal\t the\nappellant  filed applications for review under S.  12A(6)(a)\nof  the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 (Mad.  Act IX  Of\n1939), taking the plea that in the first case the  materials\ncould not be placed before the Tribunal as there was none to\ninstruct the appellant's advocate in English or Telegu,\t and\nin the second case the relevant correspondence was mixed  up\nwith other records.  The Tribunal rejected the\tapplications\nfor  review  on\t the ground that a failure  to\tproduce\t the\nnecessary  materials in support of a plea taken\t before\t it,\ndue  either to gross negligence or  deliberate\twithholding,\ndid  not come within the reason of s. 12A(6)(a) of the\tAct.\nThe  High  Court upheld the decision of\t the  Tribunal.\t  On\nappeal by special leave in one case and a certificate of the\nHigh Court in the other:\nHeld,  that  the  provision in s. 12A(6)(a)  of\t the  Madras\nGeneral Sales Tax Act, 1939 (Mad.  Act IX Of 1939),  permits\na  review when through some oversight, mistake or error\t the\nnecessary  facts,  basic or evidentiary,  were\tnot  present\nbefore\tthe  Court  when it passed the order  sought  to  be\nreviewed, but a party was not\n805\nentitled  to  ask for a review when it had  deliberately  or\nintentionally  withheld evidence in support of a claim\tmade\nby it.\nState  of  Andhra  v. Sri Arisetty  Sriyamulu,\tA.I.R.\t1057\nAndhra Pradesh 130, not approved.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 420 of 1957.
\nAppeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nAugust\t8,  1955,  of the former Andhra High  Court  in\t Tax
\nRevision Case No. 2 of 1955.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    WITH
\n\t       Civil Appeal No. 142 of 1958.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tfrom the judgment and order dated July 28, 1955,  of
\nthe former Andhra High Court in T.R.C. No. 32 of 1954.
\nN.Rajeswara  Rao and Sardar Bahadur, for the appellants\t (in
\nboth the appeals).\n<\/p>\n
T.V. R. Tatachari and T. M. Sen, for the respondent (in both
\nthe appeals).\n<\/p>\n
1960.  April 29.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nS.K. DAS, J.-These two appeals, one with special leave\tfrom
\nthis  Court  and the other on a certificate granted  by\t the
\nHigh  Court  of Andhra, have been heard\t together  and\tthis
\njudgment will govern them both.\n<\/p>\n
The facts are similar and the short question for decision is
\nwhether the appellant, Messrs.\tChandaji Kubaji and Company,
\nGuntur,\t was  entitled to apply under s.  12A(6)(a)  of\t the
\nMadras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 (Madras Act IX of  1939),
\nas  applied  to\t Andhra, for a review of  an  order  of\t the
\nAppellate  Tribunal made under suchs. (4) of s. 12A  of\t the
\nsaid Act.  The relevant facts are these.  The appellant is a
\ndealer\tin  ghee,  groundnut oil, chillies,  etc.,  and\t was
\ncarrying on its business at Guntur.  In Civil Appeal No. 420
\nof 1957, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Guntur, assessed
\nthe  appellant\tto  sales  tax for the\tyear  1948-49  on  a
\nturnover  of  Rs. 28,69,151 and odd.  The  appellant  having
\nunsuccessfully\tappealed  to  the  Commercial  Tax  Officer,
\nGuntur,\t made  a second appeal to the  Sales  Tax  Appellate
\nTribunal, hereinafter called
\n105<\/span>
\n806<\/span>
\nthe  Tribunal.\tBefore the Tribunal the appellant  contended
\ninter  alia  that  out of the total turnover a\tsum  of\t Rs.
\n10,45,156   and\t odd  related  to  commission  purchase\t  of
\ncommodities  taxable  at  the stage of\tsale  on  behalf  of
\nprincipals resident outside the State of Andhra and was\t not
\ntherefore  taxable by the respondent State.  In\t respect  of
\nthis plea the Tribunal said:\n<\/p>\n
”  As regards the alleged commission agency business to\t the
\ntune  of  Rs.  10,45,156-4-9  the  appellants  have  neither
\nadvanced  arguments  nor placed before us any  materials  in
\nsupport of the contention raised in this behalf “.
\nIn  the result the Tribunal dismissed the appeal on May\t 30,
\n1953.\n<\/p>\n
In  Civil Appeal No. 142 of 1958 the appellant was  assessed
\nby  the\t Deputy\t Commercial Tax Officer, Guntur,  on  a\t net
\nturnover of Rs. 28,72,083 and odd for the year 1949-50.\t The
\nappellant  objected  to\t the  inclusion\t of  a\tsum  of\t Rs.
\n19,89,076  and\todd on the ground that\tthe  goods  relating
\nthereto bad been consigned to self and despatched to  places
\noutside\t the  state and in fact were delivered\toutside\t the
\nState.\t “this plea was disallowed by the Sales\t Tax  autho-
\nrities, and the Tribunal said
\n” In the grounds of appeal it has been urged with regard  to
\nthese sale transactions the ownership in the goods continued
\nto  vest in the appellant till the sale price was  collected
\nand the goods were delivered to the buyers at places outside
\nthe  State.  Beyond advancing a broad argument of this\ttype
\nno  material has been placed before us or was placed  before
\nthe  assessing\tauthority or the Commercial Tax\t Officer  to
\nsupport\t the  appellant’s version that the property  in\t the
\ngoods passed to the buyer only at places outside the State”.\n<\/p>\n
x\t\t    x\t\t       x
\nIt  is not denied that though contracts in writing were\t not
\nentered\t  into,\t these\ttransactions  were  the\t result\t  of
\ncorrespondence\tbetween\t the appellant on the  one  hand  as
\nseller\tand various persons on the other as buyers.   It  is
\nconceded that such correspondence exists but the  appellants
\nhave not chosen
\n807<\/span>
\nto make this correspondence available either to us or to the
\nofficer\t below.\t  When documents which would  establish\t the
\nnature\tof  the transaction beyond doubt are  available\t and
\nhave  been withheld by the appellant, the normal  result  is
\nthat an inference adverse to his contention has to be drawn.
\nWe  are\t accordingly of the opinion that in this  case,\t the
\nsales  must be deemed to have taken place within this  State
\nand  that  they have been rightly included  in\tthe  taxable
\nturnover “.\n<\/p>\n
The  appeal  was  disposed  of on  this\t finding  on  August
\n19,1952.\n<\/p>\n
In respect of both the aforesaid orders the appellant  filed
\napplications for review under s. 12A(6)(a) of the Act.\tThat
\nsection,  in  so far as it is relevant\tfor  these  appeals,
\nreads:\n<\/p>\n
”  12A(6)(a)-The Appellate Tribunal may, on the\t application
\neither of the assessee or of the Deputy Commissioner, review
\nany order passed by it under sub-section (4) on the basis of
\nfacts which were not before it when it passed the order:
\nProvided  that no such application shall be  preferred\tmore
\nthan once in respect of the same order “.\n<\/p>\n
The point taken on behalf of the appellant in Civil  Appeal-
\nNo.  420  of  1957 was that the\t accounts  were\t in  Gujrati
\nlanguage  and as there was none on behalf of  the  appellant
\nwho  could  give instructions to  the  appellant’s  advocate
\neither in Telugu or English when the appeal was heard by the
\nTribunal, the appellant could hot place the materials before
\nthe  Tribunal.\t In  the other appeal, the  point  taken  in
\nsupport of the application for review was that the  relevant
\ncorrespondence\twas  mixed up with other records and  so  it
\ncould  not  be\tplaced before the  Tribunal.   The  Tribunal
\nrejected  the applications for review on the ground  that  a
\nfailure\t to produce the necessary materials in support of  a
\nplea  taken  before it, due either to  gross  negligence  or
\ndeliberate withholding, did not come within the reason of s.
\n12A(6)(a)  as  stated in the expression ” on  the  basis  of
\nfacts  which were not before it when it passed the order  “.
\nThe appellant then moved the High Court in revision under s.
\n12B of the Act and
\n808<\/span>
\ncontended   that  the  view  which  the\t Tribunal  took\t  of
\ns.12A(6)(a)  was  not  correct.\t  The  High  Court  drew   a
\ndistinction between what it called basic facts and  evidence
\nin support thereof and said:\n<\/p>\n
”  There is an essential distinction between a fact and\t the
\nevidence to establish that fact
\nx\t  x\t      x
\nSection\t 12A(6)(a) in our view is not intended to  give\t two
\nopportunities to every assessee to establish his case before
\na  Tribunal.  It is really conceived in the interests  of  ;
\nthe  assessee, who was not able to place some  facts  before
\nthe  Tribunal at the first instance which would have made  a
\ndifference in its decision “.\n<\/p>\n
In  the view which the High Court took of s.  12A(6)(a),  it
\nheld that the applications for review were rightly rejected.
\nIn the two appeals before us the argument has been that\t the
\nTribunal  as also the High Court took an erroneous  view  of
\nthe true scope and effect of s. 12A (6)(a) of the Act.\t Our
\nattention has been drawn to a Subsequent Full Bench decision
\nof  the\t same  High  Court in The State\t of  Andhra  v.\t Sri
\nArisetty  Sriramulu<\/a> (1) and it has been submitted  that\t the
\nview  expressed\t therein  is  the  correct  view.   In\tthat
\ndecision,  it  was  held  that the word\t ”  facts  ”  in  s.
\n12A(6)(a)  may\tbe taken to have been used in the  sense  in
\nwhich it is used in the law of evidence, that is to say,  as
\nincluding  the factum probandum or the principal fact to  be
\nproved and the factum probans or the evidentiary facts\tfrom
\nwhich\tthe  principal\tfact  follows  immediately   or\t  by
\ninference;  facts may be either ,facts in issue ” which\t are
\nthe principal matters in dispute or relevant facts which are
\nevidentiary  and  which directly or by inference,  prove  or
\ndisprove the ” facts in issue “.\n<\/p>\n
In the view which we have taken of these two appeals, it  is
\nnot  necessary\tto discuss at great   length  the  divergent
\nviews taken in the High Court of Andhra as to the true scope
\nand  effect  of s. 12A(6)(a) of the Act.  A  Division  Bench
\nexpressed  the\tview that facts ” in the  sub-section  meant
\nbasic facts, that is,
\n(1)  A.I.R. 1957 Andhra Pradesh 130.\n<\/p>\n
809<\/span><\/p>\n
facts  necessary to sustain a claim, and drew a\t distinction
\nbetween\t such facts and the evidence required  to  establish
\nthem; it further expressed the view that under s.  12A(6)(a)
\nthe Tribunal may review its order if any of the basic  facts
\nwere not present before it when it passed the order, but the
\nsub-section was not meant to give a second opportunity to  a
\nparty  to  produce fresh evidence.  The Full  Bench  took  a
\nwider  view of the sub-section and said that facts  referred
\nto  in\tthe  sub-section  might be “facts  in  issue”  or  ”
\nevidentiary  facts “. We think that in an  appropriate\tcase
\nevidentiary  facts may be so interlinked with the  facts  in
\nissue  that  they may also fall within the  purview  of\t the
\nsubsection.   The Full Bench, however, went a  step  further
\nand  said  that\t even if  relevant  evidentiary\t facts\twere
\nintentionally  or deliberately withheld or  suppressed,\t the
\nparty guilty of such suppression or withholding would  still
\nbe entitled to ask for a review under s. 12A(6)(a).  We\t say
\nthis  with  great respect, but this is\tprecisely  what\t the
\nsection does not permit.  The Full Bench said:
\n”  The language of section 12A(6)(a) is so wide and  general
\nthat it might possibly lead to inconvenient results in\tthat
\nit  might  enable  an assessee to get a\t further  chance  of
\nhearing\t before\t the Appellate Tribunal on the\tstrength  of
\nevidence  which\t he  negligently  or  designedly  failed  to
\nproduce\t at  the first ,hearing.  As the  language  used  in
\nsection\t 12A(6)(a)  is\tclear and unequivocal  and,  in\t our
\nopinion, capable only of one interpretation, we are bound to
\ngive effect to it in spite of the possibility of any  incon-
\nvenience resulting therefrom.  The inconvenience, if any, is
\nnot  to\t the  assessee for whose benefit  the  provision  is
\nintended.  In any case, the remedy is with the Legislature”.
\nIt  is,\t we think, doing great violence to language  to\t say
\nthat an intentional or deliberate withholding or suppression
\nof  evidence in support of a plea or contention or  a  basic
\nfact  urged before the Tribunal, is comprehended within\t the
\nexpression ” facts which were not before it (Tribunal)\twhen
\nit passed the order “. To so construe the section is to\t put
\na premium
\n810<\/span>
\non deliberate negligence and fraud and amounts to allowing a
\nparty  to profit from its own wrong.  We do not\t think\tthat
\nsuch a construction follows from the language used, which is
\nmore  consistent  with\tthe view that the  provision  in  s.
\n12A(6)(a)  permits  a review when  through  some  oversight,
\nmistake or error the necessary facts, basic or\tevidentiary,
\nwere  not present before the Court when it passed the  order
\nsought\tto be reviewed.\t It is entirely wrong to think\tthat
\nthe subsection permits a party to play hide and seek with  a
\njudicial  Tribunal; that is to say to raise a fact in  issue
\nor  evidentiary fact as a plea in support of a claim and  at
\nthe same time deliberately withhold the evidence in  support
\nthereof.   Such a situation cannot be said to be one  within
\nthe meaning of the expression ” facts not present before the
\nTribunal “.\n<\/p>\n
In  the appeals before us there was intentional\t withholding
\nor suppression of evidence.  In the case, the materials were
\nnot  produced on the plea that they were written in  Gujrati
\nand  nobody was available to instruct counsel in English  or
\nTelugu\tand in the other, on an equally specious  plea\tthat
\nthe correspondence was mixed up with other records for about
\ntwo  years.   These two appeals can be disposed of  on\tthis
\nshort ground that the appellant was not entitled to ask\t for
\nreview\tunder s. 12A(6)(a) by reason of his  own  deliberate
\nnegligence and intentional withholding of evidence.
\nWe  see\t no  merit in these appeals and\t dismiss  them\twith
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t     Appeals dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India M\/S. Chandaji Kubaji & Co vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 29 April, 1960 Equivalent citations: 1960 AIR 990 Author: S Das Bench: Das, S.K. PETITIONER: M\/S. CHANDAJI KUBAJI & CO. Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29\/04\/1960 BENCH: DAS, S.K. BENCH: DAS, S.K. KAPUR, J.L. […]<\/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-143775","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S. Chandaji Kubaji & Co vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 29 April, 1960 - 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\/ms-chandaji-kubaji-co-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-29-april-1960\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S. Chandaji Kubaji & Co vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 29 April, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-chandaji-kubaji-co-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-29-april-1960\" \/>\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=\"1960-04-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-08T13:07:37+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\\\/ms-chandaji-kubaji-co-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-29-april-1960#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-chandaji-kubaji-co-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-29-april-1960\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S. Chandaji Kubaji & Co vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 29 April, 1960\",\"datePublished\":\"1960-04-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-08T13:07:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-chandaji-kubaji-co-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-29-april-1960\"},\"wordCount\":2014,\"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\\\/ms-chandaji-kubaji-co-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-29-april-1960#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-chandaji-kubaji-co-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-29-april-1960\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-chandaji-kubaji-co-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-29-april-1960\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Chandaji Kubaji & Co vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 29 April, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1960-04-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-08T13:07:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-chandaji-kubaji-co-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-29-april-1960#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-chandaji-kubaji-co-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-29-april-1960\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-chandaji-kubaji-co-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-29-april-1960#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Chandaji Kubaji & Co vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 29 April, 1960\"}]},{\"@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":"M\/S. Chandaji Kubaji & Co vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 29 April, 1960 - 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\/ms-chandaji-kubaji-co-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-29-april-1960","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S. Chandaji Kubaji & Co vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 29 April, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-chandaji-kubaji-co-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-29-april-1960","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1960-04-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-08T13:07:37+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\/ms-chandaji-kubaji-co-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-29-april-1960#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-chandaji-kubaji-co-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-29-april-1960"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S. Chandaji Kubaji & Co vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 29 April, 1960","datePublished":"1960-04-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-08T13:07:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-chandaji-kubaji-co-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-29-april-1960"},"wordCount":2014,"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\/ms-chandaji-kubaji-co-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-29-april-1960#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-chandaji-kubaji-co-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-29-april-1960","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-chandaji-kubaji-co-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-29-april-1960","name":"M\/S. Chandaji Kubaji & Co vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 29 April, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1960-04-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-08T13:07:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-chandaji-kubaji-co-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-29-april-1960#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-chandaji-kubaji-co-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-29-april-1960"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-chandaji-kubaji-co-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-29-april-1960#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S. Chandaji Kubaji & Co vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 29 April, 1960"}]},{"@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\/143775","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=143775"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/143775\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=143775"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=143775"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=143775"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}