{"id":177877,"date":"1985-04-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1985-04-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jacob-vs-additional-deputy-commissioner-on-10-april-1985"},"modified":"2019-03-17T16:17:40","modified_gmt":"2019-03-17T10:47:40","slug":"jacob-vs-additional-deputy-commissioner-on-10-april-1985","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jacob-vs-additional-deputy-commissioner-on-10-april-1985","title":{"rendered":"Jacob vs Additional Deputy Commissioner … on 10 April, 1985"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Jacob vs Additional Deputy Commissioner … on 10 April, 1985<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: (1986) 49 CTR Ker 146, 1986 158 ITR 596 Ker<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
SIVARAMAN  NAIR J. – This petition comes up on a reference by Subramonian  Poti  C.J., and  Paripoornan J.  The two questions referred are :<\/p>\n
“(1)  Whether  the  provision  in  the  second  proviso to section  34  that  an  order passed declining to interfere shall  not  be  deemed  to  be an order prejudicial to the assessee should not be read as applicable to the main part of  section  34  alone or whether it  should  be read as explaining  the  term  prejudicial  to  the  assessee in section 60(2) of the Act ?\n<\/p>\n
(2)  Where a  statute provides  a right  of revision to an assessee  by enabling  him to  seek such revision  by an application and he gets no relief in the revision, is it a case in which the order is prejudicial to the assessee ?”\n<\/p>\n
Under  section 60(2) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act,  hereinafter referred to as “the Act”, an assessee is entitled  to require the Commissioner to refer to the High Court  any  question arising out of an order under section 34  enhancing  an  assessment or  which  is  “otherwise prejudicial  to  him”.  Section  34 of the Act enables the Commissioner  to  call for and revise any proceeding of an authority  subordinate to him. This may be done either suo motu  or on  application of  an assessee. There  are two provision  limiting  the exercise of that power. The first proviso  enjoins  that an order prejudicial to an assessee shall  not  be  passed without hearing him or giving him a reasonable  opportunity of being heard. The latter proviso is to  the  effect that  “an order  passed declining  to interfere  shall  not be deemed to be an order prejudicial to  the  assessee”. It is the scope of this latter proviso that is the subject-matter of the original petition.\n<\/p>\n
To  answer the  questions in favour  of the assessee, we should  assume that the words “an order prejudicial to the assessee”  in  the  proviso  to  section  34  and  “an order………  otherwise  prejudicial  to him” in section 60(2)  of  the Act are capable of different meanings. This course  is definitely out of the ordinary in the matter of interpretation of statues; not that such a construction is impermissible.  We should, therefore, see whether there is any justification for assuming that almost the same set of words  in two  provisions of the  same statute should be given  different  meanings. No such reasons are pleaded by the  petitioner, nor are we referred to any decision which compel such a course to be adopted by us.\n<\/p>\n
The  only  reason which can be mentioned in support of the position that  the  words “an  order prejudicial  to the assessee” occurring in the second proviso to section 34 of the  Act  as referring only to the main part of section 34 and  not  as explaining similar words occurring in section 60(2) of  the Act is  that had the  assessee taken up  the order  of  assessment  in appeal under section 31 and in a second  appeal  under section 32 without success, he could have  taken  up  the  same  questions  in  reference under section  60(1), and there is no reason why a similar order passed in revision under section 34 declining to interfere with  the  assessment  shall  not be treated as capable of being the subject-matter  of a  reference under  section 60(2)  of  the  Act. This reasoning cannot hold good since section  60(1) enables the assessee or the Commissioner by application  to require the Appellate Tribunal to refer to the  High  Court  any  question  of law arising out of any order  passed under sub-section (5) of section 32, whereas under section 60(2) of the Act, only restricted categories of  orders  under  section  34  of the Act. viz., an order enhancing  the  assessment  or  an  order  under otherwise prejudicial  to  the  assessee are meant to be taken up in reference.  The  only question which therefore, arises for consideration is whether  we shall  read almost  similar phrases used in section 34 and section 60(2) differently.\n<\/p>\n
The  leading  case  on this points is CIT v. Tribune Trust [1948]  16  ITR  214  (PC), which considered the effect of similar words in sections 33 and 66 of the Income-tax Act, 1922. It was held (p. 226) :\n<\/p>\n
“An  order  made  by the Commissioner under section 33 can only be said to be prejudicial to the assessee when he is, as  a result of it, in a under review. If the assessee has a  complaint against  any assessment or  order made by a subordinate  officer,  he has the appropriate and specific remedy  which the  Act provides.  The Commissioner may act under  section  33  with  or without the invitation of the assessee;  if  he  does so without invitation, it is clear that  if  he  does  nothing  to worsen the position of the assessee,  the latter can acquire no right; the review may be  a purely departmental matter  of which the  assessee knows  nothing.  If,  on  the other hand, the Commissioner acts  at the  invitation of the  assessee and again does nothing  to worsen his position, there is no justification for  giving  him  a new  right  of  appeal……..  Thus reference  does not  lie from an  order under section 33 unless  that  order  is prejudicial to the assessee in the sense that he is in a worse position than before the order was made.”\n<\/p>\n
That  decision was followed by the Madras High Court in N. N.  Seshadrinathan  v.  State  of Madras [1966] 60 ITR 482 (Mad) [FB].  N. S. Kantan  v. Agrl. ITO  [1965] 58 ITR  53 (Mad)  and Kathirvelu Nadar v. Commr. of Agrl. I.T. [1968] 68  ITR 786 (Mad). A contrary view was taken by the Madras High  Court  earlier  in  the decision in Voora Sreeramulu Chetty  v. CIT  [1939] 7  ITR 263 (Mad) [FB], which was to the effect (p. 268) :\n<\/p>\n
“An  order which  dismisses an  application asking for the revision  of a  prejudicial order  must be deemed  to be prejudicial within the meaning of section 66(2).”\n<\/p>\n
In  Seshadrinathan  v.  State  of Madras [1966] 60 ITR 482 (Mad) [FB], a Full Bench of the Madras High Court, dealing with the same question, observed as follows (p. 485) :\n<\/p>\n
“It is true that a Full Bench of this court, consisting of five  judges,  interpreted this proviso in a different way in  Voora  Sreeramulu Chetty v. CIT [1939] 7 ITR 263 (Mad) [FB].  But that is no longer good law having regard to the authoritative  pronouncement  of  their  Lordships  of the Judicial  Committee in CIT v. Tribune Trust, Lahore [1948] 16 ITR 214 (PC).”\n<\/p>\n
In  Parvathi Sankaran  v. CIT  [1960] 40  ITR 586 (Ker), a Division  Bench  of  this court,  dealing  with  similar provisions  in  section  43 and  109(2)  of  the  Cochin Income-tax Act, had held that no order of the Commissioner dismissing  the  revision petition filed before him can be said  to be prejudicial to the assessee, however wrong may be  the reason given by him for the dismissal. Counsel for the  Revenue also relied upon the decision [1984] KLT (SN) 74,  rendered  by Paripoornan J. and Krishna Bhat v. Agrl. ITO [1979] KLT 518, rendered by one of us (Bhaskaran C.J.) in support of this submission.\n<\/p>\n
Counsel  for  the  petitioner, however, submitted that the second  proviso  to section 34(1) qualifies only the first proviso,  in that the requirement of notice and reasonable opportunity  of  being  heard  may not be applicable to an order of the Commissioner declining to revise the order of assessment.  It  is also submitted that this aspect of the matter was not covered by any of the decisions referred to above.  He,  therefore,  submits  that in the light of the reference by the Division Bench, this aspect of the matter may also be considered.\n<\/p>\n
Apart from the fact that this aspect is not covered by the order  of  reference, we also find that the counsel is not correct  in  his  submission  that  this  aspect  was  not considered  by any of the decisions referred to above. One of  the  specific pleas raised by counsel for the assessee unsuccessfully  in N. S. Kantan v. Agrl. ITO [1965] 58 ITR 53, 55 (Mad) was :\n<\/p>\n
“In  other  words,  it  was  contended  on  behalf  of the petitioner  that if a revision  petition is filed  under section  34  and  the  Commissioner dismissed the same, it would  certainly bean order prejudicial  to the assessee within  the  meaning of section 54 as the Commissioner has declined  to  entertain the same. It was further contended that  the  second proviso to section 34 has only a limited operation  on  the  first  proviso to section 34 and apart from  that, it has no other purpose, and cannot be used as a guide for determining the ambit of the right of revision provided  under section 54 of the Act. We see no substance in this contention.”\n<\/p>\n
A  decision  of a Division Bench of this court in Sankaran Nair v.  Commr. of Agrl.  I.T. [1973]  ILR 1  Ker 428, requires  to  be  noticed. It was held therein, that if an order  under section 34 declining to interfere in revision contained observations against  the assessee,  and which observations  were  capable  of  being  used  against  the assessee in the course of assessment proceedings, that may be  an  order  “otherwise  prejudicial  to  the assessee”, within the  meaning  of section  60(2) of  the Act.  The petitioner  has  no  case that apart from the rejection of his  application for revision, the order of the revisional authority  contained  any  observation which was otherwise prejudicial  to  the assessee. It is, of course, true that even  an  order declining to revise an order of assessment may be otherwise prejudicial to the assessee. But, no such plea having been  specifically raised  in this  original petition,  it is  not necessary  for us  to deal with that aspect of the matter.\n<\/p>\n
On the basis of the above discussion, we have to hold that an  order  passed  under section 34 of  the  Act, by the revisional  authority,  declining  to interfere, shall not ordinarily be  treated  as an  order prejudicial  to the assessee  under  section  60(2) of the Act except in cases where  it  is  pleaded and proved that prejudice is caused otherwise  than by  the mere  rejection of the application for revision.\n<\/p>\n
In  the  result, the original petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Jacob vs Additional Deputy Commissioner … on 10 April, 1985 Equivalent citations: (1986) 49 CTR Ker 146, 1986 158 ITR 596 Ker JUDGMENT SIVARAMAN NAIR J. – This petition comes up on a reference by Subramonian Poti C.J., and Paripoornan J. The two questions referred are : “(1) Whether the provision in […]<\/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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-177877","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJacob vs Additional Deputy Commissioner ... on 10 April, 1985 - 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\/jacob-vs-additional-deputy-commissioner-on-10-april-1985\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jacob vs Additional Deputy Commissioner ... on 10 April, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jacob-vs-additional-deputy-commissioner-on-10-april-1985\" \/>\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=\"1985-04-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-17T10:47:40+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\\\/jacob-vs-additional-deputy-commissioner-on-10-april-1985#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jacob-vs-additional-deputy-commissioner-on-10-april-1985\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jacob vs Additional Deputy Commissioner … on 10 April, 1985\",\"datePublished\":\"1985-04-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-17T10:47:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jacob-vs-additional-deputy-commissioner-on-10-april-1985\"},\"wordCount\":1644,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jacob-vs-additional-deputy-commissioner-on-10-april-1985#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jacob-vs-additional-deputy-commissioner-on-10-april-1985\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jacob-vs-additional-deputy-commissioner-on-10-april-1985\",\"name\":\"Jacob vs Additional Deputy Commissioner ... on 10 April, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1985-04-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-17T10:47:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jacob-vs-additional-deputy-commissioner-on-10-april-1985#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jacob-vs-additional-deputy-commissioner-on-10-april-1985\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jacob-vs-additional-deputy-commissioner-on-10-april-1985#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jacob vs Additional Deputy Commissioner … on 10 April, 1985\"}]},{\"@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":"Jacob vs Additional Deputy Commissioner ... on 10 April, 1985 - 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\/jacob-vs-additional-deputy-commissioner-on-10-april-1985","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jacob vs Additional Deputy Commissioner ... on 10 April, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jacob-vs-additional-deputy-commissioner-on-10-april-1985","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1985-04-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-17T10:47:40+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\/jacob-vs-additional-deputy-commissioner-on-10-april-1985#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jacob-vs-additional-deputy-commissioner-on-10-april-1985"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jacob vs Additional Deputy Commissioner … on 10 April, 1985","datePublished":"1985-04-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-17T10:47:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jacob-vs-additional-deputy-commissioner-on-10-april-1985"},"wordCount":1644,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jacob-vs-additional-deputy-commissioner-on-10-april-1985#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jacob-vs-additional-deputy-commissioner-on-10-april-1985","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jacob-vs-additional-deputy-commissioner-on-10-april-1985","name":"Jacob vs Additional Deputy Commissioner ... on 10 April, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1985-04-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-17T10:47:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jacob-vs-additional-deputy-commissioner-on-10-april-1985#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jacob-vs-additional-deputy-commissioner-on-10-april-1985"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jacob-vs-additional-deputy-commissioner-on-10-april-1985#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jacob vs Additional Deputy Commissioner … on 10 April, 1985"}]},{"@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\/177877","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=177877"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/177877\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=177877"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=177877"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=177877"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}