{"id":187743,"date":"2006-03-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-03-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sun-industries-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-17-march-2006"},"modified":"2016-06-18T04:08:16","modified_gmt":"2016-06-17T22:38:16","slug":"ms-sun-industries-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-17-march-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sun-industries-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-17-march-2006","title":{"rendered":"M\/S. Sun Industries vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 March, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">M\/S. Sun Industries vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 March, 2006<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 17\/03\/2006  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA       \n\nWRIT PETITION NO.9477 OF 2004     \n\nM\/s. Sun Industries,\nRep. by its Proprietor\nK.T. Ramaraja \nMudangiar Road, \nRajapalayam 626 117.            ..  Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The State of Tamil Nadu,\n   Rep. by its Secretary to Government,\n   Industries (MMD2) Department,\n   Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.\n\n2. The Commissioner of Geology &amp; Mining, \n   Guindy, Chennai 600 032.             ..  Respondents\n\n        Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for  the\nissuance  of  writ  of  Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records on the\nfile of the 1st respondent in his  order  in  G.O.(D)no.50  Industries  (MMD2)\nDepartment  dated  5.3.2004 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st \nrespondent to reconsider the  petitioners  renewal  application  on  its  own\nmerits  and  in accordance with law in respect of Limestone quarry situated in\nS.No.270\/2B over an extent of 5.29 acres in Pandapuli Village,  Sankaran  Koil\nTaluk, Tirunelveli District.\n\n!For Petitioner :  Mr.K.R.  Krishnan\n\n^For Respondents:  Mr.S.  Gomathynayagam    \n\n:J U D G M E N T \n<\/pre>\n<p>                The  facts  giving  rise  to  the present writ petition are as<br \/>\nfollows :-\n<\/p>\n<p>        The petitioner  was  initially  granted  mining  lease  for  quarrying<br \/>\nLimestone  over  an  extent of 5.29 acres in S.No.270\/2B in Pandapuli Village,<br \/>\nSankarankoil Taluk in Tirunelveli District for a period of three years.    The<br \/>\nlease  deed was executed on 18.8.1983 and the period of lease was to expire on<br \/>\n17.8.1986.  Subsequently, the petitioner applied for grant of renewal  of  the<br \/>\nsaid lease  for a period of 20 years.  The District Collector and the Director<br \/>\nof Geology and Mines recommended for grant of  renewal  for  a  period  of  10<br \/>\nyears.   Considering the recommendation, the Government granted extension over<br \/>\nthe said area for a period of 10 years with effect from 18.8.1986.  Thereafter<br \/>\nthe petitioner filed further application for renewal for further period of  10<br \/>\nyears.   However, such application for renewal was kept pending on some ground<br \/>\nor the other and ultimately it was rejected under  the  impugned  order  dated<br \/>\n5.3.2004 mainly on the ground that the area in question has been kept reserved<br \/>\nfor  exploitation  by  the  Government  through Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation<br \/>\nLimited by G.O.Ms.No.672 Industries ( MMD.2) dated 31.8.1999.  Such  order  is<br \/>\nbeing challenged in the present writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>                2.    The  main  contention  raised  by  the  learned  counsel<br \/>\nappearing for the petitioner is to  the  effect  that  the  basic  reason  for<br \/>\nrejection  of  the  renewal  application  is  untenable as G.O.Ms.No.672 dated<br \/>\n31.8.19 99 itself indicates that such reservation  in  favour  of  Tamil  Nadu<br \/>\nCements  Corporation  Limited would not be applicable to the area already held<br \/>\nunder the prospecting licence or mining lease.  It  is  further  submitted  in<br \/>\nthis  connection  that  without first deciding about the extension of lease in<br \/>\nfavour of the  petitioner,  such  land  should  not  have  been  reserved  for<br \/>\nexploitation by  Tamil  Nadu  Cements  Corporation  Limited.   Learned counsel<br \/>\nappearing for the petitioner has  pointed  out  that  as  per  the  provisions<br \/>\ncontained in Rule 24-B of the Mineral Concession Rules, the person is entitled<br \/>\nfor the period claimed by him not exceeding 20 years.\n<\/p>\n<p>                3.   In the counter affidavit it is contended that even though<br \/>\nthe lease could have been extended for a  maximum  period  of  20  years,  the<br \/>\nGovernment  in its discretion extended lease for a period of 10 years and such<br \/>\nlease must be taken to have been expired on expiry of 10 years from  1986  and<br \/>\ntherefore  it  cannot  be  said  that  the said area was not covered under the<br \/>\nnotification dated 31.8.1999, reserving the area for exploitation by the Tamil<br \/>\nNadu Cements Corporation Limited.\n<\/p>\n<p>                4.  Rule 24-B of the Mineral Concession Rules, being  relevant<br \/>\nis quoted hereunder:-\n<\/p>\n<p>        24-B.   Renewal  of  mining  lease  in  favour  of a person using the<br \/>\nmineral in his own industry.- Every person who is holding a mining lease for a<br \/>\nmineral which is used in his own industry shall be entitled for the renewal of<br \/>\nhis mining lease for a period not exceeding 20 years unless he applies  for  a<br \/>\nlesser period.<\/p>\n<p>                5.  The first renewal was granted on 29.8.1990 for a period of<br \/>\n10 years  with effect from 18.8.1986.  From such order it is apparent that the<br \/>\npetitioner had applied for renewal for a period of 20  years  and  not  for  a<br \/>\nlesser period.    A  fair  reading of Rule 24-B makes it clear that a right of<br \/>\nrenewal is vested with the lessee if he is  using  the  mineral  for  his  own<br \/>\nindustry.  However,  such  renewal  cannot exceed for more than 20 years.  The<br \/>\nexpression unless he applies for a lesser period  in  conjunction  with  the<br \/>\nexpression that such person shall be entitled for renewal of his mining lease<br \/>\nfor  a period not exceeding 20 years makes it clear that the right of renewal<br \/>\nis for a period applied for by the lessee,  but  no  discretion  is  with  the<br \/>\nGovernment to  renew  it for a period lesser than the period applied for.  The<br \/>\nonly embargo, however, is that the person cannot apply  for  extension  for  a<br \/>\nperiod not exceeding 20 years.\n<\/p>\n<p>                6.   It  is true that renewal was granted only for a period of<br \/>\n10 years and at that stage the petitioner did not complain.  The fact that the<br \/>\npetitioner did not complain does not mean the  petitioner  has  given  up  his<br \/>\nright for  renewal for a period of 20 years.  It cannot be said that there was<br \/>\na conscious waiver of right or acquiescence, particularly keeping in view  the<br \/>\nfact  that  a  person  while faced with situation with a State authority would<br \/>\nalways prefer to avoid the path of confrontation.  Therefore,  merely  because<br \/>\nthe  petitioner  had  kept silent at that stage and did not seek for immediate<br \/>\nclarification that the renewal should be for a period of 20 years,  it  cannot<br \/>\nbe construed to mean that the petitioner had given up his right of renewal for<br \/>\nthe period  permissible.    Since the petitioner had prayed for renewal for 20<br \/>\nyears, the renewal should have been for a period of 20 years.  Thereafter  the<br \/>\npetitioner  had filed an application for renewal for a period of 20 years well<br \/>\nbefore the expiry of  10  years.    This  should  have  been  held  to  be  in<br \/>\ncontinuation of  the  earlier  lease.  At that stage, the only defect which is<br \/>\npointed out related to the nature of the land and it was  indicated  as  if  a<br \/>\npart of  the  land  was Odai.  However, at the time of initial grant and first<br \/>\nrenewal, it was accepted by the authorities that the land was not a  perennial<br \/>\nsource of  water,  but only water was collected during rainy season.  If there<br \/>\nwas no objection at the time of initial grant or at the time of first renewal,<br \/>\nsuch reasoning cannot be used to  defeat  the  right  of  the  petitioner  for<br \/>\nrenewal for the maximum period permissible.\n<\/p>\n<p>                7.   The  notification  reserving  the land in favour of Tamil<br \/>\nNadu Cements Corporation Limited itself envisages that such reservation  would<br \/>\nnot  be applicable in case of areas already held under any prospecting licence<br \/>\nor mining lease.  The present application for renewal has been  rejected  only<br \/>\non the ground that such area has been reserved in favour of Tamil Nadu Cements<br \/>\nCorporation Limited.  Since the original period of renewal must be taken to be<br \/>\nfor  a  period  of  20  years,  it must be held that notification would not be<br \/>\napplicable to this land.\n<\/p>\n<p>                8.  For the aforesaid reasons, the present  writ  petition  is<br \/>\nallowed and  the  order  passed by the Government is quashed.  It is not known<br \/>\nwhether the petitioner has been permitted to carry on the  mining  during  the<br \/>\ninterregnum period.    If  he  has  been allowed to carry on the mining, lease<br \/>\nshall continue till the period of expiry of 20 years from 18.8.1986.  However,<br \/>\nif the petitioner has not been permitted to carry on the mining, he  shall  be<br \/>\npermitted  to  have  a  further  renewal  of  10  years from the date of fresh<br \/>\nissuance of the order passed by the appropriate  authority.    This  direction<br \/>\nshould  be  given  effect  to  within  a period of two months from the date of<br \/>\nreceipt of the order.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index :  Yes<br \/>\nInternet:  Yes<br \/>\ndpk <\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.  The State of Tamil Nadu,<br \/>\nRep.  by its Secretary to Government,<br \/>\nIndustries (MMD2) Department,<br \/>\nFort St.  George, Chennai 600 009.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The Commissioner of Geology &amp; Mining,<br \/>\nGuindy, Chennai 600 032.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court M\/S. Sun Industries vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 March, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17\/03\/2006 CORAM THE HON&#8217;BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA WRIT PETITION NO.9477 OF 2004 M\/s. Sun Industries, Rep. by its Proprietor K.T. Ramaraja Mudangiar Road, Rajapalayam 626 117. .. Petitioner -Vs- [&hellip;]<\/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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-187743","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>M\/S. Sun Industries vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/ms-sun-industries-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-17-march-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S. Sun Industries vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sun-industries-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-17-march-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-03-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-17T22:38:16+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sun-industries-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-17-march-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sun-industries-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-17-march-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S. Sun Industries vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 March, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-03-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-17T22:38:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sun-industries-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-17-march-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1198,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sun-industries-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-17-march-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sun-industries-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-17-march-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sun-industries-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-17-march-2006\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Sun Industries vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-03-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-17T22:38:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sun-industries-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-17-march-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sun-industries-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-17-march-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sun-industries-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-17-march-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Sun Industries vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 March, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"M\/S. Sun Industries vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/ms-sun-industries-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-17-march-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S. Sun Industries vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sun-industries-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-17-march-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-03-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-17T22:38:16+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sun-industries-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-17-march-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sun-industries-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-17-march-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S. Sun Industries vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 March, 2006","datePublished":"2006-03-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-17T22:38:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sun-industries-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-17-march-2006"},"wordCount":1198,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sun-industries-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-17-march-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sun-industries-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-17-march-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sun-industries-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-17-march-2006","name":"M\/S. Sun Industries vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-03-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-17T22:38:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sun-industries-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-17-march-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sun-industries-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-17-march-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sun-industries-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-17-march-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S. Sun Industries vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 March, 2006"}]},{"@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\/187743","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=187743"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/187743\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=187743"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=187743"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=187743"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}