{"id":155943,"date":"1984-07-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1984-07-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/allahabad-canning-co-vs-union-of-india-on-24-july-1984-2"},"modified":"2018-07-21T06:23:10","modified_gmt":"2018-07-21T00:53:10","slug":"allahabad-canning-co-vs-union-of-india-on-24-july-1984-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/allahabad-canning-co-vs-union-of-india-on-24-july-1984-2","title":{"rendered":"Allahabad Canning Co vs Union Of India on 24 July, 1984"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Allahabad Canning Co vs Union Of India on 24 July, 1984<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1984 AIR 1741, \t\t 1985 SCR (1) 207<\/div>\n
Author: P Bhagwati<\/div>\n
Bench: Bhagwati, P.N.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nALLAHABAD CANNING CO.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT24\/07\/1984\n\nBENCH:\nBHAGWATI, P.N.\nBENCH:\nBHAGWATI, P.N.\nSEN, AMARENDRA NATH (J)\nMISRA RANGNATH\n\nCITATION:\n 1984 AIR 1741\t\t  1985 SCR  (1) 207\n 1984 SCALE  (2)227\n\n\nACT:\n     Levy Sugar Price Equalisation Fund Act, 1976-Proviso to\ns. 6 (1)-When attracted-Scope of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     Section 3 (1) of the Levy Sugar Price Equalisation Fund\nAct, 1976  established a  fund known as the Levy Sugar Price\nEqualisation Fund.  Sub-sec. (2)  of section 3 provided that\nthere shall be credited to the Fund amounts representing all\nexcess realisations made by the manufacturers. Section 6 (1)\nprovided that  where any  amount of  excess realisation\t was\ncredited to the fund, the buyer of levy sugar from whom such\nexcess realisation  as made  by the  manufacturers shall  be\nentitled to  the refund\t of such excess realisation from the\nFund. There  was a proviso to section 6 (1) which inter alia\nprecluded buyers  of levy  sugar to  claim refund  of excess\nrealisation in certain cases. The appellants, who carried on\nthe business  of manufacture  of syrups,  squashes, jams and\njellies, preservation  of vegetables and other food products\nand from  whom excess  realisation was\tmade and credited to\nthe Fund,  applied  for\t refund\t of  such  realisation.\t The\nCentral Government  rejected the appellants' application for\nrefund on  the\tground\tthat  they  had\t not  been  able  to\nestablish fully\t and clearly  that the\tincidence of  higher\nsugar price  was not  passed on\t by them to the consumers of\nthe end\t products. The\tappellants preferred a writ petition\nwhich was  dismissed by\t the High  Court on the same ground.\nHence this appeal by special leave.\n     Allowing the appeal,\n^\n     HELD: The proviso on its plain terms applies only where\nthe  party   claiming  refund\tof  the\t  amount  of  excess\nrealisation is a wholesale or a retail dealer who has passed\non the\tincidence of the excess over the controlled price of\nlevy sugar  to the  retail dealer or to the consumer, as the\ncase may  be. The  proviso obviously  cannot apply to a case\nwhere a\t claim for  refund has\tbeen made,  by a consumer of\nsugar from  whom excess\t realisation has  been made  by\t the\nmanufacturer of sugar. [106C-D]\n     In the  instant case  the\tappellants  were  admittedly\nconsumers of sugar\n208\nand not\t dealers in sugar and since they were not dealers in\nsugar, there could be no question of any incidence of excess\nbeing passed  on by  them to  the retail  dealer or  to\t the\nconsumer. [106D]\n     The proviso  to section 6 (1) contemplates a case where\na dealer-whether wholesale or retail-sells sugar to a retail\ndealer or consumer as the case may be and not where a person\nsells a\t manufactured product containing sugar as one of its\ningredients. [106G]\n     In the  instant case  the appellants  sold manufactured\nproduct\t containing   sugar  as\t  one  of   its\t ingredient.\nTherefore, the\tproviso to  section 6  (1) was not attracted\nand the\t appellants were  entitled to  claim refund  of\t the\nexcess realisation from the Fund. [106H]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1487 of
\n1984.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeal by\tSpecial leave  from the\t Judgment and  Order
\ndated the  21st August,\t 1981 of the Allahabad High Court in
\nCivil Misc, Writ Petition No. 9820 of 1981
\n     Harbans Singh for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     Abdul Kader and G.S. Narayanan for the Respondent.
\n     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     BHAGWATI,\tJ.  This  is  an  appeal  by  Special  Leave
\ndirected against  an order  of the  High Court\tof Allahabad
\ndismissing a  writ petition filed by the appellants claiming
\nrefund of  a sum  of Rs.  22681.88 from the Levy Sugar Price
\nEqualisation Fund  under Section  6, sub-section  (1) of the
\nLevy Sugar  Price Equalisation\tFund Act,  1976 (hereinafter
\nreferred to  as the Equalisation Fund Act). The facts of the
\ncase are few and may be briefly stated as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     The appellants  carry on  business\t of  manufacture  of
\nsyrups,\t squashes,   jams  and\t jellies,  preservation\t  of
\nvegetables and other food products. One of the essential raw
\nmaterials for  these products manufactured by the appellants
\nis sugar. There was at the material time Sugar Control Order
\n1966 issued  under S.  3 of  the Essential  Commodities Act,
\n1955, clause  4 of  which provided  that no  purchaser shall
\nsell or\t agree to  sell or  otherwise dispose  of  sugar  or
\ndeliver or  agree to  deliver sugar or remove any sugar from
\nthe bonded  godown of  the factory  in which  it is  stored,
\nexcept under and in
\n209<\/span>
\naccordance with\t the directions\t issued in  writing  by\t the
\nCentral Government  or the  Chief Director. Pursuant to this
\nOrder  the  Central  Government\t introduced  the  policy  of
\npartial decontrol  of sugar  in August,\t 1967 and under this
\npolicy, the Central Government adopted a scheme of acquiring
\nlevy sugar  from  the  factory.\t The  price  of\t levy  sugar
\nacquired by  the Central  Govt.\t was  fixed  every  year  in
\naccordance with\t the principles set out in Section 3 (3c) of
\nthe Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and during the period in
\nquestion the  price of\tlevy sugar  was determined under the
\nsugar (Price  Determination)  Order  1972.  This  order\t was
\nhowever challenged  by factories  manufacturing sugar and an
\ninterim order  was passed  by the  High Court  of  Allahabad
\npermitting them\t to charge  a price  higher than  that fixed
\nunder the  order, on  condition\t that  they  furnished\tbank
\nguarantee for  the difference  in price\t in  favour  of\t the
\nRegistrar of  the High\tCourt. Now,  different\tprices\twere
\nfixed under  the sugar (Price Determination) order, 1972 for
\ndifferent zones\t and so\t far  as  the  East  U.P.  Zone\t was
\nconcerned, the price fixed was Rs. 175 per quintal exclusive
\nof excise  duty, sales\ttax etc.  with the  result that\t the
\nprice inclusive\t of these  taxes and  duties amounted to Rs.
\n190 per\t quintal. The  appellants purchased  from K.M. Sugar
\nMills Limited,\tMotinagar, Faizabad  a certain\tquantity  of
\nsugar under a release order issued by the Central Government
\nunder the  Levy Sugar  Supply (Control)\t order 1972 and they
\nlifted an aggregate quantity of 400 quintals of sugar on 12-
\n8-1972\tand   16-8-1972.  Now,\t under\tthe   sugar   (Price
\nDetermination) order, 1972 K.M. Sugar Mills Limited were not
\nentitled to  recover from  the appellants  price at  a\trate
\nexceeding Rs.  190 per\tquintal but  by virtue\tof the\tstay
\norder granted  by the High Court of Allahabad they recovered
\nfrom the  appellants price  at the  rate of  Rs. 234.89\t per
\nquintal and  the total\texcess amount  charged by K.M. Sugar
\nMills Limited  from the\t appellants thus came to Rs 22681.88
\nfor which  bank guarantee  was given  by  K.M.\tSugar  Mills
\nLimited in  favour of  the Registrar  of the High Court. The
\nwrit petition  filed by K.M. Sugar Mills Limited against the
\nSugar (Price  Determination) Order,  1972 along\t with  other
\nsimilar writ petitions filed by other manufacturers of sugar
\nwas however, ultimately dismissed by the Allahbad High Court
\nin November,  1974 with the result that the Registrar of the
\nHigh Court  became entitled  to encash\tthe  bank  guarantee
\ngiven by K.M. Sugar Mills Limited and a sun of Rs. 22,681.88
\nwas accordingly\t recovered by  the Registrar  under the bank
\nguarantee.\n<\/p>\n
     Since  the\t excess\t amount\t recovered  by\tthe  various
\nmanufactu-\n<\/p>\n
210<\/span><\/p>\n
rers of\t sugar, including  K.M. Sugar  Mills Limited  really
\nbelonged to  the consumers  to whom  sugar had\tbeen sold by
\nthese manufacturers,  Parliament enacted  Levy\tSugar  Price
\nEqualisation Fund  Act, 1976  with effect  from 1-4-1976 for
\nthe purpose  of ensuring that the excess amount so recovered
\nshould not  remain in the hands of manufacturers of sugar so
\nas to  unjustly enrich\tthem  but  should  be  paid  to\t the
\nconsumers  of\tsugar  from  whom  it  had  been  unlawfully
\nrecovered  by\tthe  manufacturers.   Section  3(1)  of\t the
\nEqualisation Fund  Act established  a Fund known as the Levy
\nSugar Price  Equlisation Fund.\tSub Section (2) of Section 3
\nprovided that  there shall  be credited\t to the Fund amounts
\nrepresenting   all   excess   realisations   made   by\t the
\nmanufacturers, irrespective  of\t whether  such\trealisations
\nwere  made   before  or\t  after\t the   commencement  of\t the
\nEqualisation Fund  Act.\t Pursuant  to  this  provision,\t the
\nRegistrar of  the High Court deposited a sum of Rs. 22681.88
\nto the\tCredit of  the Fund.  Section 6\t of the Equalisation
\nFund Act  then proceeded  to enact  that where any amount of
\nexcess realisation  is credited\t to the\t Fund, the  buyer of
\nLevy sugar from whom such excess realisation was made by the
\nmanufacturer shall  be entitled to the refund of such excess
\nrealisation from  the Fund. This Section is material for the
\npurpose of  determination of  the controversy arising in the
\npresent appeal\tand we\twould, therefore,  reproduce  it  as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  (1)  Where any  amount is  credited to  the Fund a
\n\t       refund shall  be made  from the\tFund to\t the
\n\t       buyer of\t Levy Sugar  from  whom\t any  excess
\n\t       realisation  was\t made  by  the\tproducer  or
\n\t       dealer,
\n\t       Provided that  no buyer\tshall be entitled to
\n\t       claim as refund under this sub-section if he-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (a)  being the wholesale dealer, had passed on the
\n\t       incidence of  such excess over the controlled
\n\t       or fair\tprice of  levy sugar  to the  retail
\n\t       dealer by  whom the  price of  such sugar was
\n\t       paid or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (b)  being a\tretail dealer,\thad  passed  on\t the
\n\t       incidence of  such excess over the controlled
\n\t       or fair\tprice of  levy sugar to the consumer
\n\t       by whom the price of such sugar was paid.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Since  a\tsum  of\t  Rs.  22681.88\t represented  excess
\nrealisation
\n211<\/span>
\nmade by\t K.M. Sugar  Mills Limited  from the  appellants and
\nthis amount was credited to the Fund by the Registrar of the
\nHigh Court,  the appellants  filed an application in form IV
\nmaking a claim for refund of this amount from the Fund. This
\napplication was\t filed by  the appellants,  on\t30th  April,
\n1979, admittedly within the prescribed period of six months.
\nThe Central  Government, however, rejected the claim made by
\nthe appellants\ton the ground that they had not been able to
\nestablish fully\t and clearly  that the\tincidence of  higher
\nsugar price  was not  passed on\t by them to the consumers of
\nthe end products.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellants  thereupon preferred  a Writ Petition in
\nthe High  Court but  the High  Court also  rejected the Writ
\nPetition on  the same  ground, namely, that according to the
\nfinding recorded  by the  Central Government  the appellants
\nhad not\t been able  to establish  fully and clearly that the
\nincidence of  higher sugar  price was  not passed  on to the
\nconsumers of  the end  products and since this was a finding
\nof fact\t base on  evaluation of\t the material  and  evidence
\nproduced by  the appellants  before the competent authority,
\nthe High  Court would  not be  justified in interfering with
\nthe  order   of\t the   Central\tGovernment.  The  appellants
\nthereupon preferred  the present  appeal with  special leave
\nobtained from this Court.\n<\/p>\n
     The main  point  of  controversy  between\tthe  parties
\ncentres round  the true\t interpretation of  S. 6 Sub-section
\n(1) of\tthe Equalisation  Fund Act. This provision lays down
\nas a  condition precedent  to  its  applicability  that\t the
\nexcess realisation  made by the manufacturer of sugar should
\nhave been credited to the Fund. Now, the application made by
\nthe appellants\tin from\t IV stated in so many terms that the
\namount in  question had\t been deposited\t by the Registrar of
\nthe High Court in terms of the Levy Sugar Price Equalisation
\nFund Rules,  1972, through the Chief Pay & Accounts Officer,
\nGovt.  Of  India,  Ministry  of\t Agriculture  &\t Irrigation,
\nDepartment of Food, New Delhi. This statement was not at any
\ntime disputed  on behalf of the Central Government either in
\nthe order made by the Central Government rejecting the claim
\nof the\tappellants or  in the  proceedings before  the\tHigh
\nCourt. It  is  indisputable  that  a  sum  of  Rs.  22681.88
\nrepresenting the excess realisation made from the appellants
\nby K.M.\t Sugar Mills Limited was credited to the Fund by the
\nRegistrar of the High Court. And in any event, this must be
\n212<\/span>
\npresumed to have been done because the Equalisation Fund Act
\nhaving been  enacted for  this purpose, the Registrar of the
\nHigh Court  would naturally  be expected  to carry  out\t his
\nobligation under  the statute  by depositing  the amount  of
\nexcess realisation recovered by him under the bank guarantee
\ngiven by  K.M. Sugar Mills Limited. There can, therefore, be
\nno doubt  that in  terms of  Section 6,\t Sub-section (1) the
\nappellants were\t entitled to  claim refund of the sum of Rs.
\n22681.88 from  the Fund.  The only  question is\t whether the
\nproviso\t to   section  6,   Sub-section\t (1)  precluded\t the
\nappellants from\t claiming refund of that amount. The proviso
\non its\tplain terms  applied only  where the  party claiming
\nrefund of the amount of excess realisation is a wholesale or
\na retail  dealer who  has passed  on the  incidence  of\t the
\nexcess over the controlled price of levy sugar to the retail
\ndealer or  to the  consumer, as the case may be. The proviso
\nobviously cannot  apply to  a case  where a claim for refund
\nhas been  made by  a consumer  of  sugar  from\twhom  excess
\nrealisation has\t been made by the manufacturer of sugar. The
\nappellants  were  admittedly  consumers\t of  sugar  and\t not
\ndealers in  sugar and  since they were not dealers in sugar,
\nthere could  be no question of any incidence of excess being
\npassed by them to the retail dealer or to the consumer.\n<\/p>\n
     The  learned   counsel  appearing\t on  behalf  of\t the
\nrespondent contended  that the excess over the controlled or
\nfair price  of levy  sugar must\t have been  passed on by the
\nappellants to  the consumer  when they sold the manufactured
\nproducts to  them, because the higher price paid by them for
\nthe sugar  purchased from K.M. Sugar Mills Limited must have
\nbeen taken  into account  by them in fixing the price of the
\nmanufactured products.\tThis may  be so or may not be so. It
\nis not\tnecessary for us to examine this question because it
\nis irrelevant on the terms of the proviso to Section 6, Sub-
\nsection (1).  That proviso  deals with\ta situation  where a
\nwholesale or retail dealer passes on the incidence of excess
\nover the  controlled or fair price of levy sugar to a retail
\ndealer\tor   consumer,\twho   purchases\t  such\t sugar.\t  It
\ncontemplates a\tcase where  a dealer-whether  whole sale  or
\nretail-sells sugar  to a  retail dealer\t or consumer  as the
\ncase may  be and  not where  a person  sells a\tmanufactured
\nproduct containing sugar as one of its ingredients, we have,
\ntherefore, no  doubt that  the proviso\tto Section  6,\tSub-
\nsection (1)  was not attracted in the case of the appellants
\nand, consequently,  the appellants  were entitled  to  claim
\nrefund of the sum of the Rs. 22681.88 from the sum of Fund.\n<\/p>\n
213<\/span><\/p>\n
     We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the judgment
\nof the\tHigh Court and issue a Writ directing the respondent
\nto pay to the appellants a sum of Rs. 22681.88 together with
\ninterest thereon  at the  rate of  6 per cent per annum from
\ntoday until  payment. The  respondent will  pay the costs of
\nthe appeal to the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
H.S.K.\t\t\t\t\t     Appeal allowed.\n214<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Allahabad Canning Co vs Union Of India on 24 July, 1984 Equivalent citations: 1984 AIR 1741, 1985 SCR (1) 207 Author: P Bhagwati Bench: Bhagwati, P.N. PETITIONER: ALLAHABAD CANNING CO. Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA DATE OF JUDGMENT24\/07\/1984 BENCH: BHAGWATI, P.N. BENCH: BHAGWATI, P.N. SEN, AMARENDRA NATH (J) MISRA RANGNATH CITATION: […]<\/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-155943","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nAllahabad Canning Co vs Union Of India on 24 July, 1984 - 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\/allahabad-canning-co-vs-union-of-india-on-24-july-1984-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Allahabad Canning Co vs Union Of India on 24 July, 1984 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/allahabad-canning-co-vs-union-of-india-on-24-july-1984-2\" \/>\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=\"1984-07-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-21T00:53:10+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\\\/allahabad-canning-co-vs-union-of-india-on-24-july-1984-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/allahabad-canning-co-vs-union-of-india-on-24-july-1984-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Allahabad Canning Co vs Union Of India on 24 July, 1984\",\"datePublished\":\"1984-07-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-21T00:53:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/allahabad-canning-co-vs-union-of-india-on-24-july-1984-2\"},\"wordCount\":1982,\"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\\\/allahabad-canning-co-vs-union-of-india-on-24-july-1984-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/allahabad-canning-co-vs-union-of-india-on-24-july-1984-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/allahabad-canning-co-vs-union-of-india-on-24-july-1984-2\",\"name\":\"Allahabad Canning Co vs Union Of India on 24 July, 1984 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1984-07-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-21T00:53:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/allahabad-canning-co-vs-union-of-india-on-24-july-1984-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/allahabad-canning-co-vs-union-of-india-on-24-july-1984-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/allahabad-canning-co-vs-union-of-india-on-24-july-1984-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Allahabad Canning Co vs Union Of India on 24 July, 1984\"}]},{\"@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":"Allahabad Canning Co vs Union Of India on 24 July, 1984 - 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\/allahabad-canning-co-vs-union-of-india-on-24-july-1984-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Allahabad Canning Co vs Union Of India on 24 July, 1984 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/allahabad-canning-co-vs-union-of-india-on-24-july-1984-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1984-07-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-21T00:53:10+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\/allahabad-canning-co-vs-union-of-india-on-24-july-1984-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/allahabad-canning-co-vs-union-of-india-on-24-july-1984-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Allahabad Canning Co vs Union Of India on 24 July, 1984","datePublished":"1984-07-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-21T00:53:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/allahabad-canning-co-vs-union-of-india-on-24-july-1984-2"},"wordCount":1982,"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\/allahabad-canning-co-vs-union-of-india-on-24-july-1984-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/allahabad-canning-co-vs-union-of-india-on-24-july-1984-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/allahabad-canning-co-vs-union-of-india-on-24-july-1984-2","name":"Allahabad Canning Co vs Union Of India on 24 July, 1984 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1984-07-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-21T00:53:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/allahabad-canning-co-vs-union-of-india-on-24-july-1984-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/allahabad-canning-co-vs-union-of-india-on-24-july-1984-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/allahabad-canning-co-vs-union-of-india-on-24-july-1984-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Allahabad Canning Co vs Union Of India on 24 July, 1984"}]},{"@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\/155943","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=155943"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/155943\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=155943"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=155943"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=155943"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}