{"id":190284,"date":"1975-01-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1975-01-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-tata-iron-steel-co-ltd-on-31-january-1975"},"modified":"2017-11-10T22:31:11","modified_gmt":"2017-11-10T17:01:11","slug":"union-of-india-ors-vs-tata-iron-steel-co-ltd-on-31-january-1975","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-tata-iron-steel-co-ltd-on-31-january-1975","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India & Ors vs Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd on 31 January, 1975"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Union Of India & Ors vs Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd on 31 January, 1975<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1975 AIR 769, \t\t 1975 SCR (3) 418<\/div>\n
Author: P Goswami<\/div>\n
Bench: Goswami, P.K.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nUNION OF INDIA & ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTATA IRON & STEEL CO.  LTD.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT31\/01\/1975\n\nBENCH:\nGOSWAMI, P.K.\nBENCH:\nGOSWAMI, P.K.\nRAY, A.N. (CJ)\nKHANNA, HANS RAJ\n\nCITATION:\n 1975 AIR  769\t\t  1975 SCR  (3) 418\n 1975 SCC  (1) 789\n\n\nACT:\nConstitution  of India, 1950 Art. 226, 227--Powers  of\tHigh\nCourt\tunder\tarticle\t 226  &\t 227   to   interfere\twith\nclassification of a product by taxing authorities.\nCentral\t Excise\t Act, 1944--Skelp and  strip  necessity\t for\nidentifiable test in fiscal statutes.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  respondent\t manufactures  hot  rolled  finished   steel\nproducts in rectangular cross-section, of thickness  varying\nbetween\t 16.2  mm  and 311.2 mm\t in   coils  (hereinafter  a\nreferred  to as the Product)  product as Strip\twhereas\t the\nappellant   classifies it as a skelp. to higher excise\tduty\nthan Strip.  The Assistant Collector  the product as  Skelp.\nOn  appeal  to the Collector of\t and rolled  The  respondent\ndescribes   the\t Sklip\tis subject  Central  Excise  treated\nCentral Excise, he confirmed it and in revision the  Central\nGovernment also approved.\nThe respondent filed a Writ Petition in the High Court.\t The\nHigh  Court accepted the contention of the  respondent.\t  On\nappeal by Special Leave the appellant contended before\tthis\nCourt : (i) That it is primarily for the Taxing\t Authorities\nto  determine the head or nature under which any  particular\ncommodity  fell.  (ii)\tThe Court  can\tinterfere  with\t the\ndecision  only\tif  it\tis  perverse.  if  there  were\t two\nconstructions  possible and if the Taxing Authority  accepts\none of them the Court cannot interfere.\nThe   respondent   submitted'.\t (i)   Assessment    without\napplication   of  an  identifiable  test  is  perverse\t and\narbitrary.  (ii)  In the present case. there  was  no  iden-\ntifiable  test before the Taxing Authorities.  There  is  no\ndifference between Skelp and Strip.\nDismissing the appeal,\nHeld  : There are large number of definitions out  of  which\none  can  be picked up to satisfy the  definition  of  Skelp\naccording  to some. authority and another definition to\t fit\nin with the concept of strip according to another authority.\nSince there is no statutory definition for Skelp and  Strip,\ndifferent  tests  have\tbeen resorted to  by  the  different\nauthorities.  The question arises whether the High Court was\nright in interfering with the orders under Art. 226 of\tthe:\nConstitution.\tIt  is\tnot for this Court to  come  to\t the\nconclusion  on\tfacts.\t The  absence  of  any\tidentifiable\nstandard  naturally  gives rise to the scope  for  arbitrary\nassessment at the hands of different authorities.  It is not\npossible  to  hold that: the High Court has  gone  wrong  in\ngranting the reliefs prayed for. [422D-F; 423C]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1527 of 1974.
\nAppeal by Special Leave from the Judgment & Order dated\t the
\n14th  December, 1973 of the Delhi High Court in\t Civil\tWrit
\nNo. 1678 of 1967.\n<\/p>\n
F.   S. Nariman, Addl.\tSol.  Gen. of India, D. N. Mukherjee
\nand R.\t  N. Sahthey, for the Appellants.\n<\/p>\n
N.   A. Palkhiala, Ravinder Narain, J. B. Dadachanji, O.  C.
\nMathur, K. J. John and K. R. Jhaveri, for the Respondent.\n<\/p>\n
419<\/span><\/p>\n
The Judgment of the, Court was delivered by-
\nGoswami,  J.  This  appeal  is by  special  leave  from\t the
\njudgment    of\t the   Delhi   High   Court   in   a\twrit
\napplication–there  under article, 226 of the  Constitution.
\nThe  respondent manufactures various other items hot  rolled
\nfinished  steel\t products in  rectangular  cross-section  of
\nthickness  varying  between  1.7 mm and 6.55  mm  and  width
\nvarying\t between  16.2 mm and 311.2 mm and rolled  in  coils
\nwhich  it  supplies to the, Indian Tube Company\t Limited  at
\nJamshedpur  for\t making\t tubes and  also  to  others.\tThis
\narticle\t is  subjected\tto Central  Excise  Duty  under\t the
\nCentral\t Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called\t the
\nAct).  The dispute between the respondent and the appellants
\nis  that  while the former describes the  said\tmanufactured
\nproduct as strip the appellants classify it as skelp.\tThis
\ndifference in classifying the product differently results in
\nfiscal misfortune to the respondent since skelp is subjected
\nto a higher Central Excise Duty than strip.
\nIt may be stated that during the period from April 24,\t1962
\nto  February 28, 1964, the respondent described its  product
\nas  skelp and it was subjected then to a lower rate  of,duty
\nFrom  February\t19, 1964, the respondent  claimed  that\t the
\naforesaid  product be classified as strip since\t there.\t had
\nbeen  a\t levy  of  higher duty\tfor  skelp.   The  Assistant
\nCollector,  Central Excise, Jamshedpur, who is\tthe  primary
\ntaxing authority, the Collector of Central Excise, Patna, in
\nappeal, and the Central Government in revision rejected\t the
\ncontention  of\tthe respondent by  successive  orders,\teach
\nauthority upon its own test of the definition of the product
\nas  skelp.  That led to the successful writ  application  of
\nthe respondent in the High Court resulting in this appeal.
\nIn  the\t forefront of his argument  the\t learned  Additional
\nSolicitor  General  for\t the  appellants  relying  upon\t two
\ndecisions  of this Court, namely, The Collector of  Customs,
\nMadras\tv.  K. Ganga Setty<\/a>(1) and V. V. Iyer  of  Bombay  v.
\nJasjit Singh, Collector of Customs and Another,<\/a>(2) submitted
\nthat  “it  is  primarily  for  the  taxing  authorities\t  to
\ndetermine  the\theads or entry under  which  any  particular
\ncommodity  fell; but that if in doing so, these\t authorities
\nadopted\t a  construction which no  reasonable  person  could
\nadopt  i.e., if the construction was preverse then it was  a
\ncase  in  which the Court was competent\t to  interfere.\t  In
\nother worlds, if there were two constructions which an entry
\ncould reasonably bear, and, one of them which was in  favour
\nof  Revenue  was adopted, the Court has no  jurisdiction  to
\ninterfere   merely   because   the   other    interpretation
\nfavourable to the subject appeals to the Court as the better
\none  to adopt’.\t On the other hand with equal  emphasis\t Mr.
\nPalkhivala  for the respondent submitted that an  assessment
\nwithout\t the application of an identifiable test is  nothing
\nbut perverse and arbitrary.  He submits that in the  present
\ncase  there  was  no identifiable  test\t before\t the  taxing
\nauthorities by which the
\n(1) [1963] 2 S. C. R. 277.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  [1973] 1 S.C.C. 148.\n<\/p>\n
420<\/span><\/p>\n
product of the, respondent could be held to be skelp and not
\nstrip\tsubjecting  the\t respondent  to\t a   heavier   duty.
\nAccording  to  the learned counsel there is  no\t difference.
\nbetween\t   sklep   and\t strip,\t  the\ttwo   items    being
\ninterchangeable.\n<\/p>\n
It may be, noted for our purpose that under section 3 of the
\nAct  Central  excise Duties are leviable  on  all  excisable
\ngoods  which  are produced or manufactured in India  at\t the
\nrates set out in the First Schedule.  Item No. 26AA in\tthat
\nSchedule relates to iron and steel products and mentions  in
\nsub-item  (iii) therein flats, skelp and strips showing\t the
\nrate  of  duty\tin the third column.  Under rule  8  of\t the
\nCentral\t Excise\t Rules, 1944, made under section 37  of\t the
\nAct,  the  Central  Government\tmay from  time\tto  time  by
\nnotification in the official gazette exempt, subject to such
\nconditions  as\tmay be specified in  the  notification,\t any
\nexcisable goods from whole or any part of the duty  leviable
\non such goods.\tIn exercise of the power under this rule the
\nCentral Government has made such exemptions in the rates  of
\nduty as have made it higher on skelp than on strip.
\nBefore\twe  proceed further we may notice  how\tthe  various
\nExcise\t  authorities\t dealt\t with\t the\tmatter\t  at
\ndifferent.stages.  The first order is that of the  Assistant
\nCollector  of Central Excise, Jamshedpur, which was on\tJune
\n17,  1964.   According\tto him “skelp is the  name  used  in
\nreference  to  a  plate of wrought iron or  steel  used\t for
\nmaking\tpipe or tubing by rolling the skelp into  shape\t and
\nlap  welding  or brevetting ,edges together and strip  is  a
\nterm  used  to\tdescribe a flat rolled\tproduct\t of  smaller
\ncross-section than sheet or bar.” He accordingly adopted the
\ndefinition given in Marymen’s Dictionary of Metallurgy.\t The
\norder  of the Collector of Central Excise in appeal made  on
\nOctober\t 24\/29,\t 1964, shows that the  authority  noted\t the
\ndefinition of strip as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Hot or cold rolled finished steel product  in
\n\t      rectangular cross-section of thickness below 5
\n\t      mm and of width below 800 mm and supplied,  in
\n\t      straight length”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This definition is substantially in. conformity with the one
\ngiven  by  the\tIndian\tStandards  Institution\t(ISI).\t The
\nappellate  authority held that “since the products have\t not
\nsatisfied   the\t  above\t specifications,  they\t have\tbeen
\ncorrectly,  classified as ‘skelp’ by. the Assistant  Collec-
\ntor.\tThen  comes  the order in  revision  of\t the  Central
\nGovernment of August 18, 1967.\tInter alia it was held\tthat
\n“the product does have bevel edge,-.; peculiar to skelp\t and
\nnot  found in strips.  Under the circumstances, there is  no
\ndoubt  whatever\t that the product in question  is  correctly
\nclassified as skelp”.\n<\/p>\n
From the above three orders it is clear that the authorities
\nwere  not  at  all certain about  a  uniform  definition  of
\n‘skelp’ distinguishing it from ‘strip.\tExtensive  arguments
\nwere  advanced at the bar with regard to the definitions  of
\nthere two words.  We may, therefore, look
\n421<\/span>
\nat  the various definitions to which our attention has\tbeen
\ndrawn.\t Since the appellants largely upon  the\t definitions
\ngiven by the Indian Standards Institution, “an expert body”,
\nwe will first note these definitions.  The ISI’s definitions
\nof  strip and skelp as given in IS 1956-1962  (amended\tupto
\nJuly  1968)  are  as  follows Upto 1965\t the  ISI  gave,  no
\ndescription  of\t strip.\t  It had defined skelp\tin  1962  as
\nfollows:–\n<\/p>\n
Skelp.\t“Hot  rolled  narrow  strip  with  rolled   (square,
\nslightly round\tor beveled) edge.\n<\/p>\n
Strip\t  .   A hot or cold rolled flat product,  rolled  in
\nrectangular  cross section of thickness 10 mm and below\t and
\nsupplied with mill, trimmed or sheared edge.\n<\/p>\n
(a) Narrow strip-strip (other than hoop) of width below\t 600
\nmm and supplied in straight length or in coil form.\n<\/p>\n
(b)  Wide Strip-Strip of width 600 mm above and supplied  in
\ncoil form only.”\n<\/p>\n
Upto 1965 the ISI gave no description of strip.
\nIt had defined skelp in 1962 as follows
\n“Hot  rolled. strip with square or slightly  beveled  edges,
\nused for making welded tubes”.\n<\/p>\n
In 1968 the ISI’s definition of skelp stands as follows
\n“Hot rolled narrow strip with rolled (square, slightly round
\nor beveled edge.,,
\nStrip  was defined by the ISI for the first time in 1965  as
\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n
“Coiled\t Strip-A hot or cold rolled flat product, rolled  in
\nrectangular cross section and supplied in coil form.
\nStrip\t  A  hot  or  cold rolled flat\tproduct,  rolled  in
\nrectangular cross section thickness below 5 mm and of  width
\nbelow 600mm and supplied in straight lengths”.
\nThe ISI’s definition of strip given in 1968 is as follows
\n\t      “A hot or cold rolled flat product, rolled  in
\n\t      rectangular  cross-section of thickness 10  mm
\n\t      and  below and supplied with mill, trimmed  or
\n\t      sheared edges.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (a)   Narrow strip-Strip (other than hoop)  of
\n\t      width  below 600 mm and supplied\tin  straight
\n\t      length or in coil form.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (b)   Wide  strip-Strip  of width 600  mm\t and
\n\t      above and supplied in coil form only”.\n<\/p>\n
Annexure  ‘J’  submitted by the respondent-along  ‘with\t its
\nrejoinder  affidavit  in the High Court at page 101  of\t the
\nrecord, gives various
\n422<\/span>
\ndefinitions  of skelp taken. from various  dictionaries\t and
\ntreatises  such\t as Hornor J. G. Dictionary of\tTerms,\tpage
\n323, year 1952; Brandt\tD.J.C.-Manufacture of Iron &  Steel,
\npages  318 and 319, year 1953; Henderson  J.C.-Metallurgical
\nDictionary,  page 192, year 1953; Backert A.O.L.  A.B.C.  of
\nIron  & Steel, page 1912, year 1925-5th\t edition;  Chamber’s
\nTechnical  Dictionary,- year 1967.  Similarly definition  of
\nstrip  is also given from these Dictionaries and books.\t  It
\nis  also  pointed  out that there is no\t category  of  skelp
\nmentioned in Brussels Nomenclature.  British Standards 2094,
\nPart 4; 1954, defines skelp as follows :\n<\/p>\n
\t       “Hot  rolled  strip with square\tor  slightly
\n\t      bevelled edges used for making welded tubes”.
\n\t      Chamber’s Technical Dictionary Revised Edition
\n\t      (Reprinted 1954) defines skelp as follows
\n\t      “Skelp-(P.  775) Mild steel strip\t from  which
\n\t      tubes  are made by drawing through a  bell  at
\n\t      welding temperature, to produce lap welded  or
\n\t      butt welded tubes”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
We may not add to the list but are satisfied that there\t are
\na large number of definitions out of which one can be picked
\nup  to\tsatisfy the definition of skelp\t according  to\tsome
\nauthority and another definition to fit in with the  concept
\nof strip according to another authority Since the duties  on
\nstrip and skelp are not the same, it is absolutely necessary
\nto  define the word skelp so that there can be no  doubt  or
\nconfusion  in the mind of either of the taxing authority  or
\nof the tax payer with regard to the tax liability qua  skelp
\nas opposed to strip.  Since, however. there is no  statutory
\ndefinition  of this controversial item different tests\thave
\nnaturally been resorted to by the different authorities\t and
\nthe same variation is discernible even in the affidavits  of
\nthe appellants submitted before the High Court.
\nThe short question, therefore, that arises for consideration
\nis whether in the above background the High Court was  right
\nin  interfering\t with the orders under article\t226  of\t the
\nConstitution.\tIt  is not for the High Court nor  for\tthis
\nCourt  to  come to a conclusion on facts as to\twhether\t the
\nproduct can truly come under the description of skelp.\tThat
\nundoubtedly  would  require some evidence be  taken  at\t the
\nlevel of the taxing authority provided, however, there is an
\nidentifiable,  uniform and determinate test by\twhich  skelp
\ncan  be properly distinguished from strip.  In the  mass  of
\ndocuments  filed  before  us  and  the\textensive  arguments
\naddressed at the bar with regard to the definitions  ‘culled
\nfrom  various  dictionaries, handbooks and  authorities,  we
\nare not at all surprised that the three authorities came  to
\nthe  same  conclusion  by depending upon  their\t own  chosen
\ntests.\tA particular type, of strip may according to certain
\ndefinitions.  be  skelp and according to others\t not  Skelp.
\nThis.  however, cannot be permitted in a fiscal\t legislation
\nwhich by all standards should adopt a clear definition of an
\nexcisable  item\t which\tis incapable of\t giving\t rise  to  a
\nconfounding contro-\n<\/p>\n
423<\/span><\/p>\n
versy as in this case unless the, matter is beyond doubt  in
\nview of the popular meaning, or meaning ascribed to the term
\nin  commercial parlance.  In absence of any clear  criterion
\nto determine what is skelp. and not strip, no useful purpose
\nwould be served by even remanding, the matter to the  Excise
\nauthorities for a decision after taking necessary  evidence.
\nIt  is\tonly  when a taxing law provides  for  a  clear\t and
\nunequivocal   test  for\t determination\tas  to\t whether   a
\nparticular product would fall under strip of skelp it may be
\npossible  for  the  authorities. to address  itself  to\t the
\nevidence  submitted  by the parties in order to\t come  to  a
\ndecision  on the basis of the test.  This is,  however,\t not
\npossible in this’ case in view of the fact that there is  no
\nidentifiable  standard.\t  The  best way\t is  to\t define\t the
\nproduct for the purpose of excise duty in approximate  terms
\ndemarcating clearly the distinction between. the two terms.
\nThe  absence of any identifiable standard would,  therefore,
\nnaturally  give rise, to the scope for arbitrary  assessment
\nat  the\t hands of different authorities.  Whether  this\t has
\nhappened  in  this case, as.’ complained by  the  respondent
\nciting\t the  instance\tof  the\t Hindustan  Steel   Company,
\nRourkela,  it  is not necessary for us to pursue  in  this,,
\nappeal.\t  We  are, therefore, unable to hold that  the\tHigh
\nCourt has. gone wrong in granting the reliefs prayed for.
\nThe  appellants strenuously emphasized upon the test  relied
\nupon  in  the Revisional order as to skelp  having  bevelled
\nedges which, according to them, is peculiar to skelp and not
\nto  strip.   But  this\tdoes not bear  scrutiny\t as  on\t the
\ncounter-affidavit of the Union of India in the High Court at
\npage 57 of this record it shows that “as regards tested\t Hot
\nrolled\tStrips the edges are never looked into, they can  be
\nbevelled, square or have Mill edge” (emphasis added).\tThis
\nis an admission of the appellants that strips may also\thave
\nbevelled edges.\n<\/p>\n
The two decisions relied upon by the appellants do not\tcome
\nto  their  aid in this case since there is  no\tidentifiable
\nstandard  or test to determine clearly which product can  be
\nskelp  and  not strip.\tIn Ganga Setty’s  case\t(supra)\t the
\ncontroversy  arose with regard to whether “feed\t oats”\tfell
\nwithin item 42 (fodder) or within item 32 (grain) of  parti-
\ncular circular.\t Dealing with the matter this Court observed
\nas follows:–\n<\/p>\n
\t      “..any  particular species of grain cannot  be
\n\t      excluded merely because it is capable of being
\n\t      used as cattle or horse feeds.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  decision  of the Customs authorities,  therefore,\tthis
\nCourt  held could not be characterized as Perverse  or\tmala
\nfide  calling for interference.\t Similarly  following  Ganga
\nSetty’s\t case  (supra) in Jasjit Singh’s  case\t(supra)\t the
\nconclusion  and\t findings of the  Customs  authorities\twere
\naccepted  a reasonable.\t In both the above cases there\twere
\ndefinite  tests\t by which the particular article  could\t be-
\nheld to fall under one item and not under the other and\t the
\nconstruction of the authorities
\n424<\/span>
\nwith  regard  to the scope of the  particular  entries\twas,
\ntherefore,  held  to  be  reasonable  and  not\tcalling\t for
\ninterference by the court.  The ,question that arises in the
\ninstant case is of a completely different nature as  pointed
\nout  above  there  being  no  identifiable  test  reasonably
\ncapable ,of distinguishing skelp from strip.
\nIn the result the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
P.H.P.\t\t\t  Appeal dismissed.\n425<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Union Of India & Ors vs Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd on 31 January, 1975 Equivalent citations: 1975 AIR 769, 1975 SCR (3) 418 Author: P Goswami Bench: Goswami, P.K. PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: TATA IRON & STEEL CO. LTD. DATE OF JUDGMENT31\/01\/1975 BENCH: GOSWAMI, P.K. […]<\/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-190284","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nUnion Of India & Ors vs Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd on 31 January, 1975 - 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\/union-of-india-ors-vs-tata-iron-steel-co-ltd-on-31-january-1975\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India & Ors vs Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd on 31 January, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-tata-iron-steel-co-ltd-on-31-january-1975\" \/>\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=\"1975-01-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-10T17:01:11+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\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-tata-iron-steel-co-ltd-on-31-january-1975#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-tata-iron-steel-co-ltd-on-31-january-1975\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India & Ors vs Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd on 31 January, 1975\",\"datePublished\":\"1975-01-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-10T17:01:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-tata-iron-steel-co-ltd-on-31-january-1975\"},\"wordCount\":2473,\"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\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-tata-iron-steel-co-ltd-on-31-january-1975#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-tata-iron-steel-co-ltd-on-31-january-1975\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-tata-iron-steel-co-ltd-on-31-january-1975\",\"name\":\"Union Of India & Ors vs Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd on 31 January, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1975-01-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-10T17:01:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-tata-iron-steel-co-ltd-on-31-january-1975#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-tata-iron-steel-co-ltd-on-31-january-1975\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-ors-vs-tata-iron-steel-co-ltd-on-31-january-1975#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India & Ors vs Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd on 31 January, 1975\"}]},{\"@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":"Union Of India & Ors vs Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd on 31 January, 1975 - 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\/union-of-india-ors-vs-tata-iron-steel-co-ltd-on-31-january-1975","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India & Ors vs Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd on 31 January, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-tata-iron-steel-co-ltd-on-31-january-1975","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1975-01-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-10T17:01:11+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\/union-of-india-ors-vs-tata-iron-steel-co-ltd-on-31-january-1975#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-tata-iron-steel-co-ltd-on-31-january-1975"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India & Ors vs Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd on 31 January, 1975","datePublished":"1975-01-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-10T17:01:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-tata-iron-steel-co-ltd-on-31-january-1975"},"wordCount":2473,"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\/union-of-india-ors-vs-tata-iron-steel-co-ltd-on-31-january-1975#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-tata-iron-steel-co-ltd-on-31-january-1975","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-tata-iron-steel-co-ltd-on-31-january-1975","name":"Union Of India & Ors vs Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd on 31 January, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1975-01-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-10T17:01:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-tata-iron-steel-co-ltd-on-31-january-1975#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-tata-iron-steel-co-ltd-on-31-january-1975"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-ors-vs-tata-iron-steel-co-ltd-on-31-january-1975#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India & Ors vs Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd on 31 January, 1975"}]},{"@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\/190284","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=190284"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/190284\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=190284"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=190284"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=190284"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}