{"id":146497,"date":"1997-09-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1997-09-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marine-products-export-vs-a-geetha-ors-on-12-september-1997"},"modified":"2016-08-27T18:33:31","modified_gmt":"2016-08-27T13:03:31","slug":"marine-products-export-vs-a-geetha-ors-on-12-september-1997","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marine-products-export-vs-a-geetha-ors-on-12-september-1997","title":{"rendered":"Marine Products Export … vs A. Geetha & Ors on 12 September, 1997"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Marine Products Export … vs A. Geetha & Ors on 12 September, 1997<\/div>\n
Bench: S.C. Agrawal, G.T. Nanavati<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMARINE PRODUCTS EXPORT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nA. GEETHA & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t12\/09\/1997\n\nBENCH:\nS.C. AGRAWAL, G.T. NANAVATI\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t\t    WITH
\n\t  CIVIL APPEALS NOS 6263 & 6264\t  OF 1997
\n       (@ S.L.P (c) Nos. 10744 of 1995 & 510 of 1996
\n\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nS.C. AGRAWAL, J. :-\n<\/p>\n
     pecial leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
     hese appeals  are directed\t against December 20,1994 in
\nWrit Appeals  Nos.349\/1994, 351\/1994, 357\/1994 and 362\/1994.
\nWrit Appeals  Nos. 349\/1994, 350\/1994, 351\/1994 and 357\/1994
\nwere filed  by Marine Products Exports Development Authority
\n(hereinafter referred  to as  ‘MPEDA’) against the judgement
\nof the\tlearned Single\tjudgement of  the high\tCourt  dated
\nFebruary 18,  1994 in  O.P.No.2058\/91, 9205\/90,\t 7539\/90 and
\n321\/91.\t  Writ Appeals\tNo.362\/94 was  filed by\t respondents
\nnos. 3,4 and 5 in O.P. No.7539\/90.  O.P.No.2058\/91 was filed
\nby K.Sasidharan\t Nair and  V.I.George, O.P.9205\/90 was filed
\nby K.J.Authony, O.P.No.7539\/90 was filed by A. Geetha
\nand  O.P.No.   321\/91  was   filed  by\tK.S.Sreedevi.\t The
\npetitioners in\tthe said  petitions, who  are respondent  in
\nthese appeals  , shall\thereinafter be\treferred to  as ‘the
\npetitioners’.\n<\/p>\n
     PEDA is  an authority  established under the provisions
\nof the\tMarine Products\t Export Development  Authority\tAct,
\n1972.\tSection 7(4)  of the  said empowers MPEDA to appoint
\nofficers and  employees as  may be  necessary for  efficient
\nperformance of\tits function  and pay them such salaries and
\nallowances as it may determine from time to time, subject to
\nrules prescribed  by the  Central Government.\tThe  Central
\nGovernment  has\t not  prescribed  any  rules  governing\t the
\nservice conditions,  MPEDA issued  Standing Instruction\t for
\nthat purpose which came into force with effect from December
\n15, 1979.  By clause 9 of the Standing Instruction read with
\nSchedule I  the employee  have\tbeen  classified  into\tfour
\ncategories in the following manner:-\n<\/p>\n
     1.GROUP A\t[Class\tI]  consists  of
\n     Joint Director,  Project  Director,
\n     Deputy   Director\t and   Assistant
\n     Director.\t [Pre-revised pay scales
\n     of Rs. 700-1300 to Rs.1500-1800].<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2. GROUP  B [Class\t II] consists of
\n     Accounts\tOfficer\t   and\t Quality
\n     Supervisors[Pre-revised  scale   of
\n     Rs. 550-990].\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     3. GROUP  C [Class\t I] consists  of
\n     Accounts, Assistants,  Senior Clerk
\n     and Junior Clerk[Pre-revised scales
\n     of Rs.260-400 to 420-700].\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     4. GROUP  D [Class\t I] consists  of
\n     Watchmen, peons,  etc. [Pre-revised
\n     scale of Rs. 196-232].<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Clause  10\t of  the  standing  Instruction,  under\t the
\ncaption ‘channels of promotion’, provides as under:-\n<\/p>\n
     1.\t The   following  shall\t be  the
\n     channel of promotions:
\n     Channel I. Administration.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Channel   II.   Regional\tOffices,
\n     Marketing\t Service,   development,
\n     Economics,\t     publicity\t     and
\n     Statistics.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Channel  III.   Quality  control  &
\n     Inspection
\n     Channel IV. Frozen Storage.
\n     Channel V. Shrimp farming.
\n     The posts\tunder each  channel  are
\n     given in schedule II.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2.\t   For\t   the\t  purpose     of
\n     Implementation of these channels of
\n     promotion,\t option\t  of  individual
\n     employees\t concerned    shall   be
\n     obtained.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     3. employees  presently working  in
\n     the posts\tin the\tscale of  pay of
\n     Rs.  425-700   shall  excise  their
\n     option of\tvarious channels  within
\n     60\t days  of  completion  of  their
\n     probation in  the post.   Employees
\n     not so  option shall  be placed  in
\n     such channel  as may be directed by
\n     the executive Committee.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     4. Options\t once exercised shall be
\n     final.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The  petitioners\twere  all   appointed\tas   quality
\nSupervisors  by\t direct\t recruitment.\t K.S.  Sreedevi\t was
\nappointed on  July 28,\t1978 and  the rest were appointed in
\n1981-82, i.e.,\tafter the  coming into force of the Standing
\nInstructions  on   December  15,1979.\t  The  post  quality
\nSupervisors falls  in Channel III.  In Channel III there are
\n2 posts\t of Assistants\tDirectors, while  the number of such
\nposts are  three in  Channel I,\t seventeen in Channel II and
\ntwelve\tin   Channel  V.     The   petitioners\tsubmitted  a
\nrepresentations wherein\t they sought  to exercise the option
\nregarding change of Channel III to other channels.  The said
\nrepresentation\tof  the\t petitioners  was  referred  to\t the
\nExecutive Committee  of MPEDA.\t The Executive Committee, in
\nit meeting held on August 13, 1989, decided as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     “The    committee\t   noted     the
\n     implications of  the interpretation
\n     of\t Standing   Instruction\t  clause
\n     10(2)   and    (3)\t  of\tStanding
\n     Instructions that\tthe facility  to
\n     opt for  a particular  channel will
\n     be\t available   only  to  employees
\n     working in posts below the grade of
\n     Rs.  1640-2900  and  that\ttoo  for
\n     promotion to the grade of Rs. 1640-\n<\/p>\n
     2900.   For this  purpose employees
\n     working in next below feeder grades
\n     identified for  promotion as feeder
\n     category in  the recruitment  rules
\n     shall  exercise   their  option  of
\n     channel   within\t 60   days    of
\n     completion of  their  probation  in
\n     the post.\t The provision of option
\n     therefore\twill   be  available  to
\n     employees\tappointed   or\tpromoted
\n     into the  grade  of  Rs.  1640-2900
\n     revised.”\n<\/p>\n
     Feeling aggrieved by the said decision of the Executive
\nCommittee the  petitioners which  have given  rise to  these
\nappeals.   The said  writ petitions  were heard\t by  learned
\ndingle judge  of the  High Court.   By\this judgement  dated
\nFebruary 18, 1994, the learned single Judge (G.H. Guttal J.)
\nallowed the  said petitions and held that the channel system
\nof promotion  laid down\t in  the  Standing  Instruction\t was
\nviolative of  the right to equality guaranteed under Article
\n14  of\t the  Constitution   of\t India\t inasmuch   as\t the
\nchannelisation of  promotion under  the standing Instruction
\nconfines the petitioners to channel 111 where there are only
\ntwo posts of Assistants Directors in other channels are more
\nand as\ta result officers in those channels have accelerated
\npromotions even\t if are\t junior to  the petitioners and have
\nlesser experience.   The  learned single  Judge further held
\nthat the petitioners were wrongly denied he option to choose
\nthe channel  on the view that such option was available only
\nto employees  falling under  sub-clause (3)  of clause 10 of
\nthe Standing  Instructions.  The learned Single Judge was of
\nthe view  that sub-clause  (2) of  clause 10  applies to all
\nemployees who have a desire to exercise the option to choose
\na  channel   of\t promotion   and  sub-clause(3)\t  cannot  be
\ninterpreted to\tmean that  the application  of\tthe  general
\nprovision of  sub-clause (2)  is executed.    Appeals  filed
\nagainst the  said judgement  of the  learned single judge by
\nMPEDA as  well as  by respondents Nos. 3,4 and 5 in O.P. No.
\n7539\/90 have  been dismissed  by the  Division Bench  of the
\nHigh Court  by the impugned judgment.  The learned Judges on
\nthe Division  Bench have construed the Standing Instructions
\nto mean\t that under sub-clause(2) of clause 10 the employees
\nwho are already in any of the channels have a legal right to
\nexercise their\toption to  be considered  in the  matter  of
\npromotion to  the post\tof Assistant Director in a different
\nchannel and  that sub-clause  (3) of clause 10 employees who
\nare outside  the channels and are required to exercise their
\noption within a specified time, in the absence of which they
\nare to\tbe dealt  with by  the\tExecutive  Committee.\t The
\nlearned Judges\thave, however,\theld to\t be  discriminatory.
\nFeeling aggrieved by the said decision of the Division Bench
\nof the Court the appellants have filed these appeals.\n<\/p>\n
     Dr. Rajiv\tDhavan, the learned senior counsel appearing
\nfor MPEDA,  has urged  that the\t High Court  was in error in
\nconstruing sub-clauses\t(2) and\t (3) of\t clause\t 10  of\t the
\nStanding  instructions.\t   The\tsubmission  of\tthe  learned
\ncounsel is  that the  channels\tof  promotion  are  only  in
\nrespect of different posts falling in Groups A and B and the
\nright to  exercise the option for the channel has been given
\nto employees  falling in  Group C  who would  be promoted to
\nGroup B\t and for  the purpose  of such\tpromotion they could
\nexercise their\toption for the channel in which they want to
\nbe considered  for promotion to a group b post.\t It has been
\nurged that  sub-clauses(2) and\t(3) of\tclause 10 have to be
\nread together  and if,\tso read,  the said clauses mean that
\nthe right  o option  is available only to employees referred
\nto in  sub-clause (3)  and there  is no independent right of
\noption given  to   employees other than those referred to in
\nsub-clause (3).\t Shri M.J.  Vellapally, the  learned  senior
\ncounsel appearing  for the  petitioners, has,  on the  other
\nhand, urged that the High Court has rightly constructed sub-
\nclauses (2) and (3) of clause 10 of the standing Instruction
\nto mean\t that under  sub-clause (2) a general right has been
\nconferred on  all employees  while under  sub-clause  (3)  a
\nspecial provision  is made with regard to employees who were
\nworking on the posts in the pay scale of Rs. 425-700.\n<\/p>\n
     On a  careful consideration  of the submission urged by
\nthe learned  counsel  we  find\tconsiderable  merit  in\t the
\nsubmission of  Dr. Dhavan.   In\t our opinion, sub-clause (2)
\nand (3)\t of clause 10 of the Standing Instructions cannot be
\nread  disjunctively   as  dealing  with\t different  sets  of
\nemployees, while  sub-clause(3) deals  with certain specific
\ncategories of  employees mentioned therein.  Sub-clauses (1)
\nto (4)\tof clause 10 have to be read as part of a scheme and
\nif, they  are thus  read, it  would be\tevident that in sub-
\nclause(1) the five channel of promotion have been enumerated
\nand reference  is made\tto Schedule  11 which enumerates the
\nposts under  each channel.   In\t sub-clause(2) provision  is
\nmade for obtaining option of individual employees considered
\nfor the\t purpose of implementation of channels of promotion.
\nSub-clause(3) prescribes  the  conditions  for\texercise  of
\noption by  the employees  who have  been conferred  the said
\nright.\t It lays down that the said option will be available
\nonly to\t employees regularly working in the pay scale of Rs.
\n425-500 and  such employees  should exercise their option to
\nvarious channels  within 60  days  of  completion  of  their
\nprobation in  the post\tand that the employees not so option
\nshall be  placed in  such channels  as may be decided by the
\nExecutive Committee.   In  sub-clause (4)  it is  prescribed
\nthat the  option once  exercised shall\tbe final.   If it is
\nheld that  in sub-clause  (2) a\t general right of option has
\nbeen conferred on all the employees irrespective of the post
\nheld by\t them, sub-clause(3) would be rendered otiose.\tSuch
\na construction would defeat the object underlying sub-clause
\n(3) which  in specific\tterms indicates\t that the  right  to
\nexercise the option is available only if the conditions laid
\ndown in\t the said  sub-clause are fulfilled.  In view of the
\nlanguage used  in sub-clause (3) an employee falling in that
\nsub-clause can\texercise the  option only in accordance with
\nthe requirements of that sub-clause.  He cannot fall back on
\nsub-clause (2).\t  It is also not possible to hold that while
\nsub-clause(3) deals  with the category of employees referred
\nto in  that sub-clause,\t the rest of the employees are dealt
\nwith in sub-clause(2).\tthere is no reason why the employees
\nreferred to  in sub-clause(3)  should be treated differently
\nfrom the  rest of the employees in the matter of exercise of
\nthe right of option.  We are, therefor, unable to agree with
\nthe view  of the  Division bench if the High Court that sub-
\nclause(2) of  clause of\t the Standing Instructions confers a
\ngeneral right  of option  to  all  the\temployees  and\tsub-
\nclause(3)  confers  such  right\t to  certain  categories  of
\nemployees only.\t  Having  regard to  the scheme of clause 10
\nwhich deals  with promotion  from Group C to Group B and the
\nfact that  ‘Channels of\t Promotion’  only  relate  to  posts
\nfalling in Group A and B,  it must be held that the right of
\noption that  has been conferred under clause 10 is available
\nonly at\t the stage  of promotion  from Group  C to a post in
\nGroup  B.    On\t that  view  it\t cannot\t be  said  that\t the
\npetitioners who\t were holding a post in Group B, having been
\ndirectly appointed  on the  post of Quality Supervisors, can
\nexercise the  right of\toption after  they have already been
\nappointed on a post in a particular channel.\n<\/p>\n
     Shri Vallapally  has pointed  out that  while the order
\ndated July 26, 2978 relating to appointment of K.S. Sreedevi
\ncontains a specific clause to the effect that her channel of
\npromotion shall\t be “Channel  III  to  Quality\tControl\t and
\nInspection”, there  is no  such condition  in the  orders of
\nappointment of K.Sadasivan Nair and V.I.George.\t It has been
\npointed out  that though  his appointment was on the post of
\nQuality Supervisor, K. Sadasivan Nair was working in the Sub
\nRegional Office,  Goa and  thereafter in  the  Research\t and
\nProduct Development  Section,  he  has\ttransferred  to\t the
\nAppraisal and  Investment Section, which does not come under
\nany of\tthe channels  of promotion.   it is, further, stated
\nthat V.I.  George was  also not posted as quality Supervisor
\nat any\ttime but  was posted  to the  Sub Regional Office at
\nMangalore for  three years and thereafter he was transferred
\nand posted to the Head Office at Cochin in the Economics and
\nMarketing Service  and he  was transferred and posted to the
\nAppraisal and  Investment Section  which does not come under
\nany of\tthe existing channels of promotion and after service
\nin the\tsaid section  for seven years, he was transferred to
\nthe Research  and product  Development Section\twhich  comes
\nunder Channel  11 of promotion.\t It is no doubt true that in
\nthe case  of K.S.  Sreedevi there is specific mention in the
\norder of  appointment that her channel of promotion shall be
\n“Channel 111  to quality  Control and  Inspection  ”  and  a
\nsimilar provision  is not found in the orders of appointment
\nof both\t K. Sadasivan  Nair and\t V.I. George, but in view of
\nthe fact  that the  appointment of both of these petitioners
\nwas made  on the  post of  quality Supervisor which falls in
\nChannel 111  under schedule  11 referred to in sub-clause(1)
\nof clause  10 of  the Standing\tInstruction, It must be held
\nthat the  appointment of  both these petitioners was made in
\nchannel 111.   The  fact that  after their  appointment both
\nthese petitioners  worked on posts falling in other channels
\nwould not,  by itself,\tmean that there has been a change in
\ntheir channel  for the\tpurpose\t of  promotion.\t   There  is
\nnothing in he Standing Instruction which may lend support to
\nthe view  that if  a person  is posted on a posted on a post
\nwhich falls in another channel, there is an automatic change
\nin the\tchannel of  promotion.\t On the\t other hand, we find
\nthat MPEDA  in its  meeting held  on June 27, 1985 has taken
\nthe following decision:-\n<\/p>\n
     “Mobility within the Channel\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     1. Chairman  may transfer\tofficers
\n     within    channels\t    periodically
\n     whenever  found  necessary\t in  the
\n     interests\t of    efficiency    and
\n     exigencies of work\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2. Chairman  may transfer\tofficers
\n     outside  the  channels  on\t working
\n     arrangement  in   the  interest  of
\n     efficiency\t  and\t exigencies   of
\n     works.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     This would\t show that  the Chairman  of MPEDA  has been
\nempowered to  transfer the  officers within  channels in the
\ninterest of efficiency and exigencies of work.\tSuch posting
\nand  transfer  would  not  result  in  automatic  change  of
\nchannels for the purpose of promotion.\n<\/p>\n
     Shri S. Balakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for
\nA. Geetha  has submitted  that clause  10  of  the  Standing
\nInstructions is\t violate of the right to equality guaranteed
\nunder Article 14 of the Constitution as found by the learned
\nsingle Judge.\tIt  is submitted  that there  is no relation
\nbasis for  denying the\tright of  option to personas who are
\ndirectly recruited  to a post falling in Group B though such
\na right\t is available  to a  person  promoted  from  a\tpost
\nfalling in Group C to a post falling in Group B.  We find no
\nmerit in  this contention.   A person who is promoted from a
\npost in\t Group C  to a\tpost in\t Group B  has been given the
\nright to  exercise the\toption\tto  choose  the\t channel  of
\npromotion for the reason that channels of promotion that are
\navailable in  respect of  posts in  Group B and Group A only
\nand since  as person  holding a\t post  in  group  C  can  be
\npromoted to a post falling in Group B, he has been given the
\nright to  choose  a  channel  for  promotion  before  he  is
\npromoted to  Group B.\tno  right to  choose  a\t channel  is
\navailable after\t his promotion\tto a  person  who  has\tbeen
\npromoted to a Group B.\tThere is thus no distinction between
\na person  who is directly recruited to a post in Group B and
\na person  who is promoted to a post in Group b in the matter
\nof exercise  of option\tafter their  appointment to Group b.
\nWhen a\tperson in  directly appointed  on a  post falling in
\nGroup B\t in one\t of the\t channels he  exercise his option by
\napplying  for\tthat  particular   channel   of\t  promotion.
\nSimilarly  person holding a Group C post is given the option
\nto choose the channel of promotion at the stage of promotion
\nto Group  B.   It cannot,  therefore  ,\t be  said  that\t the
\nconferment of right to exercise the option in respect of the
\nchannel\t of  promotion\tunder  clause  10  of  the  Standing
\nInstructions suffers  from the\tvice of discrimination.\t The
\ncontention urged by the Shri Balakrishnan cannot, therefore,
\nbe accepted.\n<\/p>\n
     For the reasons aforementioned, we are unable to uphold
\nthe impugned  judgement of  the Division  Bench of  the High
\nCourt.\t The appeals  are, therefore,  allowed, the impugned
\njudgment of  the Division  Bench of  the  high\tCourt  dated
\nDecember 20,1994  in W.A. Nos. 349\/1994, 350\/1994, 351\/1994\/
\n357\/1994 and 362\/1994 as well as the judgment of the learned
\nsingle judge dated February 18,1994 in O.P.Nos. 7539\/1990-Y,
\n9209\/1990-U, O.P.  Nos. 321\/1991-L  and 2058\/1991-T  are set
\naside and the said writ petitions are dismissed. No order as
\nto costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Marine Products Export … vs A. Geetha & Ors on 12 September, 1997 Bench: S.C. Agrawal, G.T. Nanavati PETITIONER: MARINE PRODUCTS EXPORT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. Vs. RESPONDENT: A. GEETHA & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12\/09\/1997 BENCH: S.C. AGRAWAL, G.T. NANAVATI ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: WITH CIVIL APPEALS NOS 6263 & 6264 OF 1997 […]<\/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-146497","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMarine Products Export ... vs A. Geetha & Ors on 12 September, 1997 - 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\/marine-products-export-vs-a-geetha-ors-on-12-september-1997\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Marine Products Export ... vs A. Geetha & Ors on 12 September, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marine-products-export-vs-a-geetha-ors-on-12-september-1997\" \/>\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=\"1997-09-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-27T13:03:31+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/marine-products-export-vs-a-geetha-ors-on-12-september-1997#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/marine-products-export-vs-a-geetha-ors-on-12-september-1997\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Marine Products Export … vs A. Geetha & Ors on 12 September, 1997\",\"datePublished\":\"1997-09-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-27T13:03:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/marine-products-export-vs-a-geetha-ors-on-12-september-1997\"},\"wordCount\":2815,\"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\\\/marine-products-export-vs-a-geetha-ors-on-12-september-1997#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/marine-products-export-vs-a-geetha-ors-on-12-september-1997\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/marine-products-export-vs-a-geetha-ors-on-12-september-1997\",\"name\":\"Marine Products Export ... vs A. Geetha & Ors on 12 September, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1997-09-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-27T13:03:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/marine-products-export-vs-a-geetha-ors-on-12-september-1997#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/marine-products-export-vs-a-geetha-ors-on-12-september-1997\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/marine-products-export-vs-a-geetha-ors-on-12-september-1997#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Marine Products Export … vs A. Geetha & Ors on 12 September, 1997\"}]},{\"@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":"Marine Products Export ... vs A. Geetha & Ors on 12 September, 1997 - 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\/marine-products-export-vs-a-geetha-ors-on-12-september-1997","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Marine Products Export ... vs A. Geetha & Ors on 12 September, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marine-products-export-vs-a-geetha-ors-on-12-september-1997","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1997-09-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-27T13:03:31+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marine-products-export-vs-a-geetha-ors-on-12-september-1997#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marine-products-export-vs-a-geetha-ors-on-12-september-1997"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Marine Products Export … vs A. Geetha & Ors on 12 September, 1997","datePublished":"1997-09-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-27T13:03:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marine-products-export-vs-a-geetha-ors-on-12-september-1997"},"wordCount":2815,"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\/marine-products-export-vs-a-geetha-ors-on-12-september-1997#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marine-products-export-vs-a-geetha-ors-on-12-september-1997","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marine-products-export-vs-a-geetha-ors-on-12-september-1997","name":"Marine Products Export ... vs A. Geetha & Ors on 12 September, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1997-09-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-27T13:03:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marine-products-export-vs-a-geetha-ors-on-12-september-1997#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marine-products-export-vs-a-geetha-ors-on-12-september-1997"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marine-products-export-vs-a-geetha-ors-on-12-september-1997#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Marine Products Export … vs A. Geetha & Ors on 12 September, 1997"}]},{"@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\/146497","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=146497"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/146497\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=146497"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=146497"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=146497"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}