{"id":145954,"date":"2008-04-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-03-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/godfrey-phillips-india-ltd-vs-ajay-kumar-on-1-april-2008"},"modified":"2017-12-16T16:26:09","modified_gmt":"2017-12-16T10:56:09","slug":"godfrey-phillips-india-ltd-vs-ajay-kumar-on-1-april-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/godfrey-phillips-india-ltd-vs-ajay-kumar-on-1-april-2008","title":{"rendered":"Godfrey Phillips India Ltd vs Ajay Kumar on 1 April, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Godfrey Phillips India Ltd vs Ajay Kumar on 1 April, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: . A Pasayat<\/div>\n
Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, P. Sathasivam<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  2339 of 2008\n\nPETITIONER:\nGodfrey Phillips India ltd\n\nRESPONDENT:\nAjay Kumar\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 01\/04\/2008\n\nBENCH:\nDr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
CIVIL APPEAL NO.  2339 OF 2008
\n(Arising out of SLP (C) No.532 of 2007)
\n(With Civil Appeal 2340 of 2008 @ SLP (C) No.5051 of 2007)<\/p>\n
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tChallenge in these appeals is to the order of National
\nConsumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (in
\nshort the ‘National Commission’). One order was passed in
\nexercise of revisional jurisdiction against the concurrent
\nfinding of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
\nYamuna Nagar (in short ‘District Forum’) and State Consumer
\nDisputes Redressal Commission (in short ‘State Commission’)
\ndated 11.5.2001 and 12.7.2001 respectively.  Commission has
\nalso issued directions.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tThe review petition filed was also dismissed, which also
\nforms subject matter of challenge.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tBackground facts in a nutshell are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\tThe respondent filed a complaint in respect of an
\nadvertisement given by the appellant, alleging unfair trade
\npractices. The advertisement was issued in newspapers and
\nmagazines in 1999 for the cigarettes manufactured and sold
\nby it under the brand name of “Red & White” in respect of
\nwhich the directions have been issued.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe impugned advertisement apart from showing the
\npacket of cigarettes with the aforesaid brand name stated “Red
\n&  White smokers are one of a kind”. The advertisement also
\nshows the smiling face of actor Akshay Kumar holding a
\ncigarette. It also contains the statutory warning “Cigarette
\nsmoking is injurious to health” as well as price of the pack.
\nThe complaint was dismissed by the District Forum as the
\ncomplainant  had also filed a suit in relation to the impugned
\nadvertisement in the Civil Court. It was therefore held by the
\nDistrict Forum that parallel proceedings in the District Forum
\nby way of Public Interest Litigation could not be entertained.
\nIn appeal, the State Commission affirmed the order of the
\nDistrict Forum.  Thereafter, complainant withdrew the suit,
\nbut filed Revision Petition before the National Commission.
\nThe National Commission held that the slogan in the
\nadvertisement that “Red & White smokers are one of a kind”
\nshowing the image of Akshay Kumar indicated that
\n“smokers of Red & White cigarettes could be super actor
\nperforming all the film stunts without duplicates”. According
\nto the appellant, no evidence was led in the case by the
\ncomplainant either with regard to the ability of film star
\nAkshay Kumar to carry out stunts without duplicate or with
\nregard to the alleged impression created by the impugned
\nadvertisement upon the complainant. Interestingly, the
\ncomplainant admitted that he continues to smoke cigarette for
\nmore than two decades. The National Commission held as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“The case of the complainant is that smoking
\nof cigarette by Akshay Kumar with the slogans used
\nin advertisement would detract the people from the
\nstatutory warning. Seeing comparative size of the
\nletters etc. the statutory warning in our view loses
\nits prominence which is usurped by more prominent
\nand attractive Akshay Kumar et al and is sufficient
\nto detract the attention of the viewers from the
\nstatutory warning to the image of Akshay Kumar
\nwith the slogan indicating smokers of Red and
\nWhite cigarette could be super actor performing all
\nthe film stunts without duplicates.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThis according to the National Commission was sufficient
\nto hold that the impugned advertisement amounted the unfair
\ntrade practices.  On the basis of the aforesaid finding, the
\nNational Commission gave the following directions:\n<\/p>\n
“(i)  to discontinue forthwith the unfair trade
\npractice of detracting from the statutorily
\nspecified warning and not publish any
\nadvertisements like Ext. ‘R-1’ in any language
\ngiving any impression that a person who
\nsmokes Red and White Cigarette could perform
\nsuch acts as could be performed by Akshay
\nKumar in films and thereby detracting from
\nthe specified warning; and<\/p>\n
(ii)\tto issue corrective advertisements of equal size
\nin all the newspapers in which advertisements
\nin Hindu & English like Ext. R-1 were
\npublished to neutralize the effect of the said
\nimpugned misleading advertisements.\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\tShri Ajay Kumar, the petitioner, shall be paid
\na sum of Rs.20,000\/- by way of compensation
\nand Rs.5,000\/- as cost.”\n<\/p>\n
5.\tAccording to the appellant the direction (ii) as quoted
\nabove was passed on the basis of provisions of the Consumer
\nProtection Act, 1986 (in short the ‘Act’) which was not
\napplicable  and was not in force at the time of publication of
\nthe impugned advertisement in the year 1999. Such a
\ndirection could not have been issued in dis-regard of the
\napplicable provision of law. Therefore, a Review Petition was
\nfiled. In the Review Petition the appellant had contended that
\ndirection (iii) to award compensation of Rs.20,000\/- to the
\ncomplainant was passed without any claim for compensation
\nmade in the complaint.  With regard to direction (i) to dis-
\ncontinue unfair trade practice and not to publish any
\nadvertisement like the impugned advertisement, the appellant
\ntook the stand that when direction was given by order dated
\n20.2.2006  an enactment being the Cigarettes and other
\nTobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and
\nRegulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and
\nDistribution) Act, 2003 (in short ‘Advertisement Act’) had
\nalready come into force w.e.f. 18.5.2003 by which all
\nadvertisements in relation to cigarettes had already been
\nprohibited. As such there was no need for issuing such
\ndirection.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tThe Review Petition was dismissed without considering
\nthe specific contentions by merely stating that there was no
\nground for review.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tLearned counsel for the appellant has submitted that
\nissuing a corrective advertisement was relatable to Section 14
\nof the Act (as it stood in 1999) which reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“14. Finding of the District Forum — (1) If, after the
\nproceeding conducted under section 13, the District
\nForum is satisfied that the goods complained
\nagainst suffer from any of the defects specified in
\nthe complaint or that any of the allegations
\ncontained in the complaint about the services are
\nproved, it shall issue an order to the opposite party
\ndirecting him to do one or more of the following
\nthings, namely:-\n<\/p>\n
(a) to remove the defect pointed out by the
\nappropriate laboratory from the goods in
\nquestion;\n<\/p>\n
(b) to replace the goods with new goods of
\nsimilar description which shall be free from
\nany defect,,<\/p>\n
(c) to return to the complainant the price, or,
\nas the case may be, the charges paid by the
\ncomplainant;\n<\/p>\n
(d)\t to pay such amount as may be awarded
\nby it as compensation to the consumer for any
\nloss or injury suffered by the consumer due to
\nthe negligence of the opposite party;\n<\/p>\n
(e)  to remove the defects or deficiencies in the
\nservices in question;\n<\/p>\n
(f) to discontinue the unfair trade practice or
\nthe restrictive trade practice or not to repeat
\nthem;\n<\/p>\n
(g) not to offer the hazardous goods for sale;\n<\/p>\n
(h) to withdraw the hazardous goods from
\nbeing offered for sale;\n<\/p>\n
(i) to provide for adequate costs to parties.”\n<\/p>\n
8.\tThe aforesaid Section 14 of the Act has been amended
\nw.e.f. 15.3.2003 and following clause (hc) was added:\n<\/p>\n
\t“(hc) to issue corrective advertisement to
\nneutralize the effect of misleading
\nadvertisement at the cost of the Opposite Party
\nresponsible for issuing such misleading
\nadvertisement.”\n<\/p>\n
9.\tTherefore, the direction No.(ii) as given could not have
\nbeen given when no such clause existed at the time of
\nissuance of the advertisement, and as such it could not have
\nbeen invoked. The complaint was filed on 10.1.2000. The
\nprayer was as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“It is, therefore respectfully prayed that the
\ncomplaint of the Complainant may kindly be
\naccepted in the interest of the justice, equity
\nand fair play. And the Opposite Party may
\nkindly be directed to discontinue the said
\nunfair trade practice and not to repeat the
\nsame and help mitigating its effects in
\nteenagers.”\n<\/p>\n
10.\tTherefore, it is submitted that the direction to issue
\ncorrective advertisement on the basis of provision of law which
\nwas not introduced at the relevant time could not have been
\ngiven and, therefore, review should have been allowed.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tIt is pointed out that Section 5(2)(a) of the Cigarettes
\nAdvertisement Act reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“5(2)- No person, for any direct or indirect
\npecuniary benefit, shall (a) display, cause to display,
\nor permit or authorize to display any advertisement
\nof cigarettes or any other tobacco product.”\n<\/p>\n
12.\tSection 5(1) also has relevance, and reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“5-Prohibition of advertisement of cigarettes
\nand other tobacco  products- (1) No person engaged
\nin, or purported to be engaged in the production,
\nsupply or distribution of cigarettes or any other
\ntobacco products shall advertise and no person
\nhaving control over a medium shall cause to be
\nadvertised cigarettes or any other tobacco products
\nthrough that medium and no person shall take part
\nin any advertisement which directly or indirectly
\nsuggests or promotes the use of consumption of
\ncigarettes or any other tobacco products.”\n<\/p>\n
13.\tIt is, therefore, submitted that the order of the National
\nCommission is unsustainable.\n<\/p>\n
14.\tThere is no appearance on behalf of the respondent in
\nspite of service of notice.\n<\/p>\n
15.\tAs rightly contended by learned counsel for the appellant
\ndirection (i) was given without any material or evidence
\nwhatsoever and there was not even a suggestion\/pleading that
\nthe advertisement was of Akshay Kumar or that he could
\nperform certain stunts without duplicates. There was not even
\nan allegation that the statutory warning was detracted from.
\nWhen such serious allegation which was required to be
\nestablished was not even specifically pleaded and when
\nnothing specific was indicated in the complaint, the
\nCommission should not have given the direction on pure
\nsurmises. In this context, decision of the Privy Council in
\nBharat Dharma Syndicate v. Harish Chandra (AIR 1937 PC\n<\/p>\n
146) and of this Court in The Union of India v. Pandurang
\nKashinath More (AIR<\/a> 1962 SC 630) are relevant. So far as
\ndirection No.(ii) is concerned it is to be noted that Section 5(1)
\nand Section 5(2) of the Advertisement Act clearly prohibited
\nissuance of any advertisement in relation to cigarettes.
\nTherefore, the corrective advertisement as directed by the
\nNational Commission could not have been given.  Further, the
\npower for giving such direction was introduced under Section
\n14 of the Act w.e.f. 15.3.2003. In view of the aforesaid,
\ndirection No.(ii) cannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n
16.\tSo far as direction No.(iii) is concerned, it is to be noted
\nthat there was no prayer for any compensation. There was no
\nallegation that the complainant had suffered any loss.
\nCompensation can be granted only in terms of Section 14(1)(d)
\nof the Act. Clause (d) contemplates award of compensation to
\nthe consumer for any loss or  injury suffered due to negligence
\nof the opposite party. In the present case there was no
\nallegation or material placed on record to show negligence.\n<\/p>\n
17.\tInterestingly, there was no allegation or finding of loss or
\ninjury caused to the respondent on account of the
\nadvertisement issued in 1999. The complainant himself had
\nstated that he was smoking cigarettes for the last two decades.
\nTherefore, the impugned advertisement cannot be said to have
\naffected the complainant and\/or caused any loss to him to
\nwarrant grant of compensation.\n<\/p>\n
18.\tAnother aspect which needs to be noted is that the
\ncomplainant had stated in his complaint that he had filed a
\ncomplaint in public interest and had accepted that the matter
\nwas pending before the Civil Court. \tThe District Forum and
\nthe State Commission had, therefore, dismissed the complaint
\nof the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
19.\tIt is to be noted that the National Commission itself
\nnoted that the respondent was not representing a “Voluntary
\nConsumer Association” registered under the Companies Act,
\n1956 or under any other law for the time being in force and
\nwas not entitled to file a complaint about unfair trade practice
\nto represent other consumers. Having said so, it is not
\nunderstandable as to how the National Commission even
\nproceeded to deal with the complaint. It also noted that the
\ncomplainant had not moved any application or obtained any
\npermission under Section 13(6) of the Act and\/or no such
\npermission was granted. In the circumstances, it was not
\npermissible for the complainant to represent others. The
\ncomplainant’s case right through was that he was filing a
\npetition in public interest. After having recorded  that the
\ncomplaint in that manner was not entertainable, the National
\nCommission could not have passed the impugned order.\n<\/p>\n
20.\tLooked at from any angle, the orders of the National
\nCommission are indefensible and are set aside. The appeals
\nare allowed with no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Godfrey Phillips India Ltd vs Ajay Kumar on 1 April, 2008 Author: . A Pasayat Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, P. Sathasivam CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2339 of 2008 PETITIONER: Godfrey Phillips India ltd RESPONDENT: Ajay Kumar DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01\/04\/2008 BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM JUDGMENT: J U D […]<\/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-145954","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nGodfrey Phillips India Ltd vs Ajay Kumar on 1 April, 2008 - 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\/godfrey-phillips-india-ltd-vs-ajay-kumar-on-1-april-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Godfrey Phillips India Ltd vs Ajay Kumar on 1 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/godfrey-phillips-india-ltd-vs-ajay-kumar-on-1-april-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-03-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-16T10:56:09+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/godfrey-phillips-india-ltd-vs-ajay-kumar-on-1-april-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/godfrey-phillips-india-ltd-vs-ajay-kumar-on-1-april-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Godfrey Phillips India Ltd vs Ajay Kumar on 1 April, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-03-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-16T10:56:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/godfrey-phillips-india-ltd-vs-ajay-kumar-on-1-april-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2061,\"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\\\/godfrey-phillips-india-ltd-vs-ajay-kumar-on-1-april-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/godfrey-phillips-india-ltd-vs-ajay-kumar-on-1-april-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/godfrey-phillips-india-ltd-vs-ajay-kumar-on-1-april-2008\",\"name\":\"Godfrey Phillips India Ltd vs Ajay Kumar on 1 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-03-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-16T10:56:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/godfrey-phillips-india-ltd-vs-ajay-kumar-on-1-april-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/godfrey-phillips-india-ltd-vs-ajay-kumar-on-1-april-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/godfrey-phillips-india-ltd-vs-ajay-kumar-on-1-april-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Godfrey Phillips India Ltd vs Ajay Kumar on 1 April, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Godfrey Phillips India Ltd vs Ajay Kumar on 1 April, 2008 - 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\/godfrey-phillips-india-ltd-vs-ajay-kumar-on-1-april-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Godfrey Phillips India Ltd vs Ajay Kumar on 1 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/godfrey-phillips-india-ltd-vs-ajay-kumar-on-1-april-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-03-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-16T10:56:09+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/godfrey-phillips-india-ltd-vs-ajay-kumar-on-1-april-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/godfrey-phillips-india-ltd-vs-ajay-kumar-on-1-april-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Godfrey Phillips India Ltd vs Ajay Kumar on 1 April, 2008","datePublished":"2008-03-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-16T10:56:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/godfrey-phillips-india-ltd-vs-ajay-kumar-on-1-april-2008"},"wordCount":2061,"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\/godfrey-phillips-india-ltd-vs-ajay-kumar-on-1-april-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/godfrey-phillips-india-ltd-vs-ajay-kumar-on-1-april-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/godfrey-phillips-india-ltd-vs-ajay-kumar-on-1-april-2008","name":"Godfrey Phillips India Ltd vs Ajay Kumar on 1 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-03-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-16T10:56:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/godfrey-phillips-india-ltd-vs-ajay-kumar-on-1-april-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/godfrey-phillips-india-ltd-vs-ajay-kumar-on-1-april-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/godfrey-phillips-india-ltd-vs-ajay-kumar-on-1-april-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Godfrey Phillips India Ltd vs Ajay Kumar on 1 April, 2008"}]},{"@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\/145954","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=145954"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/145954\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=145954"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=145954"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=145954"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}