{"id":188309,"date":"1988-12-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1988-12-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govt-of-india-represented-by-vs-dhanalakshmi-paper-and-board-on-12-december-1988"},"modified":"2017-10-31T09:56:41","modified_gmt":"2017-10-31T04:26:41","slug":"govt-of-india-represented-by-vs-dhanalakshmi-paper-and-board-on-12-december-1988","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govt-of-india-represented-by-vs-dhanalakshmi-paper-and-board-on-12-december-1988","title":{"rendered":"Govt. Of India, Represented By … vs Dhanalakshmi Paper And Board … on 12 December, 1988"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Govt. Of India, Represented By … vs Dhanalakshmi Paper And Board … on 12 December, 1988<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1989 AIR 665, \t\t 1988 SCR Supl. (3)1051<\/div>\n
Author: L Sharma<\/div>\n
Bench: Sharma, L.M. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nGOVT. OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,MINISTRY OF FINANCE\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nDHANALAKSHMI PAPER AND BOARD MILLSTIRUCHIRUPALLI\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT12\/12\/1988\n\nBENCH:\nSHARMA, L.M. (J)\nBENCH:\nSHARMA, L.M. (J)\nMUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1989 AIR  665\t\t  1988 SCR  Supl. (3)1051\n 1989 SCC  Supl.  (1) 596 JT 1988 (4)\t677\n\n\nACT:\n    Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 Central Excise  Rules\n1944:\tFirst\tSchedule  Item\tNo.  17(3)\/Rule\t  8(1)\t and\nNotification dated March 1, 1964 Strawboard and\t pulpboard--\nExemption from duty--Clause (a) proviso (3) of\tNotification\nheld Ultra vires--Choice of date-- Relevancy of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The\t respondent-assessee  built  up a  factory  for\t the\nmanufacture  of\t paper\tand  paper  boards,  which   started\nproduction on 7.5.1964. The respondent claimed that the duty\nin  respect of the paper boards manufactured in the  factory\nduring\tthe period 7.5.1964 to June 1966 was payable at\t the\nconcessional  rates  allowed  by  the  Government  of  India\nnotification  dated 1st March, 1964. The claim\twas  however\nrejected  by the Revenue on the ground that the factory\t had\nnot  come  into\t existence  on or  before  the\t9th  day  of\nNovember, 1963 as stipulated in clause (a) of Proviso (3) of\nthe said notification.\n    The respondent's writ application before the High  Court\nwas allowed by the Single Judge and the appellant's  Letters\nPatent\tappeal was dismissed in limine. The High  Court\t has\naccepted  the respondent's contention that the date '9th  of\nNovember, 1963' mentioned in the notification was arbitrary.\n    On behalf of the Revenue it was contended that the\tdate\n(9.11.1963)  was  selected because an  earlier\tnotification\nbearing No. 110\t had required applications to be made on  or\nafter  9.11.1963. It was further contended that a  statutory\nprovision  had necessarily to be arbitrary in the choice  of\ndate and it could not be challenged on that ground.\n    On\tbehalf of the respondent it was contended  that\t the\nsaid  date did not have any significance whatsoever and\t did\nnot bear any rational relationship  to the object sought  to\nbe achieved by the notification.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 1051\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 1052\n    Dismissing the appeal, it was\n    HELD:  1. A rule which makes a difference  between\tpast\nand present cannot be condemned as arbitrary and  whimsical.\n[1056D]\n    2. In cases where choice of the date is not material for\nthe  object   to be achieved. the provisions  are  generally\nmade prospective in operation. [1056D]\n    3. The Revenue has not been able to produce notification\nNo. l 10. Unless the nature and contents of notification No.\n110  and  its\trelevance  with\t reference  to\tthe  present\nnotification are indicated, it is futile to try to defend of\nthe  choice  of\t the  date in  clause  (a)  on\tits   basis.\n[1055A;1056E]\n    4. In the present case, the benefit of concessional rate\nwas  bestowed  upon the entire group  of  assesses  referred\ntherein\t and  by  clause (a) of Proviso (3)  the  group\t was\ndivided\t into two classes without adopting  any\t differentia\nhaving\t a   rational  relation\t to  the   object   of\t the\nNotification. [1057F]\n    5. Clause (a) of the Proviso (3) of the Notification was\nultra  vires  and the benefit allowed  by  the\tNotification\nwould  be  available  to  the  entire  group  including\t the\nrespondent. [1057G]\n    Union  of India v. M\/s. P. Match Works<\/a> [1975]2  SCR\t 573\nJagdish\t  pandey  v. The chancellor,  University  of  Bihar.\n[19681\tI SCR 237 and\tU.P. M. T. S.N.A. Samiti,  Varanasi\nv. State of  U.P.,[1987]2 SCR 453, distinguished.\n    Dr .Sushma Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, [1985] Supp.SCC\n45;  and  D.S. Nakara v. Union of<\/a> lndia, [1983]\t I  SCC\t 365\nreferred  to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal  No.  6  of
\n1976.\n<\/p>\n
    From  the  Judgment and Order dated\t 12.11.1973  of the
\nMadras\tHigh Court in Writ Appeal No. 390 of 1969.
\n    V.C.  Mahajan,  C.V. Subba Rao and K.M.M. Khan  for\t the
\nAppellants
\n    K.N. Bhat and Vineet Kumar for the Respondent.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 1053
\n    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n    SHARMA, J. This appeal arises out of a writ\t application
\nallowed by the Madras High Court striking down Clause (a) of
\nthe  Proviso  (3) of the Notification dated the\t 1st  March,
\n1964  issued  by  the  Union of India  in  the\tMinistry  of
\nFinance,  under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules,\t1944
\nand    granting\t  consequential\t  relief.   The\t   aforesaid
\nnotification  granted  certain exemptions  from\t payment  of
\nexcise\tduty,  but  the\t benefit  was  denied  to  the\twrit
\npetitioner,  respondent\t before this Court, in view  of\t the
\nimpugned clause.\n<\/p>\n
    2.\t The   respondent  assessee,  a\t  business   concern
\nfunctioning  under the name of M\/s. Dhanalakshmi  Paper\t and
\nBoard Mills, decided to set up a factory for the manufacture
\nof paper and paper boards and  allied products, and obtained
\na  lease  of  certain premises in June 1963  and  put  up  a
\nsuitable  structure  for  the factory by  August  1963.\t The
\nnecessary machineries for running the factory, however, were
\nreceived in April 1964 and application for licence  therefor
\nwas filed on 27.4.1964. The licence was granted on  6.5.1964
\nand  production\t in the factory started the next  day,\ti.e.
\n7.5.1964.\n<\/p>\n
    3.\tThe respondent claimed that the duty in\t respect  of
\nthe  paper  boards manunactured in the\tfactory\t during\t the
\nperiod 7.5.1964 to June 1966 was payable at the concessional
\nrate  allowed by the Notification, relevant portion  whereof
\nreads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t    GOVERNMENT OF lNDIA
\n\t      MINISTRY OF FINANCE (DEPARTMENT
\n\t\t\tOF REVENUE)
\n\t   NEW DELHI,THE 1ST MARCH, 1964\/PHALGUNA
\n\t\t      11, 1885 (SAKA)
\n\t\t\tNOTIFICATION
\n\t\t       CENTRAL EXCISE
\n    CSR: In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (1)
\nof  Rule  8  of\t the Central  Excise  Rules,  1944,  and  in
\nsupersession of the notification of the Government of  India
\nin the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No. 57\/60
\nCentral Excise dated 20th April. 196() and No. 37\/63 Central
\nExcise\tdated the 1st March, 1963 the Central  Govt.  hereby
\nexempts\t strawboard  and  pulpboard  including,\t   greboard,
\ncalling\t under\tSub-item  (3) of Item No. 17  of  the  First
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 1054
\nSchedule  to  the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944  (1  of
\n1944),\ttakes  together\t up to the  quantity  prescribed  in
\ncolumn (1) of Table 1 (omitted), cleared by any manufacturer
\nfor home consumption during any financial year, from so much
\nof  the\t leviable  thereon as is in  excess  of\t the  amount
\nspecified  in the corresponding entry in column (2)  of\t the
\nsame Table:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    TABLE- 1 (being not relevant, omitted)
\n    Provided that–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    (1)…………………………..
\n    (2) …………………………………<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    TABLE-2 (being not relevant, omitted)
\n    (3)\t nothing contained in this notification shall  apply
\nto  a  manufacturer who applied or applies for a licence  on
\nor  after the 9th day of November 1963, unless he  satisfies
\nthe Collector of Central Excise–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    (a)\t that  the factory for which the licence was  or  is
\napplied\t for was owned on the 9th day of November, 1963,  by
\nthe applicant;”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    The\t  benefit  of  the  Notification  claimed   by\t the
\nrespondent  assessee  was denied by the\t appellants  on\t the
\nground\tthat the factory did not come into existence  on  or
\nbefore the 9th day of November, 1963, the date mentioned  in
\nthe  impugned  clause (a). The respondent  moved  the\tHigh
\nCourt  in  its writ jurisdiction under Article\t226  of\t the
\nConstitution,  and the application was allowed by a  learned
\nSingle\tJudge.\tAn appeal therefrom under Clause 15  of\t the
\nLetters Patent was dismissed in limine. The appellants\thave
\nby special leave challenged the decision before this Court.<\/p>\n
    3.\tThe  ground urged on behalf of\tthe  assessee  which
\nfound favour with the High Court is arbitrary nature of\t the
\ndate,  ‘9th  of November, 1963’ mentioned  in  the  impugned
\nclause\t(a). It has been contended that the said  date\tdoes
\nnot have any significance  whatsoever and does not bear\t any
\nrational relationship to the object sought to be achieved by
\nthe  Notification.  The learned counsel\t for  the  appellant
\ndefended  the  validity\t of the impugned  provision  on\t the
\nground\tthat  the date (9.11.1963) was selected\t because  an
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 1055
\nearlier\t  notification\t bearing  no.\t110   had   required
\napplications  to  be  made  on\tor  after  9.11.1963.\tThis
\nnotification  is  not  on the records of the  case  and\t the
\nlearned counsel has stated th8t he has also not been able to
\nexamine the same inspite of his unsuccessful request to\t the
\nDepartment   concerned for a copy thereof. He has  mentioned
\nabout this notification in his argument on the basis of\t the
\nreference in the judgment of the High Court. The High  Court
\njudgment  does\tnot  throw any light on the  nature  of\t the
\nnotification no. 110, and the learned counsel could not draw
\nany inference about its provisions from the judgment. It  is
\nnot  claimed that the said notification was before the\tHigh
\nCourt  or  the Judges had any occasion to  examine  it.\t The
\npresent\t appeal was filed in 1976 and even now\tthe  learned
\ncounsel\t for the appellants is not in a position  either  to
\nproduce\t it or to tell us what it was about. The  result  is
\nthat no explanation for the choice of the date in clause (a)
\nis forthcoming.\n<\/p>\n
    4. Sri V.C. Mahajan, learned counsel for the appellants,
\ncontended  that a statutory provision has necessarily to  be
\narbitrary in the choice of date and it cannot be  challenged
\non  that  ground. He relied upon the  observations  of\tthis
\nCourt in Union of India v. M\/s Parmeswaran Match Works etc.,
\n119751 2 SCR 573 (at page 578) as quoted below:\n<\/p>\n
    “To\t  achieve   that  purpose,  the\t  Government   chose
\nSeptember 4, 1967, as the date before which the\t declaration
\nshould be filed. There can be no doubt that any date  chosen
\nfor  the  purpose would to a certain extent,  be  arbitrary.
\nThat is inevitable”\n<\/p>\n
    Reliance  was  also\t placed on  Jagdish  Pandey  v.\t The
\nChancellor,  University of Bihar and Another,<\/a> [1968]  1\t SCR
\n237  and U.P.M. T.S.N.A. Samiti, Varanasi v. S ate of U.  P.
\nand  Others,  [1987] 2 SCC 453. We are afraid, the  argument
\nhas no merit and has to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
    5. In Union of India v. M\/s P. Match Works,<\/a> (supra)\t the
\nquestion   related  to\tconcessional  rate  of\texcise\tduty
\nleviable on the manufacture of match boxes. Match  factories
\nwere  classified  on the basis of their\t output\t during\t the
\nfinancial year and matches produced in different  categories
\nof  factories were subject to varying rates   of  dutyhigher
\nrate  being levied on matches produced in  factories  having
\nhigher\toutput. In pursuance of a change in the policy,\t the
\nmatch  factories were later classified as  mechanised  units
\nand non-mechanised  units and by a notification dated July ‘
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 1056
\nl, 1967 a concessional rate of\tduty was allowed in  respect
\nof units certified according to the provisions therein.
\n    The\t notification also contained a proviso. The  purpose
\nof   these    provisions  was  to  grant  the\tbenefit\t  of
\nconcessional rate of  duty only to small manufacturers. This
\nCourt  while analysing\tthe notification observed  that\t the
\nproviso\t “would\t have\tdefeated the very  purpose   of\t the
\nnotification,  namely,\tthe  grant of concessional  rate  of
\nduty  only  to small manufacturers”. In order to  cure\tthis
\nself-defeating\tposition,  the notification dated  July\t 21,
\n1967  was  amended  by Notification No. 205  of\t 1967  dated
\nSeptember 4, 1967. The latter notification mentioned the 4th
\nSeptember,  1967  as  the cut-off date. The  attach  on\t the
\nchoice of this date was met by the observations relied\tupon
\nby  the\t  learned  counsel for\tthe  appellants\t and  quoted
\nearlier.  It will be observed  that the date,  September  4,
\n1967, was the date on which the amending Notification itself
\nwas  issued.  The  crucial date,  therefore,  could  not  be
\ncondemned as one “taken from a hat’ . It was the date of the
\nnotification itself. A rule which makes a difference between
\npast  and  present  cannot be  condemned  as  arbitrary\t and
\nwhimsical.  In cases  where choice of date is  not  material
\nfor the object to be achieved, the provisions are  generally
\nmade  prospective  in operation. In that  sense\t this  Court
\nobserved  in  M\/s P. Match Works case that the\tdate  chosen
\nwould  to  a  certain  extent  be  arbitrary  and  this\t was
\ninevitable.  In the present case the  relevant\tNotification
\nwas  dated March 1, l964 and not 9.11.1963. It is true\tthat
\nas  mentioned  in  the\tHigh  Court  judgment\tsome   other
\nnotification  required applications referred therein  to  be
\nmade  on  or after ‘,h 11.1963, but unless  the\t nature\t and
\ncontents  of  that  notification  and  its  relevance\twith
\nreference  to the present notification are indicated, it  is
\nfutile to try to defend the choice of the date on its basis.
\nThe  appellants have miserably failed to do so.\t inspite  of
\nmore than a decade available to them\n<\/p>\n
    6.\tThe  other two cases relied upon On  behalf  of\t the
\nappellants  instead of supporting their case. indicate\tthat
\nthe   view   taken  by\tthe  High  Court   is\tcorrect\t  in
\nU.P.P.M.T.S.N.A.  Samiti,Varanasi  v.  State  of  U.P..\t and
\nOthers\t(supra)\t this Court observed in paragraph l  of\t the
\njudgment:  “The\t legislature  could  not  arbitrarily  adopt
\nJanuary\t 1984, as the cut-off date ……”  After  examining
\nthe circumstances of the case it was held in paragraph 2:\n<\/p>\n
    “We agree with the High Court that fixation of the\tdate
\nJanuary\t 3  1984  for purposes\tof  regularisation  was\t not
\narbitrary or irrational but had a reasonable nexus with\t the
\nobject sought to be achieved.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 1057
\n    Similarly\tin   Jagdish  Pandey  v.   The\t Chancellor,
\nUniversity of Bihar and\t Another<\/a> it was held:\n<\/p>\n
    “There is no doubt that if the dates are arbitrary, s. 4
\nwould  be  violative of Art. 14 for then there would  be  no
\njustification for singling out a class of teachers who\twere
\nappointed or dismissed etc. between these dates and applying
\ns.4  to them while the rest would be out of the\t purview  of
\nthat section .\n<\/p>\n
    The\t Court then proceeded to examine the purpose of\t the
\nlegislation  and the attendant circumstances and upheld\t the
\nsection\n<\/p>\n
    7. Another learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the
\nappellants for the final reply placed reliance on paragraphs
\n38,  44\t and  45 of the judgment in Dr.\t Sushma\t Sharma\t and
\nOthers\tv. State of RaJasthan and Others, [1985]  SUPP.\t SCC\n<\/p>\n
45.  In\t paragraph  38 it was said that wisdom\tor  lack  of
\nwisdom\tin  the action of Government or Legislature  is\t not
\njusticiable by the Court, and to find fault with the law  is
\nnot  to\t demonstrate  its invalidity. We  are  afraid,\tthis
\naspect\tis  wholly  irrelevant in the  case  before  us.  In
\nparagraph  44, the Case of Union of India v. M\/s. P.  .Match
\nWorks  Ltd.,  already  discussed above.\t was  mentioned.  In
\nparagraph  45  the  case of D.S.Nakara v.  Union  of  India,<\/a>
\n[1983] I SCC 305, was distinguished in the following words:\n<\/p>\n
    “But  as  we have mentioned\t hereinbefore,\tNakara\tcase
\ndealt  with  the problem of benefit to all  pensioners.\t The
\nchoice\tof the date of April l. 1979 had no nexus  with\t the
\npurpose and object of the Act. The facts in the instant case
\nare, however, different.”\n<\/p>\n
    In\tthe present case also benefit of  concessional\trate
\nwas  bestowed\tupon the entire group of  assesses  referred
\ntherein\t and  by  clause (a) of Proviso (3)  the  group\t was
\ndivided\t into two classes without adopting  any\t differentia
\nhaving\t a   rational  relation\t to  the   object   of\t the
\nNotification,  and  the benefit of one class  was  withdrawn
\nwhile  retaining  it  in  favour  of  the  other.  It  must,
\ntherefore,  be\theld  that the impugned clause\t(a)  of\t the
\nProviso\t (3) of the Notification in question is ultra  vires
\nand the benefit allowed by Notification is available to\t the
\nentire group including the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
    8. We, therefore, hold, There is no merit in this appeal
\nwhich is dismissed without costs.\n<\/p>\n
R.S.S.\t\t\t\t    Appeal dismissed.\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Govt. Of India, Represented By … vs Dhanalakshmi Paper And Board … on 12 December, 1988 Equivalent citations: 1989 AIR 665, 1988 SCR Supl. (3)1051 Author: L Sharma Bench: Sharma, L.M. (J) PETITIONER: GOVT. OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,MINISTRY OF FINANCE Vs. RESPONDENT: DHANALAKSHMI PAPER AND BOARD MILLSTIRUCHIRUPALLI DATE OF JUDGMENT12\/12\/1988 […]<\/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-188309","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nGovt. Of India, Represented By ... vs Dhanalakshmi Paper And Board ... on 12 December, 1988 - 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\/govt-of-india-represented-by-vs-dhanalakshmi-paper-and-board-on-12-december-1988\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Govt. Of India, Represented By ... vs Dhanalakshmi Paper And Board ... on 12 December, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govt-of-india-represented-by-vs-dhanalakshmi-paper-and-board-on-12-december-1988\" \/>\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=\"1988-12-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-31T04:26:41+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/govt-of-india-represented-by-vs-dhanalakshmi-paper-and-board-on-12-december-1988#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/govt-of-india-represented-by-vs-dhanalakshmi-paper-and-board-on-12-december-1988\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Govt. Of India, Represented By … vs Dhanalakshmi Paper And Board … on 12 December, 1988\",\"datePublished\":\"1988-12-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-31T04:26:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/govt-of-india-represented-by-vs-dhanalakshmi-paper-and-board-on-12-december-1988\"},\"wordCount\":1934,\"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\\\/govt-of-india-represented-by-vs-dhanalakshmi-paper-and-board-on-12-december-1988#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/govt-of-india-represented-by-vs-dhanalakshmi-paper-and-board-on-12-december-1988\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/govt-of-india-represented-by-vs-dhanalakshmi-paper-and-board-on-12-december-1988\",\"name\":\"Govt. Of India, Represented By ... vs Dhanalakshmi Paper And Board ... on 12 December, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1988-12-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-31T04:26:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/govt-of-india-represented-by-vs-dhanalakshmi-paper-and-board-on-12-december-1988#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/govt-of-india-represented-by-vs-dhanalakshmi-paper-and-board-on-12-december-1988\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/govt-of-india-represented-by-vs-dhanalakshmi-paper-and-board-on-12-december-1988#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Govt. Of India, Represented By … vs Dhanalakshmi Paper And Board … on 12 December, 1988\"}]},{\"@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":"Govt. Of India, Represented By ... vs Dhanalakshmi Paper And Board ... on 12 December, 1988 - 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\/govt-of-india-represented-by-vs-dhanalakshmi-paper-and-board-on-12-december-1988","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Govt. Of India, Represented By ... vs Dhanalakshmi Paper And Board ... on 12 December, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govt-of-india-represented-by-vs-dhanalakshmi-paper-and-board-on-12-december-1988","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1988-12-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-31T04:26:41+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govt-of-india-represented-by-vs-dhanalakshmi-paper-and-board-on-12-december-1988#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govt-of-india-represented-by-vs-dhanalakshmi-paper-and-board-on-12-december-1988"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Govt. Of India, Represented By … vs Dhanalakshmi Paper And Board … on 12 December, 1988","datePublished":"1988-12-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-31T04:26:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govt-of-india-represented-by-vs-dhanalakshmi-paper-and-board-on-12-december-1988"},"wordCount":1934,"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\/govt-of-india-represented-by-vs-dhanalakshmi-paper-and-board-on-12-december-1988#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govt-of-india-represented-by-vs-dhanalakshmi-paper-and-board-on-12-december-1988","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govt-of-india-represented-by-vs-dhanalakshmi-paper-and-board-on-12-december-1988","name":"Govt. Of India, Represented By ... vs Dhanalakshmi Paper And Board ... on 12 December, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1988-12-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-31T04:26:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govt-of-india-represented-by-vs-dhanalakshmi-paper-and-board-on-12-december-1988#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govt-of-india-represented-by-vs-dhanalakshmi-paper-and-board-on-12-december-1988"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govt-of-india-represented-by-vs-dhanalakshmi-paper-and-board-on-12-december-1988#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Govt. Of India, Represented By … vs Dhanalakshmi Paper And Board … on 12 December, 1988"}]},{"@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\/188309","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=188309"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/188309\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=188309"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=188309"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=188309"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}