{"id":18038,"date":"1966-10-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1966-10-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madras-vs-madurai-mills-co-ltd-on-4-october-1966"},"modified":"2018-09-15T06:52:55","modified_gmt":"2018-09-15T01:22:55","slug":"state-of-madras-vs-madurai-mills-co-ltd-on-4-october-1966","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madras-vs-madurai-mills-co-ltd-on-4-october-1966","title":{"rendered":"State Of Madras vs Madurai Mills Co., Ltd on 4 October, 1966"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Madras vs Madurai Mills Co., Ltd on 4 October, 1966<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 681, \t\t 1967 SCR (1) 732<\/div>\n
Author: V Ramaswami<\/div>\n
Bench: Ramaswami, V.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF MADRAS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMADURAI MILLS CO., LTD.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n04\/10\/1966\n\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMI, V.\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMI, V.\nSHAH, J.C.\nBHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA\n\nCITATION:\n 1967 AIR  681\t\t  1967 SCR  (1) 732\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1974 SC1380\t (31)\n\n\nACT:\nMadras\tGeneral-  Sales-tax  Act  (9  of  1939),  s.   12(4)\n(b)--Order  of\tAssessing authority-When merges in  that  of\nappellate  or  revisional  authority-Period  of\t limitation-\nStarting point.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nFor  the assessment year 1950-51 the respondent submitted  a\nreturn\tof  its net turnover to the  Deputy  Commercial\t Tax\nOfficer\t who was the assessing authority.  As he  determined\nthe net turnover at a higher amount the respondent  appealed\nto  the Commercial Tax Officer, who allowed the appeal\twith\nrespect\t to one item.  On 28th November 1952, the  assessing\nauthority issued a revised assessment order as per the order\nof  the Commercial Tax Officer.\t On 27th December 1952,\t the\nrespondent  presented a revision petition before the  Deputy\nCommissioner of Commercial Taxes raising the only objection,\nas a new -contention, that it should not have been  assessed\nto  tax on amounts collected by it by way of tax.   On\t21st\nAugust 1954, the Deputy Commissioner dismissed the  petition\non the ground that the respondent was not entitled to  raise\na  new Contention for the first time.  On 4th  August  1958.\nthe  Board  of\tRevenue issued a notice\t to  the  respondent\nstating\t that  it  proposed  to\t revise\t the  assessment  by\nincluding  in the net turnover a sum representing the  value\nof cotton purchased by the respondent from outside the State\nand  which was excluded by the assessing  authority.   After\nconsidering the respondent's objections the Board fixed\t the\nnet   taxable  turnover\t by  including\tthat  amount.\t The\nrespondent's appeal to the High Court was allowed.\nIn appeal by the State,\nHELD  :\t The  order of the Board  of  Revenue  was  invalid,\nbecause, under s. 12(4) (b) of the Madras General  Sales-tax\nAct, 1939, the Board of Revenue could invoke its  revisional\njurisdiction.only  within four years from the date on  which\nthe order of the assessing authority was communicated to the\nassessee. [734 G; 736 B-C]\n(i)The\tsubject-matter of the revision proceedings  before\nthe  Board of Revenue was only the revised assessment  order\nof the assessing authority dated 28th November 1952, and not\nthe Deputy Commissioner's order dated 21st August 1954. [736\nC]\nThe  objection\ttaken by the Board was with  regard  to\t the\nquestion of exemption allowed by the assessing authority  on\nthe  value  of\tcotton\tpurchased  from\t outside,  and\tthat\nquestion  was  not'  raised in revision\t before\t the  Deputy\nCommissioner of Commercial Taxes. [736 C-D]\n(ii)It\tcannot\tbe  said  that\tthe  order  of\tthe  Deputy\nCommissioner  of Commercial Taxes, in revision, is the\tonly\noperative decision in law on the basis that the order of the\ninferior  Tribunal  (the order of  the\tassessing  authority\ndated  28th  November 1952) merged in that of  the  superior\nTribunal  (order  of the Deputy Commissioner  of  Commercial\nTaxes, dated 21st August 1954). [736 F]\nThe  application  of the doctrine of merger depends  on\t the\nnature of the appellate or revisional order in each case and\nthe scope of the statu-\n\t\t\t    733\ntory  provisions  conferring  the  appellate  or  revisional\njurisdiction.\tIn the circumstances of the present case  it\ncould  not be said that there was a merger of the  order  of\nassessment  dated  November  28,  1952\twith  the  order  in\nrevision  dated 21st August 1954, because, the\tquestion  of\nexclusion  of the value of yarn purchased from\toutside\t the\nState  was  not the subject-matter of  revision\t before\t the\nDeputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. [737 A-B, F-H]\nCommissioner  of Income-tax, Bombay v. Amritlal\t Bhogilal  &\nCo.<\/a> [1959] S.C.R. 713 and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammed\nNooh,<\/a> [1958] S.C.R. 595, followed.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 539 of 1965.
\nAppeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nSeptember 13, 1961 of the Madras High Court in T.C. No.\t 162
\nof 1958.\n<\/p>\n
Bishan Narain and A. V. Rangam, for the appellant.
\nA. K. Sen and D. N. Gupta, for the respondent.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nRamaswami,  J.\tThis  appeal is\t brought  by  special  leave
\nagainst the judgment of the Madras High Court dated the 13th
\nSeptember, 1961 in T.C. 162 of 1958.\n<\/p>\n
TheMadurai  Mills  Co.,\t Ltd.,\t(hereinafter  called   the
\nrespondent) isa\t dealer\t in yarn, purchasing  raw  material
\nlike cotton staple-fibre, etc., manufacturing them into yarn
\nand  selling the yarn.\tIn the assessment year 1950-51,\t the
\nrespondent  showed a return of Rs.  15,27,61,883-8-4  before
\nthe  Deputy  Commercial\t Tax  Officer,\tMadurai\t who   after
\nscrutiny of the account books determined the net turnover at
\nRs.  15,44,09,109-3-1 1. The respondent preferred an  appeal
\nbefore\tthe  Commercial Tax Officer Madurai South.   It\t was
\ncontended  on  behalf of the respondent that a\tsum  of\t Rs.
\n1,44,294-14-4  was wrongly included by the  first  assessing
\nauthority  in the purchase value of cotton purchased  by  it
\nfor  production of yarn as that amount only represented\t the
\ncommission paid by it to Comorin Investment Trading  Company
\nLimited for the purchase It was also contended that  another
\nsum  of\t Rs.  81,546-0-1  which\t represented  sale  proceeds
\nrealised by selling empty drums etc. was not realisation  in
\nthe  course  of its business.  The  Commercial\tTax  Officer
\nupheld\tthe first contention of the respondent and  excluded
\nthe sum of Rs. 1,44,294-14-4 from the total turnover on\t the
\nground that the amount was commission paid by the respondent
\nfor  the  purchase  of cotton,\tbut  rejected  their  second
\ncontention  with regard to the sum of Rs. 81,546-0-  1.\t The
\nDeputy\tCommercial Tax Officer thereafter issued  a  revised
\nassessment.   The respondent presented a  revision  petition
\nbefore the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and
\n734<\/span>
\nthe  only objection which the respondent raised was that  it
\nshould not have been assessed to tax on amounts collected by
\nit  by\tway  ,of tax amounting\tto  Rs.\t 6,57,971-4-9.\t The
\nrespondent  did not raise any other objection regarding\t the
\norder of assessment of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer  or
\nthe  Commercial Tax Officer.  By his order, dated  the\t21st
\nAugust,\t 1954, the Deputy Commissioner of  Commercial  Taxes
\ndismissed the revision petition holding that the  respondent
\nwas not entitled to raise the contention for the first\ttime
\nand  that  even\t otherwise  the\t Madras\t General  Sales\t Tax
\n(Definition of Turnover and Validation of Assessments)\tAct,
\n1954,  permitted  the  inclusion  of  tax  in  the   taxable
\nturnover.   On\tthe 4th August, 1958, the Board\t of  Revenue
\nissued\ta notice to the respondent stating that it  proposed
\nto  revise  the\t assessment of\tthe  Deputy  Commercial\t Tax
\nOfficer,  Madurai, by including in the net turnover the\t sum
\nof  Rs. 7,74,62,706-1-6 as that amount was wrongly  excluded
\nby the assessing authority.  The respondent objected to\t the
\nproposed  revision  on the ground that\tthe  proceeding\t was
\nbarred by limitation under s. 12 of the Madras General Sales
\nTax  Act.  The respondent also submitted -that there was  no
\nwrong  exclusion  of the sum of Rs. 7,74,62,706-1-6  by\t the
\nDeputy Commercial Tax Officer in making the assessment.\t  By
\nits order, dated the 25th August, 1958, the Board of Revenue
\nover-ruled  both  these contentions of\tthe  respondent\t and
\nfixed  the  net taxable turnover as  Rs.  23,17,15,948-15-2.
\nThe respondent preferred an appeal to the Madras High  Court
\nagainst\t the  order of the Board of Revenue dated  the\t25th
\nAugust,\t 1958.\t The High Court allowed the  appeal  holding
\nthat  the Board of Revenue could not invoke  its  revisional
\njurisdiction  after the expiry of the period  of  limitation
\nunder s. 12 (4)(b) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act.\t The
\norder  of the Board of Revenue, dated the 25th August,\t1958
\nwas accordingly set aside.\n<\/p>\n
The  question  of  law to be determined in  this  appeal  is
\nwhether\t the  order of the Board of Revenue dated  the\t25th
\nAugust,\t 1958 was illegal because there was a  contravention
\nof  the rule of limitation laid down by s. 12(4)(b)  of\t the
\nMadras\tGeneral Sales Tax Act inasmuch as the order  of\t the
\nBoard of Revenue was made after a period of 4 years from the
\ndate  on  which\t the ,order of\tthe  Deputy  Commercial\t Tax
\nOfficer was communicated to the assessee.
\nSection 12 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 (Madras
\nAct 9 of 1939) (hereinafter called the Act) provides —
\n“(1) The Commercial Tax Officer may-\n<\/p>\n
(i)  suo motu, or\n<\/p>\n
(ii)  in cases in which an appeal does not he to  him  under
\nsection 11, on application-, call for and examine
\n735<\/span>
\nthe record of any order passed or proceeding recorded  under
\nthe  provisions\t of this Act by any officer  subordinate  to
\nhim,  for  the\tpurpose\t of satisfying\thimself\t as  to\t the
\nlegality or propriety of such order, or as to the regularity
\nof  such  proceeding, and may pass such order  with  respect
\nthereto as he thinks fit.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  The Deputy Commissioner may –\n<\/p>\n
(i)  suo motu, or\n<\/p>\n
(ii)in\trespect of any order passed or proceeding  recorded
\nby the Commercial Tax Officer under sub-section
\n(1)  or any other provision of this Act and against which no
\nappeal\thas been preferred to the Appellate  Tribunal  under
\nsection\t 12-A,\ton  application, call for  and\texamine\t the
\nrecord of any order passed or proceeding recorded under\t the
\nprovisions  of this Act by any officer subordinate  to\thim,
\nfor the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality  or
\npropriety  of  such order, or as to the regularity  of\tsuch
\nproceeding, and may pass such order with respect thereto  as
\nhe thinks fit.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  The Board of Revenue may-\n<\/p>\n
(i)  suo motu, or\n<\/p>\n
(ii)in\trespect of any order passed or proceeding  recorded
\nby  the\t Deputy Commissioner under sub-section\t(2)  or\t any
\nother provision of this Act and against which no appeal\t has
\nbeen  preferred to the Appellate Tribunal under s. 12-A.  on
\napplication,  call for and examine the record of  any  order
\npassed\tor proceeding recorded under the provisions of\tthis
\nAct  by\t any officer subordinate to it, for the\t purpose  of
\nsatisfying  itself as to the legality or propriety  of\tsuch
\norder,\tor as to the regularity of such proceeding, and\t may
\npass such order with respect thereto as it thinks fit.,
\n(4)  In relation to an order of assessment passed under this
\nAct-\n<\/p>\n
(a)  The  power of the Commercial Tax Officer  under  clause\n<\/p>\n
(i)  of sub-section (1) shall be exercisable only  within  a
\nperiod\tof three years from the date on which the order\t was
\ncommunicated to the assessee;\n<\/p>\n
(b)  The  power of the Deputy Commissioner under clause\t (i)
\nof sub-section (2) and that of the
\n736<\/span>
\nBoard  of Revenue under clause (i) of sub-section (3)  shall
\nbe  exercisable only within a period of four years from\t the
\ndate on which the order was communicated to the assessee”.
\nIt  was contended on behalf of the appellant that the  order
\nrevised by the Board of Revenue was the revisional order  of
\nthe  Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dated the\t21st
\nAugust, 1954 and not the order of the Deputy Commercial\t Tax
\nOfficer and    therefore the power of revision by the  Board
\nof Revenue was not  exercised\t beyond\t  the\tperiod\t  of
\nlimitation provided by s. 12 (4)   (b)\tof the Act.  We\t are
\nunable\tto  accept  this  argument  as\tcorrect.   The\tonly
\nsubject-matter of the revision proceedings before the  Board
\nof  Revenue was the revised assessment order of\t the  Deputy
\nCommercial  Tax\t Officer, Madurai dated the  28th  November,
\n1952.  The objection taken by the Board of Revenue was\twith
\nregard to the question of exemption allowed on the value  of
\nthe cotton purchased from outside the State of Madras.\t The
\nexemption  was allowed by the Deputy Commercial Tax  Officer
\nin  his\t order of assessment.  The question was\t not  raised
\nbefore\tthe Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and\t the
\nonly  point  raised  before  him  was  with  regard  to\t the
\ninclusion  of  the  amount  of tax  to\tthe  extent  of\t Rs.
\n6,57,971-4-9  in the taxable turnover.\tIt is manifest\tthat
\nthe  subject-matter of the revision proceedings\t before\t the
\nBoard of Revenue was the revised assessment order of the De-
\nputy   Commercial  Tax\tOfficer,  Madurai  dated  the\t28th
\nNovember,  1952.  It follows that the order of the Board  of
\nRevenue\t was made beyond the limit of four years  prescribed
\nby s. 12(4)(b) of the Act and it is, therefore, invalid.  On
\nbehalf\tof the appellant, the argument was put forward\tthat
\nif a statutory appeal is provided against an order passed by
\na  Tribunal, the decision of the appellate authority is\t the
\noperative  decision  in\t law.\tIt  was\t said  that  if\t the
\nappellate  authority modifies or reverses the order  of\t the
\nTribunal,  there was a merger of the latter order  with\t the
\nappellate order and it was the appellate order alone that is
\neffective  and can be enforced.\t But if the appellate  order
\naffirms the order of the Tribunal, there is a merger of\t the
\noriginal  order\t in  the  appellate  order  and\t it  is\t the
\nappellate order alone which is operative andcapable\t of
\nenforcement.  In support of this argument   reliance  was
\nplaced\tupon  the observation of Gajendragadkar, J.,  as  he
\nthen was in Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay v.   Amritlal
\nBhogilal  &  Co.<\/a>  (1) But the doctrine of merger  is  not  a
\ndoctrine of rigid and universal application and it cannot be
\nsaid that wherever there are two orders, one by the inferior
\nTribunal and the other by a superior Tribunal, passed in  an
\nappeal\ton  revision,  there is a fusion of  merger  of\t two
\norders\tirrespective of the subject-matter of the  appellate
\nor revisional order and the
\n(1)  [1959] S.C.R. 713 : 34 I.T.R. 130 at 136.\n<\/p>\n
737<\/span><\/p>\n
scope  of  the\tappeal\tor  revision  contemplated  by\t the
\nparticular statute.  In our opinion, the application of\t the
\ndoctrine   depends  on\tthe  nature  of\t the  appellate\t  or
\nrevisional order in each case and the scope of the statutory
\nprovisions   conferring\t  the\tappellate   or\t  revisional
\njurisdiction.\tFor example in Amritlal Bhogilal &  Co’s.(1)
\ncase it was observed by this Court that the order of  regis-
\ntration made by the Income-tax Officer did not merge in\t the
\nappellate  order of the Appellate Commissioner, because\t the
\norder  of registration was not the subject-matter of  appeal
\nbefore\tthe appellate authority.  It should be noticed\tthat
\nthe  order of assessment made by the Income-Tax\t Officer  in
\nthat  case  was a composite order viz., an,  order  granting
\nregistration  of  the firm and making an assessment  on\t the
\nbasis  of  the registration.  The appeal was  taken  by\t the
\nassessee to the Appellate Commissioner against the composite
\norder  of the Income-tax Officer.  It was held by  the\tHigh
\nCourt  that  the order of the  Income-tax  Officer  granting
\nregistration  to the respondent must be deemed to be  merged
\nin the appellate order and that the revisional power of\t the
\nCommissioner  of Income-tax cannot, therefore, be  exercised
\nin  respect  of it.  The view taken by the  High  Court\t was
\nover-ruled  by this Court for the reason that the  order  of
\nthe  Income-tax\t Officer  granting  registration  cannot  be
\ndeemed\tto  have  merged  in  the  order  of  the  Appellate
\nCommissioner in an appeal taken against the composite  order
\nof assessment.\tSimilarly, in The State of Uttar Pradesh  v.
\nMohammed  Nooh<\/a>(2),  it\twas  held by  this  Court  that\t the
\nprinciple of merger cannot apply in the case of an order  of
\ndismissal  of  a  public  servant  which  was  made  by\t the
\ndepartmental  Tribunal on the 20th April, 1948\tand  against
\nwhich the appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on
\nthe  7th  May,\t1949, and  the\trevisional  application\t was
\nrejected  on the 22nd April, 1950.  In the circumstances  of
\nthe present case, it cannot be said that there was a  merger
\nof the order of assessment made by the Deputy Commercial Tax
\nOfficer dated the 28th November, 1952 with the order of\t the
\nDeputy\tCommissioner  of  Commercial Taxes  dated  the\t21st
\nAugust, 1954 because the question of exemption on the  value
\nof  yarn purchased from outside the State of Madras was\t not
\nthe   subject-matter   of   revision   before\tthe   Deputy
\nCommissioner  of Commercial Taxes.  The only point that\t was
\nurged before the Deputy Commissioner was that the sum of Rs.
\n6,57,971-4-9  collected\t by  the respondent by\tway  of\t tax
\nshould\tnot be included in the taxable turnover.   This\t was
\nthe only point raised before the Deputy Commissioner and was
\nrejected  by  him  in  the  revision  proceedings.   On\t the
\ncontrary,  the\tquestion before the Board.  of\tRevenue\t was
\nwhether the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Madurai was right
\nin excluding from the net taxable turnover of the respondent
\nthe sum of Rs. 7,74,62,706-1-6 which was the value of cotton
\npurchased  by  the  respondent from  outside  the  State  of
\nMadras.\t We are
\n(1)[1959] S.C.R. 713:341.T.R. :130 at 136.
\n(2) [1958] S.C.R. 595.\n<\/p>\n
738<\/span><\/p>\n
‘therefore, of opinion that the doctrine of merger cannot be
\ninvoked in the circumstances of the present case.
\nFor  these  reasons, we hold that the judgment of  the\tHigh
\nCourt is right and this appeal must be dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
V.P.S.\t\t\t\t       Appeal dismissed.\n739<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Madras vs Madurai Mills Co., Ltd on 4 October, 1966 Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 681, 1967 SCR (1) 732 Author: V Ramaswami Bench: Ramaswami, V. PETITIONER: STATE OF MADRAS Vs. RESPONDENT: MADURAI MILLS CO., LTD. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04\/10\/1966 BENCH: RAMASWAMI, V. BENCH: RAMASWAMI, V. SHAH, J.C. BHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-18038","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Madras vs Madurai Mills Co., Ltd on 4 October, 1966 - 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\/state-of-madras-vs-madurai-mills-co-ltd-on-4-october-1966\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Madras vs Madurai Mills Co., Ltd on 4 October, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madras-vs-madurai-mills-co-ltd-on-4-october-1966\" \/>\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=\"1966-10-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-15T01:22:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madras-vs-madurai-mills-co-ltd-on-4-october-1966#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madras-vs-madurai-mills-co-ltd-on-4-october-1966\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Madras vs Madurai Mills Co., Ltd on 4 October, 1966\",\"datePublished\":\"1966-10-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-15T01:22:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madras-vs-madurai-mills-co-ltd-on-4-october-1966\"},\"wordCount\":2182,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madras-vs-madurai-mills-co-ltd-on-4-october-1966#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madras-vs-madurai-mills-co-ltd-on-4-october-1966\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madras-vs-madurai-mills-co-ltd-on-4-october-1966\",\"name\":\"State Of Madras vs Madurai Mills Co., Ltd on 4 October, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1966-10-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-15T01:22:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madras-vs-madurai-mills-co-ltd-on-4-october-1966#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madras-vs-madurai-mills-co-ltd-on-4-october-1966\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madras-vs-madurai-mills-co-ltd-on-4-october-1966#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Madras vs Madurai Mills Co., Ltd on 4 October, 1966\"}]},{\"@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":"State Of Madras vs Madurai Mills Co., Ltd on 4 October, 1966 - 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\/state-of-madras-vs-madurai-mills-co-ltd-on-4-october-1966","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Madras vs Madurai Mills Co., Ltd on 4 October, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madras-vs-madurai-mills-co-ltd-on-4-october-1966","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1966-10-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-15T01:22:55+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madras-vs-madurai-mills-co-ltd-on-4-october-1966#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madras-vs-madurai-mills-co-ltd-on-4-october-1966"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Madras vs Madurai Mills Co., Ltd on 4 October, 1966","datePublished":"1966-10-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-15T01:22:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madras-vs-madurai-mills-co-ltd-on-4-october-1966"},"wordCount":2182,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madras-vs-madurai-mills-co-ltd-on-4-october-1966#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madras-vs-madurai-mills-co-ltd-on-4-october-1966","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madras-vs-madurai-mills-co-ltd-on-4-october-1966","name":"State Of Madras vs Madurai Mills Co., Ltd on 4 October, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1966-10-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-15T01:22:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madras-vs-madurai-mills-co-ltd-on-4-october-1966#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madras-vs-madurai-mills-co-ltd-on-4-october-1966"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madras-vs-madurai-mills-co-ltd-on-4-october-1966#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Madras vs Madurai Mills Co., Ltd on 4 October, 1966"}]},{"@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\/18038","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=18038"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18038\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=18038"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=18038"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=18038"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}