{"id":176542,"date":"2010-01-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/standard-nut-manufacturing-vs-collector-districts-magistrate-on-25-january-2010"},"modified":"2015-01-27T09:52:02","modified_gmt":"2015-01-27T04:22:02","slug":"standard-nut-manufacturing-vs-collector-districts-magistrate-on-25-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/standard-nut-manufacturing-vs-collector-districts-magistrate-on-25-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"Standard Nut Manufacturing vs Collector\/ Districts Magistrate … on 25 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Allahabad High Court<\/div>\n
Standard Nut Manufacturing vs Collector\/ Districts Magistrate … on 25 January, 2010<\/div>\n
                                    1\n\n                                  Judgment reserved on 7.12.2009\n                                  Judgment delivered on 25.1.2010\n      CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 12864 OF 1975\n               Standard Nut Manufacturers and another\n                           vs.\n             The Collector\/District Magistrate and others\nHon'ble Sunil Ambwani, J.\n<\/pre>\n
Hon’ble Virendra Singh, J.\n<\/p>\n
      This writ petition was filed on 2.12.1975, for a writ of mandamus
\ndirecting the respondents not to realise any amount from them as arrears of
\nland revenue and to quash the recovery certificate and citation dated
\n19.10.1975 for recovery of Rs. 55012.20 as the balance amount to be paid
\nby the petitioner under a hire purchase agreement dated 26.8.1970 with the
\nU.P. Small Industries Corporation Limited, Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur.\n<\/p>\n
      After exchange of affidavits the writ petition was dismissed by a
\njudgment dated 22.8.1995 for the reason that the U.P. Public Moneys
\n(Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 is applicable to the dues recoverable under
\nthe hire purchase agreement. The petitioners filed Civil Appeal No. 7341-
\n7343 of 1997 on the ground that the writ petition was decided in the
\nabsence of appellant and their advocate. The Supreme Court, by its order
\ndated October 15, 2003, set aside the judgment and requested the High
\nCourt to decide the matter on merits as expeditiously as possible. The writ
\npetition was listed on 6.1.2004 and was dismissed for want of prosecution.
\nThe restoration application was allowed on 24.7.2008.\n<\/p>\n
      An amendment application filed on 27.7.2008 is still pending. In
\nparagraph 16 of the amendment application, it is stated that on 13.2.2008
\nthe Sub Divisional Officer, Khurja,District Bulandshahr has issued an
\nattachment order attaching house No. 272 of petitioner no. 2 situate in
\nMohalla Laxmanganj, Khurja, District Bulandshahr for recovering Rs. 1,
\n86, 121\/- and expenses. The Sub Divisional Officer, Khurja has fixed a
\npublic auction of the house to be held on 20.3.2008. It is stated in
\nparagraph-18 that the house is valued at Rs. 75 lacs. The petitioner no. 2,
\nunder compulsion of the authorities recovering the amount, deposited Rs. 1,
\n                                      2<\/span><\/p>\n
10, 000\/- with Collection Amin on 17.3.2008 vide receipt of the same date
\nand a further amount of Rs. 1, 66, 022\/- vide another receipt of the same
\ndate totalling Rs. 2, 16, 622\/-.\n<\/p>\n
       The petitioners have prayed for adding grounds Nos. (ix) to (xv)
\nchallenging the recovery and deposit of Rs. 2, 16, 622\/- under coercion and
\nfor misusing the government machinery. They have also prayed to add
\nprayer no. (e) in the prayer clause in the writ petition for a direction to
\nrefund the entire amount with 18% interest, and with exemplary costs of
\nRs10 lacs. It is contended that the amendment application only seeks to
\nbring the subsequent events on the record during the pendency of the
\nrestoration application. The amendment application is consequently
\nallowed.\n<\/p>\n
       Brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that Shri Govind
\nSwarup Sharma-petitioner no. 2 applied for financial assistance from U.P.
\nSmall Industries Corporation Limited (the Corporation) to set up a nut
\nmanufacturing factory. The petitioner submitted a guarantee bond and
\ndeposited Rs. 11, 440\/- towards earnest money and supervision charges and
\nRs. 2400\/- as charges for supply of the raw material. The petitioner then
\nentered into an agreement dated 7.7.1970 with the Corporation. Some
\nmachinery was supplied by the supplier of the Corporation between August
\n1970 to January 1971. The bench grinder was not supplied until 23.1.1971.
\nThe petitioner informed the Corporation on 25.1.1971 that the machinery
\nsupplied by the supplier is defective and is below standard, and that the
\ncomplete plant has not been supplied, and issued reminders on 8.2.1971 and
\n22.2.1971.\n<\/p>\n
       The petitioner once again informed the Corporation on 18.4.1971
\nthat the machines have not been replaced and that the factory is suffering
\nlosses. On 9.6.1971 the Corporation informed the petitioner that the
\ntechnical staff of the Corporation will visit the premises. On 16.6.1971 the
\ntechnical staff inspected     the factory and found the machinery to be
\ndefective, below standard and not workable. The supplier by its letter dated
\n27.1.1972 informed the Corporation that it is ready to replace the defective
\nmachinery and charge lesser price and wanted approval of the Corporation.\n<\/p>\n
                                      3<\/span><\/p>\n
The supplier did not receive the approval of the Corporation and instead
\nvide letter dated 7.3.1972, the Corporation asked the petitioner to submit
\nconfirmation of proposal for replacement and charging lesser price for
\ndefective and below standard machinery. The petitioner conveyed the
\napproval on 27.3.1972. Thereafter nothing was heard from the Corporation.
\nA notice of demand was received          for a sum of Rs. 13, 829.30 on
\n23.6.1972. The petitioner objected to the notice by his letter dated 3.7.1972
\non which he was informed by the Corporation on 24.7.1972 that the matter
\nis still under consideration. The petitioner was asked to inform the
\nCorporation whether the bench grinder has been supplied and whether three
\ndefective electric motors have been returned back by the petitioner to the
\nsupplier. The petitioner wrote back to the Corporation on 8.8.1972, that the
\nbench grinder has not been received and three defective motors have been
\nsent back to the supplier. Again nothing was heard, and that on 15.11.1972
\na notice of demand of Rs. 19, 931.53 was received and that thereafter a
\ncertificate of recovery was sent by the Collector, Bulandshahr to recover
\nRs. 34,000\/- from the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
       The petitioner wrote to Minister for Industries Department, U.P.
\nGovernment on 31.12.1973 and also wrote to the Corporation on 2.1.1974
\nthat it had to suffer losses due to supply of defective and incomplete
\nmachinery. The Corporation asked the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 6000\/-
\nfor rescheduling the instalments. The petitioner paid Rs. 6000\/- but that
\naccounts were not settled and that again a demand of Rs. 38, 340\/- was sent
\nto the petitioner and the recovery certificate was pressed. The petitioner
\nrequested that the Corporation may dispose of the machinery. The
\nCorporation by its letter dated 17.11.1975 refused the permission and offer
\nto sell the machinery.\n<\/p>\n
       The recovery has been challenged on the ground that the dispute was
\nnot settled. The petitioner could not enter into production on account of
\nsupply of defective machinery and that if the machinery is sold, which is
\nvalued and at not less than Rs.50,000\/- to Rs. 60,000\/-, the entire amount
\nwill be recovered for which the petitioner has already deposited Rs.
\n18,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
                                       4<\/span><\/p>\n
       In the counter affidavit of Shri G.A. Khan it is stated that the
\npetitioner applied for purchase of machinery under a hire purchase
\nagreement. The supplier was exclusive responsible to the petitioner to
\nsupply proper machinery and that the Corporation was required to pay 90%
\nof the purchase amount. The balance amount of 10% was to be paid after
\nsatisfactory certificate of working of machines was given by the petitioner.
\nThe supply was made in the year 1970. The first intalment was due on
\n26.8.1971 and thereafter the amount was to be paid in eight instalments in
\nfive years. Inspite of various demands the petitioner did not pay anything
\nexcept for initial deposit and service charges. When the recovery certificate
\nwas issued, the petitioner deposited Rs. 3600\/- in Tehsil Khurja and a
\nrequest was made that a sum of Rs. 2400\/- be credited towards the hire
\npurchase agreement, out of the price of the raw material for rescheduling
\nthe payment. In paragraph 16 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that the
\nletter written by the petitioner on 27.3.1972, was to the effect that unless
\nthe difficulties are removed in the machinery or they are replaced, the
\nCorporation was not entitled to charge interest. As per terms of the
\nagreement the instalments had fallen due. In para 22 it is stated that the
\nsupplier was the firm of the choice of the petitioner and in accordance with
\nthe agreement, if there was any defect in the machinery, the Corporation
\nwas not responsible. The defect pointed out by the petitioner in the
\nmachines was a dispute between him and the supplier. In para 28 it is stated
\nthat on the information that insptite of the offer made to the Tehsildar or the
\nDistrict Magistrate or the Corporation the petitioner did not surrender the
\npossession of the machines.\n<\/p>\n
       A copy of the hire purchase agreement was required to be filed by
\nthe Corporation. A supplementary counter affidavit was filed annexing the
\nagreement dated 26.8.1970. The hire purchase agreement provides in clause
\n2 (a) that the hirer shall on receipt of the property, inform within 30 days
\nthereafter to the owner the place where it has been installed or kept, and the
\nhirer shall not shift or remove the same from such premises without
\nobtaining prior permission in writing of the owner. Clause 2 (b) provides
\nthat the hirer shall keep the property in his own custody at the address given
\n                                      5<\/span><\/p>\n
in the agreement in good order, and repair and insured in the name of the
\nowner against fire, loss, damage or destruction and will not sell, mortgage,
\npledge, assign, let or otherwise deal with or part with the possession of the
\nproperty. The remaining terms of the hire purchase agreement relate to the
\nterms of the repayment. The description of the six machines to be financed
\nby the Corporation was given on page 3 of the agreement. On the same
\npage in the next paragraph the agreement witnesses as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
       “AND WHEREAS the property described in the schedule hereto has
\n       been purchased on the basis of the choice and desire of the Hirer
\n       and has been selected at his instance and is subject to the usual
\n       warranties of the supplier thereof regarding its type, make,
\n       specifications, capacity etc., with which the owner is or shall in no
\n       way be concerned or liable.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       At page 4 Clauses 4 (c) and 5 of the agreement are also relevant and
\nare quoted as below:-\n<\/p>\n
      “4 (c) The Hirer shall not be entitled to claim any
\n      damages\/compensation for such termination of the agreement and
\n      taking over of possession of the property by the owner or for any
\n      loss, damage, inconvenience that the hirer may directly or indirectly
\n      incur, as a result of such termination of agreement or taking over the
\n      said property by the owner.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      5.     The hirer shall be solely responsible for the proper upkeep of
\n      the property as detailed in the schedule. He shall look after the
\n      property by carrying out periodical repairs and normal overhaul.
\n      The owner, shall not be responsible for any repairs, whether major
\n      or minor and the repairs and upkeep expenses shall be borne solely
\n      by the hirer.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             The owner will have the right to bring to the notice of the
\n      hirer through its inspecting staff\/agents any deficiency in respect of
\n      the above and in the event of the Hirer failing to remedy such
\n      deficiency when called upon to do so the owner shall have the right
\n      to terminate this agreement and retake possession of the said
\n      property without prejudice to any claim of the owner for arrears of
\n      hire-rent or damages for breach of this Agreement, and the hirer
\n      shall not be entitled to claim any damages\/compensation.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Page 7 of the agreement provided in clause 11 (b) as follows:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       “(b) The property having been purchased by the Owner at the
\n       instance of the Hirer and recording to the choice and desire of the
\n       Hirer, if the Hirer shall of his own accord return the property to the
\n       Owner during the period of operation of this agreement the Owner
\n                                       6<\/span><\/p>\n
       reserves the right to sell the same by private auction or by any other
\n       means in its discretion, and if the resale value of the property falls
\n       short of the Hire Purchase Price less the instalments (excluding
\n       interest on instalments) paid by the Hirer, the resultant loss shall be
\n       made good by the Hirer by paying the amount to the Owner within
\n       thirty days of demand.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Clause 12 provides for return of the property, if the agreement is
\nterminated and clause 15 provides for reference of the disputes or
\ndifferences to the arbitration of the nominee of the Director of Industries of
\nthe State of U.P. Clauses 12 and 15 are quoted as below:-\n<\/p>\n
       12. In the event of the hiring being determined by the Hirer or by
\n       the owner under the provisions of this agreement, the Hirer shall
\n       forthwith return the said property to the owner, and the owner and
\n       its servants shall be entitled without any notice to enter upon any
\n       premises where the said property may be and seize and take
\n       possession thereof and the determination of the hiring as aforesaid
\n       shall not affect or prejudice any claim the owner may have against
\n       the Hirer for arrears of hire payments or for damages for breach of
\n       this agreement or the owner’s right to enforce such claim by action
\n       or otherwise.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       15. That any dispute or difference which may arise between the
\n       parties with regard to the construction, meaning and effect of this
\n       deed or any part thereof or any other matter under this agreement
\n       shall be referred to the arbitration of the nominee of the Director of
\n       Industries of the State of Uttar Pradesh.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Shri Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
\nmachines were supplied by the supplier of the Corporation. The machines
\nwere defective and thus the petitioner could not carry on the production. He
\nsubmits that the Corporation had carried out inspection and had agreed that
\nthe machinery be returned and new machines be purchased at a lesser price.
\nThe Corporation however illegally without complying with its promise
\ninitiated recovery of the hire purchase amount. The petitioner was all along
\nready and willing to return the defective machinery and for supply of the
\nmachinery in accordance with the specification for manufacture.\n<\/p>\n
       The terms of the agreement clearly provided that the machinery shall
\nbe supplied by the supplier of the choice of the hirer. The ownership of the
\nproperty however shall be with the Corporation. The petitioner has not
\n                                           7<\/span><\/p>\n
pleaded or brought any material on record to show that no production was
\ncarried out in the factory and that he suffered any losses. The profit and loss
\naccount and the balance sheets of the relevant period have not been brought
\non record. The correspondence clearly shows that when the instalments fell
\ndue, the petitioner as a hirer started protesting about the quality of the
\nmachinery. It is no doubt true that inspections were carried out and some
\ndefects were found, but it is difficult for the Court in the Writ Petition to
\ndecide whether the machineries were in such condition, that no production
\nwas possible or that the Corporation was at fault. The terms of the
\nagreement did not provide for any negligence of the Corporation, in case of
\nsupply of defective machineries by a supplier of the choice of the petitioner
\nas hirer. At one stage the petitioner offered to surrender the machines but
\nthat there is no further correspondence to show that the offer actually
\nmaterialised.\n<\/p>\n
       The amount due under the hire purchase agreement to the notified
\nCorporation can be recovered under the U.P. Public Moneys (Recovery of
\nDues) Act, 1972. Section 2 of the Act provides as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
       “2. Definitions- In this Act, unless the context otherwise
\n       requires-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (a) “Corporation” means the Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation
\n       established under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951, and
\n       includes any other Corporation owned or controlled by the Central
\n       Government or the State Government and specified in a notification
\n       issued in that behalf by the State Government in the Official
\n       Gazette;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (b)      “financial assistance” means any financial assistance-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (i) for establishing, expanding, modernising, renovating or running
\n       any industrial undertaking, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (ii) for purposes of vocational training, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (iii) for the development of agriculture, horticulture, animal
\n       husbandry or agro-industry, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (iv) for purposes of any other kind of planned development, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (v) for relief against distress;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (c) “Government Company” means a Government Company as
\n       defined in Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (d) “Industrial concern” has the meaning assigned to the
\n       expression in the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951, as
\n                                        8<\/span><\/p>\n
       amended from time to time;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (e) “Industrial undertaking” includes any undertaking for the
\n       manufacture, preservation, storage or processing of goods, or
\n       mining or the hotel industry, or the transport of passengers or
\n       goods, or the generation or distribution of electricity or any other
\n       form of power or for the development of any continuous area of land
\n       as an industrial estate;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Explanation- The expression “processing of goods” includes any
\n       art or process for producing, preparing or making an article by
\n       subjecting any material to a manual, mechanical, chemical,
\n       electrical or any other like operation;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (f) “banking company” means the State Bank of India constituted
\n       under the State Bank of India Act, 1955, a subsidiary bank as
\n       defined in the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959, a
\n       corresponding new bank constituted under the Banking Companies
\n       (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, or a banking
\n       company as defined in the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, (or a
\n       financial bank (or Central Bank as defnined in the Uttar Pradesh
\n       Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 not being a land development
\n       bank);\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (g) “State-sponsored scheme” means a scheme sponsored by way of
\n       financial assistance by the State Government under which the State
\n       Government either advances money to a banking company or a
\n       Government Company for the purpose of disbursing loans, advances
\n       or grants or for purposes of sale of goods on credit or hire-purchase
\n       or guarantees or agrees to guarantee the repayment of a loan,
\n       advance or grant or the payment of the price of goods sold on credit
\n       or hire purchase (and includes any other scheme of financial
\n       assistance, by a banking company or a Government company, which
\n       is declared to be a State sponsored scheme by the State Government
\n       by notification in the Gazette).”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       We further find that if there was any dispute, the same could be
\nreferred to the nominee of the Director of Industries. The petitioner did not
\nraise any dispute under the agreement to be decided by the Director of
\nIndustries. We do not find it appropriate, in the facts and circumstances of
\nthe case to refer the matter for arbitration or to relegate the petitioner to the
\nalternative remedies at this stage.\n<\/p>\n
       The writ petition is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Dt.25.1.2010
\nRKP\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Allahabad High Court Standard Nut Manufacturing vs Collector\/ Districts Magistrate … on 25 January, 2010 1 Judgment reserved on 7.12.2009 Judgment delivered on 25.1.2010 CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 12864 OF 1975 Standard Nut Manufacturers and another vs. The Collector\/District Magistrate and others Hon’ble Sunil Ambwani, J. Hon’ble Virendra Singh, J. This writ petition was […]<\/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":[9,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-176542","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allahabad-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nStandard Nut Manufacturing vs Collector\/ Districts Magistrate ... on 25 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\/standard-nut-manufacturing-vs-collector-districts-magistrate-on-25-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Standard Nut Manufacturing vs Collector\/ Districts Magistrate ... on 25 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/standard-nut-manufacturing-vs-collector-districts-magistrate-on-25-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=\"2010-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-01-27T04:22:02+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/standard-nut-manufacturing-vs-collector-districts-magistrate-on-25-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/standard-nut-manufacturing-vs-collector-districts-magistrate-on-25-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Standard Nut Manufacturing vs Collector\\\/ Districts Magistrate … on 25 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-27T04:22:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/standard-nut-manufacturing-vs-collector-districts-magistrate-on-25-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2933,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Allahabad High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/standard-nut-manufacturing-vs-collector-districts-magistrate-on-25-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/standard-nut-manufacturing-vs-collector-districts-magistrate-on-25-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/standard-nut-manufacturing-vs-collector-districts-magistrate-on-25-january-2010\",\"name\":\"Standard Nut Manufacturing vs Collector\\\/ Districts Magistrate ... on 25 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-27T04:22:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/standard-nut-manufacturing-vs-collector-districts-magistrate-on-25-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/standard-nut-manufacturing-vs-collector-districts-magistrate-on-25-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/standard-nut-manufacturing-vs-collector-districts-magistrate-on-25-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Standard Nut Manufacturing vs Collector\\\/ Districts Magistrate … on 25 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":"Standard Nut Manufacturing vs Collector\/ Districts Magistrate ... on 25 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\/standard-nut-manufacturing-vs-collector-districts-magistrate-on-25-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Standard Nut Manufacturing vs Collector\/ Districts Magistrate ... on 25 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/standard-nut-manufacturing-vs-collector-districts-magistrate-on-25-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-01-27T04:22:02+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/standard-nut-manufacturing-vs-collector-districts-magistrate-on-25-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/standard-nut-manufacturing-vs-collector-districts-magistrate-on-25-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Standard Nut Manufacturing vs Collector\/ Districts Magistrate … on 25 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-27T04:22:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/standard-nut-manufacturing-vs-collector-districts-magistrate-on-25-january-2010"},"wordCount":2933,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Allahabad High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/standard-nut-manufacturing-vs-collector-districts-magistrate-on-25-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/standard-nut-manufacturing-vs-collector-districts-magistrate-on-25-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/standard-nut-manufacturing-vs-collector-districts-magistrate-on-25-january-2010","name":"Standard Nut Manufacturing vs Collector\/ Districts Magistrate ... on 25 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-27T04:22:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/standard-nut-manufacturing-vs-collector-districts-magistrate-on-25-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/standard-nut-manufacturing-vs-collector-districts-magistrate-on-25-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/standard-nut-manufacturing-vs-collector-districts-magistrate-on-25-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Standard Nut Manufacturing vs Collector\/ Districts Magistrate … on 25 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\/176542","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=176542"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/176542\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=176542"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=176542"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=176542"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}