{"id":191761,"date":"1993-10-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1993-10-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aruby-sales-and-services-p-ltd-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-october-1993"},"modified":"2015-02-13T03:50:10","modified_gmt":"2015-02-12T22:20:10","slug":"aruby-sales-and-services-p-ltd-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-october-1993","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aruby-sales-and-services-p-ltd-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-october-1993","title":{"rendered":"Aruby Sales And Services (P) Ltd vs State Of Maharashtra on 28 October, 1993"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Aruby Sales And Services (P) Ltd vs State Of Maharashtra on 28 October, 1993<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1994 SCC (1) 531, \t JT 1993 (6)\t217<\/div>\n
Author: Y Dayal<\/div>\n
Bench: Yogeshwar Dayal (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nARUBY  SALES AND SERVICES (P) LTD.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE  OF  MAHARASHTRA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT28\/10\/1993\n\nBENCH:\nYOGESHWAR DAYAL (J)\nBENCH:\nYOGESHWAR DAYAL (J)\nKULDIP SINGH (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1994 SCC  (1) 531\t  JT 1993 (6)\t217\n 1993 SCALE  (4)280\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nYOGESHWAR DAYAL, J.- Civil Appeal No. 3477 of 1992 and other
\nconnected  matters raise a common question of law under\t the
\nBombay\tStamps\tAct, 1958 (hereinafter referred to  as\t‘the
\nAct’).\n<\/p>\n
2.The question involved in all these matters is whether a
\nconsent decree whereunder the title to immovable property is
\nconveyed   expressly   falls   under   the   definition\t  of
\n“conveyance”  under  Section 2(g) or an\t “instrument”  under
\nSection 2(1) of the Act or such consent decree falls outside
\nthe  ambit  and scope of the definition of  “conveyance”  or
\n“instrument” under the Act.\n<\/p>\n
3.According  to\t the  appellants before\t us  the  consent
\ndecree\tis not covered by the definition of “conveyance”  or
\n“instrument”.  The consent decrees in all these matters\t are
\nalmost identical.\n<\/p>\n
4.The Single Judge of the High Court while construing the
\naforesaid definitions held that the consent decree does\t not
\nfall  in  any of these definitions and,\t therefore,  such  a
\ndecree is not liable for payment of stamp duty.\n<\/p>\n
5.The  State of Maharashtra being dissatisfied\twith  the
\njudgment of the Single Judge dated December 10, 1990 went up
\nin Letters Patent Appeal.  The Division Bench took the\tview
\nthat  having  regard to the recital in\tthe  consent  decree
\nitself, the consent decree on its true interpretation, is  a
\nconveyance  itself  and\t is covered  by\t the  definition  of
\n“conveyance”  under  the  Act and at any  rate\tthe  consent
\ndecree\tfulfils all the requirements of transfer  under\t the
\nconsent decree in favour of the vendees i.e. the writ
\n 533<\/span>
\npetitioners\/appellants\tbefore us and such a consent  decree
\nwould be liable to stamp duty under Entry 25 of Schedule  to
\nthe Act.\n<\/p>\n
6.The Single Judge while holding the opposite view to the
\nview of the Division Bench had relied on the decision of the
\nBombay\t High  Court  in  Sharanbasappa\t Tippanna  Indi\t  v.
\nSanganbasappa Sridramappa Shahapur 1.\n<\/p>\n
7.It  will be noticed that Sharanbasappa case’ arose  out
\nof a reference made by a Subordinate Judge of Bijapur  under
\nSection 60 of the Stamp Act.  This reference was heard by  a
\nFull Bench.  The question which arose before the Full  Bench
\nwas as to whether a consent decree creating a charge on\t the
\nimmoveable property which was not subject-matter of the suit
\nrequires the stamp.  The suit itself was filed for  recovery
\nof loan advanced.  The suit was compromised in terms of\t the
\ncompromise and the defendants therein agreed that a  certain
\nsum  was  to  be paid by them and that sum  was\t charged  on
\nimmoveable   property  belonging  to  the   defendants\t and
\nconsequently  a\t charge\t was  created  by  consent  of\t the
\ndefendants.   The immoveable property was not  the  subject-
\nmatter\tof suit.  The question that fell  for  consideration
\nbefore\t the   Full  Bench  was\t as  to\t whether   in\tsuch
\ncircumstances  the consent decree is an\t instrument  whereby
\nfor  the  purpose of securing existing or  future  debt\t one
\nperson creates in favour of another a right in respect of  a
\nspecified  property.  Under the decree a charge was  created
\nand this was by the agreement between the parties.  The Full
\nBench took the view that the decree of such a nature is\t not
\nliable to stamp duty.\n<\/p>\n
8.The argument before the Full Bench was that the consent
\ndecree itself fell within the definition of “mortgage  deed”
\nbut the Full Bench took the view that the definition was not
\nwide  enough to include such a decree.\tThe Full  Bench\t was
\nalso  influenced  with the other provisions  of\t the  Indian
\nStamps Act, 1899 including Section 29 thereof which did\t not
\ncontemplate  a consent decree as a mortgage deed.  The\tFull
\nBench  had no occasion to consider the consent\tdecree\tlike
\nthe  present  case where such a decree was to operate  as  a
\n“conveyance”.\t It  was  thus\tnot  an\t authority-for\t the
\nproposition  that  where  immoveable  property\tis  in\tfact
\ntransferred under the consent decree, whether it amounts  to
\n“conveyance” within the meaning of the Act or not.\n<\/p>\n
9.It  may be stated that the definition\t of  “conveyance”
\nunder  Section\t2(g) of the Act came to be  amended  by\t the
\nMaharashtra Act No. 27 of 1985.\t This amendment was  brought
\ninto force on December 10, 1985 and, therefore, the same  is
\nnot  relevant in this case since the consent decrees are  of
\ndates prior to December 10, 1985.  The unamended definitions
\nof the words “conveyance” and “instrument” under the Act are
\nas under:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “2. (g) ‘conveyance’ includes a conveyance  on
\n\t      sale  and every instrument by which  property,
\n\t      whether moveable or immoveable, is transferred
\n\t      inter   vivos  and  which\t is  not   otherwise
\n\t      specifically provided for by Schedule 1;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1 AIR 1935 Bom 256: 37 Bom LR 346: 156 IC 960
\n534<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
2.(1)  ‘instrument’ includes every document by which  any
\nright\tor  liability  is,  or\tpurports  to   be   created,
\ntransferred,  limited, extended, extinguished  or  recorded,
\nbut does not include a bill of exchange, cheque,  promissory
\nnote, bill of lading, letter of credit, policy of insurance,
\ntransfer of share, debenture, proxy and receipt.”
\nThe consent decree recites thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “[A]nd  the suit being this day called on\t for
\n\t      hearing and final disposal and the  plaintiffs
\n\t      and   the\t  defendants  appearing\t  by   their
\n\t      respective  Advocates  and at this  stage\t the
\n\t      parties\thereto\t through   their   Advocates
\n\t      consenting to the following order and  decree,
\n\t      this Court by and with such consent doth order
\n\t      and  decree  that\t sale  dated  18th  day\t  of
\n\t      October, 1982 being Exhibit ‘B’ to the  plaint
\n\t      and do grant, sell, convey, assign,  transfer,
\n\t      release\tand   assure  in   favour   of\t the
\n\t      plaintiffs, the immovable property  comprising
\n\t      of the pieces or parcels of land…. And\tthis
\n\t      Court  by\t and with such consent\tdoth  record
\n\t      that  on\tor before execution of\tthe  consent
\n\t      terms herein, the plaintiffs have paid to\t the
\n\t      defendants  and the defendants  have  received
\n\t      from  the\t plaintiffs the sum of\tRs  9,55,000
\n\t      (Rupees Nine Lakhs Fifty-five thousand)  being
\n\t      the  full amount of the agreed purchase  price
\n\t      of the said property and the defendants do and
\n\t      each of them doth hereby admit and acknowledge
\n\t      receipt  of the said agreed purchase price  of
\n\t      the said property more particularly  described
\n\t      in  Exhibit ‘A’ to the plaint being  the\tsame
\n\t      property\tas described in the Schedule  hereto
\n\t      and  do hereby acquit, release  and  discharge
\n\t      the  plaintiffs from payment thereof and\tthis
\n\t      Court  by and with such consent  doth  further
\n\t      record that the defendants do and each of them
\n\t      doth  for themselves and for their  respective
\n\t      heirs,  executors and  administrators  declare
\n\t      that they have now no right, title,  interest,
\n\t      claim   or  demand  of  any  kind\t or   nature
\n\t      whatsoever  against the plaintiffs in  respect
\n\t      of   the\tsaid  property\t more\tparticularly
\n\t      described\t in the Schedule hereto or any\tpart
\n\t      or  portion  thereof  and in  respect  of\t the
\n\t      purchase price of the said property or portion
\n\t      thereof  and  this  Court\t by  and  with\tsuch
\n\t      consent both order and decree that this decree
\n\t      do  operate as the conveyance from  defendants
\n\t      in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of\t the
\n\t      said  property more particularly described  in
\n\t      Exhibit ‘A’ to the plaint.  And this Court  by
\n\t      and with such consent doth further record that
\n\t      prior  to the execution of the  consent  terms
\n\t      herein the defendants have handed over to\t the
\n\t      plaintiffs  complete vacant possession of\t the
\n\t      said  immoveable\tproperty  more\tparticularly
\n\t      described in Exhibit ‘A’ to the plaint.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
10.From the above recital in the consent decree there  can
\nbe  no manner of doubt that the parties to  the\t transaction
\nand  the  suit agreed that the consent decree  itself  shall
\noperate\t as  conveyance\t from defendants in  favour  of\t the
\nplaintiffs  in\trespect of the\tsuit  property\tparticularly
\ndescribed in Ex.  ‘A’ to the plaint.  Before the High  Court
\nit  was\t not  contested that the  consent  decree  does\t not
\noperate as “conveyance”.\n<\/p>\n
 535<\/span><\/p>\n
11.There is no particular pleasure in merely going by  the
\nlabel but what is decisive is by the terms of the  document.
\nIt is clear from the terms of the consent decree that it  is
\nalso an “instrument” under which title has been passed\tover
\nto  the\t appellants\/plaintiffs.\t  It  is  a  live   document
\ntransferring the property in dispute from the defendants  to
\nthe plaintiffs.\n<\/p>\n
12.Thus the position becomes clear that the consent decree
\nfalls  under  the  definitions of “conveyance”\tas  well  as
\n“instrument”.\n<\/p>\n
13.Normally  either the vendor or the vendee files a  suit
\nfor specific performance of the agreement to sell.  But\t the
\nsuit  is really directing the opposite party to comply\twith
\nthe  terms of the agreement.  If the plaintiff\tsucceeds  in
\nestablishing the agreement and that he was already ready and
\nwilling to perform his part of the agreement the court\twill
\nnormally  decree  the suit for specific performance  of\t the
\nagreement.    The  decree  itself  will\t provide  time\t for
\nperformance  by\t way of execution of sale deed\tand  if\t the
\ndefendant fails to execute the sale deed then the court gets
\nit  executed through its officer on behalf of the  judgment-
\ndebtor in favour of the decree holder.\tIn the present\tcase
\nall  that had happened is that instead of first\t decree\t for
\nspecific  performance of agreement to sell being passed\t and
\nlater on by execution the conveyance deed being executed  in
\npursuance thereof, by the compromise decree both the  stages
\nhave  been gone through at the initial stage of suit  itself
\nwhereby conveyance itself had been executed and the property
\nwas  transferred after the filing of the suit  for  specific
\nperformance of the agreement to sell.\n<\/p>\n
14.Mr\tGanesh,\t learned  counsel  for\t the   appellants,
\nsubmitted that it is only by the amendment that with  effect
\nfrom  December 10, 1985 the decree passed by the  court\t has
\nbeen  for the first time introduced in the definition  of  ”
\nconveyance”  and the said amendment does not refer to be  by
\nway  of clarification or declaration of that  position.\t  It
\nwas  thus  submitted  that prior to  amendment\tthe  consent
\ndecree was not included in the definitions of ”\t conveyance”
\nand  “instrument”.  The High Court proceeded on the  footing
\nthat the 1985 Amendment was clarificatory and declaratory.\n<\/p>\n
15.As\twe  have  noticed  earlier  the\t  definitions\tof
\n“conveyance”  and  “instrument” start  with  the  expression
\n“includes”  which shows that the definitions are very  wide.
\nIt appears to us that the amendment was made out of abundant
\ncaution and it does not mean that the consent decree was not
\notherwise  covered by the definitions given in Section\t2(g)
\nor  2(1)  of the Act.  As stated earlier it depends  on\t the
\nterms  thereof.\t Merely because an agreement is put  in\t the
\nshape of a consent decree it does not change the contents of
\nthe document.  It remains an agreement and it is subject  to
\nall  rights and liabilities which any agreement may  suffer.
\nHaving\ta stamp of court affixed will not change the  nature
\nof  the document.  A compromise decree does not stand  on  a
\nhigher\tfooting\t than  the agreement which  preceded  it.  A
\nconsent decree is a mere creature of the agreement on  which
\nit  is founded and is liable to be set aside on any  of\t the
\ngrounds which will invalidate the agreement.\n<\/p>\n
536<\/span><\/p>\n
16.We  are  thus  in agreement\twith  the  reasonings  and
\nconclusion  of the Division Bench in the impugned  judgment.
\nThe appeals consequently fail and are dismissed with costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Aruby Sales And Services (P) Ltd vs State Of Maharashtra on 28 October, 1993 Equivalent citations: 1994 SCC (1) 531, JT 1993 (6) 217 Author: Y Dayal Bench: Yogeshwar Dayal (J) PETITIONER: ARUBY SALES AND SERVICES (P) LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA DATE OF JUDGMENT28\/10\/1993 BENCH: YOGESHWAR DAYAL (J) BENCH: […]<\/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-191761","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nAruby Sales And Services (P) Ltd vs State Of Maharashtra on 28 October, 1993 - 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\/aruby-sales-and-services-p-ltd-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-october-1993\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Aruby Sales And Services (P) Ltd vs State Of Maharashtra on 28 October, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aruby-sales-and-services-p-ltd-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-october-1993\" \/>\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=\"1993-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-02-12T22:20:10+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aruby-sales-and-services-p-ltd-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-october-1993#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aruby-sales-and-services-p-ltd-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-october-1993\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Aruby Sales And Services (P) Ltd vs State Of Maharashtra on 28 October, 1993\",\"datePublished\":\"1993-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-12T22:20:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aruby-sales-and-services-p-ltd-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-october-1993\"},\"wordCount\":1858,\"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\\\/aruby-sales-and-services-p-ltd-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-october-1993#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aruby-sales-and-services-p-ltd-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-october-1993\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aruby-sales-and-services-p-ltd-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-october-1993\",\"name\":\"Aruby Sales And Services (P) Ltd vs State Of Maharashtra on 28 October, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1993-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-12T22:20:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aruby-sales-and-services-p-ltd-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-october-1993#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aruby-sales-and-services-p-ltd-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-october-1993\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aruby-sales-and-services-p-ltd-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-october-1993#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Aruby Sales And Services (P) Ltd vs State Of Maharashtra on 28 October, 1993\"}]},{\"@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":"Aruby Sales And Services (P) Ltd vs State Of Maharashtra on 28 October, 1993 - 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\/aruby-sales-and-services-p-ltd-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-october-1993","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Aruby Sales And Services (P) Ltd vs State Of Maharashtra on 28 October, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aruby-sales-and-services-p-ltd-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-october-1993","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1993-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-02-12T22:20:10+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aruby-sales-and-services-p-ltd-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-october-1993#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aruby-sales-and-services-p-ltd-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-october-1993"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Aruby Sales And Services (P) Ltd vs State Of Maharashtra on 28 October, 1993","datePublished":"1993-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-12T22:20:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aruby-sales-and-services-p-ltd-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-october-1993"},"wordCount":1858,"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\/aruby-sales-and-services-p-ltd-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-october-1993#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aruby-sales-and-services-p-ltd-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-october-1993","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aruby-sales-and-services-p-ltd-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-october-1993","name":"Aruby Sales And Services (P) Ltd vs State Of Maharashtra on 28 October, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1993-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-12T22:20:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aruby-sales-and-services-p-ltd-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-october-1993#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aruby-sales-and-services-p-ltd-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-october-1993"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aruby-sales-and-services-p-ltd-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-october-1993#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Aruby Sales And Services (P) Ltd vs State Of Maharashtra on 28 October, 1993"}]},{"@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\/191761","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=191761"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/191761\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=191761"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=191761"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=191761"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}