{"id":16988,"date":"2010-01-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marg-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-january-2010"},"modified":"2019-03-20T16:39:30","modified_gmt":"2019-03-20T11:09:30","slug":"marg-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marg-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"Marg vs The Union Of India on 13 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Marg vs The Union Of India on 13 January, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.P. Devadhar<\/div>\n
                                              1\n\n                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                \n                         ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                                                        \n                             WRIT PETITION NO.2308 OF 2009\n\n\n\n\n                                                       \n    M\/s.Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited\n\n    (A Government of India Enterprise] a company\n\n\n\n\n                                             \n    incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 &\n                              \n    having its Registered Office at 17, Jamshedji\n\n    Tata Road, Mumbai - 400 020\n                             \n    and its Refinery at P.O. Box No.18820, B.D. Patil\n\n    Marg, Mahul, Chembur, Mumbai - 400 074                                ..Petitioner.\n           \n\n\n           Versus\n        \n\n\n\n    1.     The Union of India,\n\n           Ministry of Law & Justice, Aayakar \n\n\n\n\n\n           Bhavan, New Marine Lines,\n\n           Mumbai - 400 020.\n\n\n\n\n\n    2.     The Commissioner of Central Excise, \n\n           Mumbai - II Commissionerate, having\n\n           Office at Piramal Chambers, Jijibhoi Lane,\n\n           Parel, Mumbai - 400 012                                        ..Respondents.\n\n\n\n    Mr.M.H. Patil for the petitioner.\n\n    Mr.Jitendra Mishra for the respondent.\n\n                                                        ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:30:42 :::\n                                                     2\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                          \n                                                           CORAM : Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud &\n                                                                    J.P. Devadhar, JJ.   \n<\/pre>\n
                                                           DATE     : 13th January, 2010.\n<\/p>\n
    ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) :\n<\/p>\n
    1.             Rule.  With the consent of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of <\/p>\n
    the respondents, rule is made returnable.  The learned counsel appearing on behalf <\/p>\n
    of the respondents waives service.  With the consent of the learned counsel, taken <\/p>\n
    up for hearing and final disposal.\n<\/p>\n
    2.             The petitioner is in appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax <\/p>\n
    Appellate   Tribunal,   aggrieved   by   an   order   of   adjudication   passed   by   the <\/p>\n
    Commissioner on 6th February 2008 confirming a demand of duty of Rs.3.85 crores.\n<\/p>\n
    An application for waiver of pre-deposit was filed before the Tribunal.  By its order <\/p>\n
    dated   11th  September   2009,   the   Tribunal   directed   the   petitioner   to   deposit   an <\/p>\n
    amount of Rs.1 crore within a period of four weeks and to report compliance.\n<\/p>\n
    3.             The issue which arises before the Tribunal in the appeal pertains to an <\/p>\n
    Exemption Notification (No.64\/95-CE) dated 16th March 1995.  Under Serial No.3 <\/p>\n
    of the  Notification,  an  exemption is  provided  in respect of all  goods other than <\/p>\n
    cigarettes `if supplied as stores for consumption on board a vessel of the Indian <\/p>\n
    Navy or Coast Guard’.  The petitioner claims to have supplied High Speed Diesel Oil <\/p>\n
    as stores for consumption on board naval vessels.  According to the petitioner, the <\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:30:42 :::<\/span>
\n                                                       3<\/span><\/p>\n
    product   has   been   supplied   through   the   installations   of   Indian   Oil   Corporation <\/p>\n
    Limited, which are directly connected to the naval docks through dedicated pipe <\/p>\n
    lines.   The case of the petitioner is that prior to 6th  September 2004 a facility of <\/p>\n
    removing  petroleum  products  without  payment  of  duty  from  the   refinery  to  the <\/p>\n
    warehouse was available.  The prevailing practice of Indian Oil Corporation Limited <\/p>\n
    was   to   place   orders   upon   the   petitioner,   confirming   the   quantities   intended   for <\/p>\n
    supplies to  Naval  Vessels.    The  petitioner  made  supplies against  specific  indents <\/p>\n
    placed   by Indian  Oil  Corporation  Limited  and  claimed  the  benefit of  Exemption <\/p>\n
    Notification No.64\/95-CE.   With effect from 6th  September 2004, the warehousing <\/p>\n
    facility was withdrawn.   The petitioner continued the same practice, as before, of <\/p>\n
    supplying or clearing specified quantities of HSD oil through pipe lines to IOCL’s <\/p>\n
    warehouse at Wadala, which in turn was cleared by IOCL to Naval Vessels.\n<\/p>\n
    4.              A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 25th  September <\/p>\n
    2007   by   the   Commissioner   of   Central   Excise   seeking   to   deny   the   benefit   of <\/p>\n
    Exemption Notification No.64\/95 on the ground that the supply of HSD was not <\/p>\n
    effected directly to the Indian Navy.  The demand, as noted earlier, was confirmed <\/p>\n
    on 6th  February 2008.   The petitioner has filed an appeal before the Tribunal, in <\/p>\n
    which   an   application   for   stay   was   moved.     Stay   has   been   granted   subject   to   a <\/p>\n
    deposit of an amount of Rs.1 crore, by the impugned order.\n<\/p>\n
    5.              The   grievance   of   the   petitioner   before   the   Court   is   that   the   same <\/p>\n
    member   of   the   Tribunal,  who   passed   the   impugned   order   dated   11th  September <\/p>\n
    2009   subsequently  passed   an  order  on  20th  November   2009   in a   batch   of   cases <\/p>\n
    involving   the   same   question,   by   which   a   complete   waiver   of   pre-deposit   was <\/p>\n
                                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:30:42 :::<\/span>
\n                                                        4<\/span><\/p>\n
    granted, subject to the filing of a bond.   As a matter of fact, it may also be noted <\/p>\n
    that among the stay applications, which were disposed of by the Tribunal on 20 th <\/p>\n
    November   2009   were   those   arising   from   appeals   filed   by   Bharat   Petroleum <\/p>\n
    Corporation   Limited   as   well   as   the   petitioner,   Hindustan   Petroleum   Corporation <\/p>\n
    Limited.  The grievance, therefore, is that an inconsistent stand has been taken by <\/p>\n
    the Tribunal not merely in respect of different oil companies but in the case of the <\/p>\n
    petitioner itself.\n<\/p>\n
    6.<\/p>\n
                    During the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing on behalf of <\/p>\n
    the respondent has placed on the record a subsequent order passed by the same <\/p>\n
    member of the Tribunal on 14th December 2009 in a stay application arising out of <\/p>\n
    an   appeal   filed   by   the   petitioner,   by   which   the   petitioner   has   been   directed   to <\/p>\n
    deposit an amount of Rs.1 crore towards a demand of duty of approximately Rs.4 <\/p>\n
    crores.\n<\/p>\n
    7.              The position that has been brought to the notice of the Court is far <\/p>\n
    from satisfactory.  In the order of the Tribunal dated 11th September 2009 which is <\/p>\n
    impugned in these proceedings, the Tribunal has, on a construction primafacie of <\/p>\n
    Exemption Notification No.64\/95, rejected the case of the petitioner for a complete <\/p>\n
    waiver of pre-deposit.   The Tribunal observed that primafacie the requirement for <\/p>\n
    the grant of an exemption under Notification No.64\/95 is that the supply of stores <\/p>\n
    should be effected directly to the Indian Navy for consumption on board a Naval <\/p>\n
    vessel.   The Tribunal has observed that the Notification cannot apply to `indirect <\/p>\n
    supplies’ like those involved in the present case.  The Tribunal also took note of the <\/p>\n
    fact   that   with   effect   from   1st  November   2007   Notification   No.37\/2007-CE   was <\/p>\n
                                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:30:42 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    5<\/span><\/p>\n
    brought into force, which  inserted  Entry 3A  in the  Table  annexed  to the  earlier <\/p>\n
    Notification No.64\/95-CE.   By the new entry, fuels falling under Chapter heading <\/p>\n
    27.10 of the Tariff Schedule have been exempted from the payment of the duty of <\/p>\n
    excise if procured by IOCL from any other manufacturer and supplied as stores for <\/p>\n
    consumption on board a vessel of the Indian Navy or Coast Guard, subject to the <\/p>\n
    fulfillment of certain conditions.   The Tribunal however was of the view that the <\/p>\n
    Notification would apply with effect from 1st November 2007 whereas the dispute in <\/p>\n
    the present case relates to a period prior to 1 st November 2007.  The Tribunal has <\/p>\n
    also took note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Leader Engineering Works  <\/p>\n
    Vs. CCE 2007 (212) E.L.T. 168 (S.C.).  The case before the Supreme Court related <\/p>\n
    to supplies of stores made not directly to the Indian Navy but to Ship Builders.  The <\/p>\n
    Supreme Court upheld the view of the Tribunal that the benefit of Notification No.<\/p>\n
    64\/95-CE was admissible only if the  goods  were  supplied  directly  to the  Indian <\/p>\n
    Navy as stores for consumption on board a naval vessel and not through a Ship <\/p>\n
    Builder on a certificate issued by the Navy that the goods would be used for the <\/p>\n
    manufacture of ships for the Navy.  The Supreme Court observed as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
           “9.     …….. The words of the exemption notification are clear and
\n           unambiguous.  Goods other than cigarettes are exempted from duty
\n           if the same are supplied as stores for consumption on board a vessel <\/p>\n
           of Indian Navy or Coastguard.  The purchase order has been issued
\n           by ship builders on behalf of the Indian Navy, Government of India
\n           under the Ministry of Defense for manufacture or warship in yard.
\n           As per notification the goods supplied to the ship builders will not
\n           qualify for exemption and only the goods supplied to the Indian Navy
\n           directly will qualify for exemption.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    8.           The   Tribunal   disposed   of   another   set   of   stay   applications   on   20 th <\/p>\n
    November 2009 in which, as noted earlier, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited <\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:30:42 :::<\/span>
\n                                                       6<\/span><\/p>\n
    and the petitioner were applicants.   The member of the Tribunal, who wrote the <\/p>\n
    impugned order dated 11th September 2009, has also written the subsequent order <\/p>\n
    dated 20th  November 2009.   However in the subsequent order, same judgment of <\/p>\n
    the Supreme Court in Leader Engineering Works (supra) has been distinguished on <\/p>\n
    the ground that whereas in the case of the petitioner, HSD is being supplied to the <\/p>\n
    Navy through a continuous pipe line, in Leader Engineering Works, the stores were <\/p>\n
    supplied by the assessee to the Indian Navy through Ship Builders.   We find that <\/p>\n
    there is a palpable inconsistency on the part of the Tribunal in dealing with stay <\/p>\n
    applications   arising   out   of   diverse   appeals.     The   inconsistency   is   even   more <\/p>\n
    pronounced having regard to the fact that the same judgment of the Supreme Court <\/p>\n
    in Leader Engineering Works   has been construed differently by the same member <\/p>\n
    of the Tribunal in the orders dated 11th September 2009 and 20th November 2009.\n<\/p>\n
    9.              The Tribunal, first and foremost, is duty bound by Article 141 of the <\/p>\n
    Constitution of India to ensure that it follows binding precedent of the Supreme <\/p>\n
    Court.  The Tribunal as a judicial body must follow principles of consistency when it <\/p>\n
    decides cases.   The lack of consistency is clear on the face of record.   In fact, as <\/p>\n
    noted earlier the Tribunal has now passed a third order on 14th December 2009 on a <\/p>\n
    stay application arising out of an appeal filed by the petitioner, by which the view <\/p>\n
    taken in the first order dated 11th September 2009 is reiterated and a direction has <\/p>\n
    been issued for the deposit of an amount of Rs.1 crore towards a demand of duty.\n<\/p>\n
    Faced with this situation, we are of the considered view that it would be appropriate <\/p>\n
    to   remit   the   proceedings   back  to   the   Tribunal   for   reconsideration   of   the   matter <\/p>\n
    having regard to the observations made by this Court earlier.  Judicial orders must <\/p>\n
    be passed by the Tribunal with a greater degree of circumspection and application <\/p>\n
                                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:30:42 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    7<\/span><\/p>\n
    of mind.  Whim and caprice are alien to the judicial process.  Consistency,  based on <\/p>\n
    judicial precedents should be the norm.\n<\/p>\n
    10.           In order to facilitate a fresh decision on remand, the impugned order <\/p>\n
    of the Tribunal dated 11th  September 2009 is set aside and the stay application is <\/p>\n
    restored to the file of the Tribunal for a fresh decision.\n<\/p>\n
    11.           Rule   is   accordingly   made   absolute   in   the   above  said   terms.     There <\/p>\n
    shall be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                  (J.P. Devadhar, J.)                             (Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud, J.)\n        \n     \n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                                  ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:30:42 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Marg vs The Union Of India on 13 January, 2010 Bench: Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.P. Devadhar 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2308 OF 2009 M\/s.Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (A Government of India Enterprise] a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 & […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-16988","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMarg vs The Union Of India on 13 January, 2010 - 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\/marg-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Marg vs The Union Of India on 13 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marg-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-january-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-01-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-20T11:09:30+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/marg-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/marg-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Marg vs The Union Of India on 13 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-20T11:09:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/marg-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1544,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/marg-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/marg-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/marg-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-january-2010\",\"name\":\"Marg vs The Union Of India on 13 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-20T11:09:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/marg-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/marg-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/marg-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Marg vs The Union Of India on 13 January, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Marg vs The Union Of India on 13 January, 2010 - 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\/marg-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Marg vs The Union Of India on 13 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marg-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-20T11:09:30+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marg-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marg-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Marg vs The Union Of India on 13 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-20T11:09:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marg-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-january-2010"},"wordCount":1544,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marg-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marg-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marg-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-january-2010","name":"Marg vs The Union Of India on 13 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-20T11:09:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marg-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marg-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marg-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Marg vs The Union Of India on 13 January, 2010"}]},{"@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\/16988","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=16988"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16988\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16988"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16988"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16988"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}