{"id":197758,"date":"1964-03-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1964-03-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-rajlal-manilal-co-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-10-march-1964"},"modified":"2016-04-27T18:09:25","modified_gmt":"2016-04-27T12:39:25","slug":"v-rajlal-manilal-co-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-10-march-1964","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-rajlal-manilal-co-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-10-march-1964","title":{"rendered":"V Rajlal Manilal & Co vs Union Of India And Anr on 10 March, 1964"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
V Rajlal Manilal & Co vs Union Of India And Anr on 10 March, 1964<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1964 AIR 1643, \t\t 1964 SCR (7)\t 97<\/div>\n
Author: N R Ayyangar<\/div>\n
Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B. (Cj), Wanchoo, K.N., Shah, J.C., Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala, Sikri, S.M.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nV RAJLAL MANILAL & CO.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n10\/03\/1964\n\nBENCH:\nAYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA\nBENCH:\nAYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ)\nWANCHOO, K.N.\nSHAH, J.C.\nSIKRI, S.M.\n\nCITATION:\n 1964 AIR 1643\t\t  1964 SCR  (7)\t 97\n CITATOR INFO :\n D\t    1987 SC1802\t (29)\n\n\nACT:\nMines\tand  Minerals-State  Government\t refuses  to   renew\nCertificate   of   approval-Review   petition\tto   Central\nGovernment   -Central\tGovernment   receives\treport\t and\ninformation from the State Government behind the back of the\nappellants-Central   Government\t  acting   quasi-judicially-\nViolation of natural justice -Mines and Minerals (Regulation\nand  Development)  Act,\t 1948  (No.   XLIII  of\t 1948)-Mines\nConcession Rules, 1949 rr. 57, 59.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  appellants constitute a partnership engaged  in  mining\nand they held a prospecting license as well as a certificate\nof  approval  from the State Government\t under\tthe  Mineral\nConcessions Rules, 1949 framed under the Mines and  Minerals\n(Regulation  and  Development)\tAct,  1948.   The   approval\ncertificate was granted for one year and until December 1955\nit  had\t been  renewed\tfrom year to  year  when  the  State\nGovernment  refused  to\t renew it on  the  ground  that\t the\npartners  composing  the firm had  changed.   Thereupon\t the\nappellants  applied under r. 57 of the\tMinerals  Concession\nRules to the Union Government for the review of the order of\nthe  State Government refusing to renew the  certificate  of\napproval.   While  this application Was\t pending  the  Union\nGovernment  corresponded  with\tthe  State  Government\t and\ngathered  information  and  received  the  latter's  remarks\n-regarding  the merits of the matter behind the\t appellants'\nback.  The request made by the appellants for copies of\t the\ncorrespondence\tand  for  an opportunity  to  be  heard\t was\nrefused\t by  the  Union Government.   Ultimately  the  Union\nGovernment refused the review application on the ground that\nthere was no valid ground to interfere with the decision  of\nthe  State  Government.\t  The present appeal  was  filed  on\nspecial\t leave\tgranted by this 'Court.\t On  behalf  of\t the\nappellants it was contended that the Union Government  while\ndisposing of an application under r. 57(2) in terms of r. 59\nacts as a quasi-judicial authority and the ,order which\t was\npassed\ttaking\tinto consideration the report of  the  State\nGovernment behind the appellants' back and without affording\na  reasonable  opportunity  for presenting  their  case\t was\ncontrary to natural justice and was therefore void.\nHeld:(i)  The  Union  Government when disposing\t of  an\t ap-\nplication for review under r. 59 is functioning as a  quasi-\njudicial authority.\nShivji\tNathubhai  v.  Union of India,<\/a>\t[1960]\tS.C.R.\t775,\nrelied ,on.\n(ii)Though Shivji Nathubhai's case was concerned with a case\nwhere  an order had been passed prejudicial to\tthe  respon-\ndents before the Central Government without affording them\nL\/P(D)1 SCI-4..\n98\nan  opportunity to meet the case of an applicant for  review\nthe  same  principle would apply even where a  petition\t for\nreview\tis rejected based on materials which were  not\tmade\navailable to the applicant for review.\n(iii)  Applying the above principle to the present case\t the\norder  of  the\tCentral\t Government  is\t vitiated  as  being\ncontrary  to the principles of natural justice in  that\t the\ndecision was rendered without affording to the appellants  a\nreasonable  opportunity of being heard which is a  sine\t qua\nnon of a fair hearing.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 11 5 &\t 116
\nof  1963.   Appeals by special leave from the  judgment\t and
\norders\tdated July 9, 1958, September 24, 1958 of the  Union
\nof India (Ministry of Steel, Mines and Fuel, New Delhi)\t and
\nthe Punjab High Court (Circuit Bench) at Delhi respectively.
\nG.S.  Pathak,  Rameshwar  Nath and S. N.  Andley,  for\tthe.
\nappellant (in both the appeals).\n<\/p>\n
S. G. Patwardhan and B. R. K. G. Achar, for respondent No. 1
\n(in both the appeals).\n<\/p>\n
I. N. Shroff, for respondent No. 2 (in C.A. No. 116\/1963).
\nMarch 10, 1964.\t The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nAYYANGAR,  J.-Civil  Appeal  No. 115  is  by  special  leave
\ngranted by this Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution and
\nis  against  an\t order of the Union of\tIndia  (Ministry  of
\nSteel,\tMines  and  Fuel) dated July 9,\t 1958  rejecting  an
\napplication  filed  by the appellants under rule 57  of\t the
\nMineral Concession Rules, 1949 to review an order passed  by
\nthe Government of Madhya Pradesh rejecting their application
\nfor  the renewal of the Certificate of Approval\t granted  to
\nthem.\tThe  appellants filed a petition to the\t High  Court
\nPunjab under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ
\nof  certiorari\tto  quash the above order of  the  Union  of
\nIndia.\t This  petition was dismissed by the High  Court  in
\nlimine and Civil Appeal No. 116 of 1963 is by special  leave
\nof this Court against this order of the High Court,  Punjab.
\nIt would thus be seen that both the appeals are directed  to
\nchallenge  the\tvalidity  of the same  order  and  we  shall
\ntherefore deal with them together.\n<\/p>\n
The  appellants, who constitute a partnership,\tare  engaged
\ninter  alia  in\t the  business of mining  and  they  held  a
\nprospecting  licence in the State of Madhya  Pradesh.\tThey
\nhold  concessions  in  regard  to  prospecting\tand  working
\nminerals  in  several areas of the State to the\t details  of
\nwhich it is not necessary to refer.  Under the scheme of the
\nMines  and Minerals (Regulation and Development)  Act,\t1948
\n(Act  No. XLIII of 1948) and the Mineral  Concession  Rules,
\n1949 framed thereunder, in order that a prospecting  licence
\nmay be granted to a person he has
\n99<\/span>
\nto hold a certificate of approval from the State  Government
\nconcerned  and\tsimilarly the rules provide that  no  mining
\nlease  shall  be  granted to any person\t unless\t he  held  a
\nsimilar\t certificate of approval.  To enable them to do\t the
\nprospecting  in\t lands in which they  had  obtained  mineral
\nconcessions,  the appellants applied for and  obtained\tfrom
\nthe  Government of Madhya Pradesh a certificate of  approval
\nunder  the Mineral Concession Rules from 1952 onwards.\t The
\nduration  of  the certificate is one calendar year  and\t the
\nsame has to be renewed every year, if it is to be in  force.
\nThe  original certificate granted to the appellants for\t the
\nyear  1952  was\t being renewed from year to year  and  as  a
\nresult\tthey held a valid certificate of approval up to\t the
\nperiod\tending\ton  December 31, 1955.\t Being\tdesirous  of
\nhaving the same renewed for the following calendar year 1956
\nthey made an application to the Government of Madhya Pradesh
\non November 22, 1955.  The information required by the\tform
\nof application prescribed by the rules was furnished and the
\nnecessary  documents  were filed and  this  application\t was
\nrecommended  by the District Officer, Bhandara.\t  The  State
\nGovernment,  however, by an order dated September  21,\t1956
\nrejected  the application, the reason given being  that\t the
\npartners  composing  the firm had changed.  This  order\t was
\ncommunicated  to  the  appellants on  October  6,  1956\t and
\nthereupon the appellants made an application on November 15,
\n1956  to the Union Government for a review of the  order  of
\nthe State Government under rule 57 of the Mineral Concession
\nRules.\t Rule  57(2)  which was invoked\t by  the  appellants
\nprovides:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Where  a\t State\tGovernment  has\t failed\t  to
\n\t      dispose of an application for grant of renewal
\n\t      of  a certificate of approval  or\t prospecting
\n\t      licence  or a mining lease within\t the  period
\n\t      prescribed  therefor  in\tthese  Rules,\tsuch
\n\t      failure shall, for the purpose of these rules,
\n\t      be  deemed to be a refusal to grant  or  renew
\n\t      such  certificate,  licence or lease,  as\t the
\n\t      case may be, and any person aggrieved by\tsuch
\n\t      failure  may, within two months of the  expiry
\n\t      of the period aforesaid, apply to the  Central
\n\t      Government for reviewing the case.”
\n\t      The procedure for review is laid down by\trule
\n\t      59 which ,reads:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      ,,Review-Upon receipt of such application, the
\n\t      Central Government may, if it thinks fit, call
\n\t      for the relevant records and other information
\n\t      from   the   State   Government,\t and   after
\n\t      considering   any\t explanation  that  may\t  be
\n\t      offered  by  the State  Government  cancel  or
\n\t      revise  the order of the State Government,  or
\n\t      pass such order as the Central Government\t may
\n\t      deem just and proper.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
L\/P(D)1SCI—4(a)
\n100<\/span>
\nThereafter  correspondence seems to have ensued between\t the
\nCentral\t Government and the Government of Madhya Pradesh  in
\nregard\tto  the propriety of granting  the  application\t for
\nreview.\t  The appellants having come to know from  a  letter
\naddressed to them by the Government of India that the  State
\nGovernment  had\t been  required to send a  report  of  their
\nremarks in connection with their application for review made
\nenquiries  as to what had happened and also  requested\tthat
\nthey  might  be\t informed  as  to  the\tprogress  of   their
\napplication and that they might be given an opportunity of a
\npersonal hearing at which they would be able to satisfy\t the
\nGovernment  about  the\tgenuineness  of\t their\tcase.\tSome
\nportions  of this correspondence between the  Government  of
\nIndia.\tand the Government of the State as to the merits  of
\nthe  appellants’  application are now on record\t but  it  is
\ncommon ground that the appellants were not informed of these
\ndocuments  prior  to the order now  impugned  rejecting\t the
\napplication  for  review was passed.  On July  9,  1958\t the
\napplication  of\t the appellants was rejected  by  the  Union
\nGovernment, the order stating:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The  Central  Government\t have  come  to\t the
\n\t      conclusion  that there is no valid ground\t for
\n\t      interfering   with   the\t decision   of\t the
\n\t      Government  of Madhya Pradesh  rejecting\tyour
\n\t      application  for renewal of a  certificate  of
\n\t      approval for the year 1956.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The appellants thereafter applied to the Government of India
\nrequesting for a copy of the report of the State  Government
\non  the\t basis of which the application was  rejected.\t The
\nreply  that the appellants received was that the  Government
\nof  India  regretted  their inability  to  accede  to  their
\nrequest.   It  is the validity of this order dated  July  9,
\n1958 that is challenged in appeal No. 115 of 1963.
\nMr.  Pathak, learned Counsel for the  appellants,  submitted
\nthat  the Union Government when disposing of an\t application
\nunder  s.  57(2) in terms of rule 59 is acting as  a  quasi-
\njudicial  authority  and the order which was  passed  taking
\ninto  consideration the report of the State  Government\t and
\nwithout their knowing the contents of the report and without
\naffording them a reasonable opportunity of presenting  their
\ncase was contrary to natural justice and was therefore void.
\nIn this connection learned Counsel relied on the decision of
\nthis Court: Shivji Nathubhai v. The Union of India<\/a>(1).\t Mr.
\nPathak is well-founded in his submission as to the nature of
\nthe  jurisdiction  exercised by the  Union  Government\twhen
\ndisposing of an application for review under Rule 59 and the
\ndecision referred to does
\n(1)  [1960] 2 S.C.R. 775.\n<\/p>\n
101<\/span><\/p>\n
support\t him  that the Central Government acting  under\t the
\nrule   referred\t to  is\t functioning  as  a   quasi-judicial
\nauthority.  It does follow therefore that they could not act
\non the basis of material as regards which the appellants had
\nno opportunity to make their representation.  No doubt,\t the
\ndecision  in  Shivji  Nathubhai v The  Union  of  India\t and
\nOrs.(1)\t was concerned with a case where an order  had\tbeen
\npassed\tprejudicial  to the respondents before\tthe  Central
\nGovernment without affording them an opportunity to meet the
\ncase  of  an  applicant for review but\tthe  same  principle
\nwould,\tin  our\t opinion, apply even where  a  petition\t for
\nreview\tis rejected based on materials which were  not\tmade
\navailable to the applicant for review.\n<\/p>\n
As  we\thave  already indicated, the  State  Government\t had
\nrefused renewal of the certificate of approval because\tthey
\nconsidered  that there had been a change in the\t composition
\nof  the\t firm which destroyed its identity.   On  the  other
\nhand,  the case of the appellants was that the terms of\t the
\npartnership deed made express provisions for the continuance
\nof the identity of the firm, notwithstanding changes in\t the
\npersons\t composing the firm by death, retirement or  because
\nof  the\t accession  of new members to  replace\tdeceased  or
\nretiring  partners or even otherwise.  If the report of\t the
\nState Government made any points against the representations
\nmade  by  the appellants, and these were  being\t taken\tinto
\nconsideration  by the Union Government, in common  fairness,
\nthe appellants were entitled to be informed as to what these
\nwere and an opportunity to point out how far they  militated
\nagainst the contentions raised by them.\n<\/p>\n
Learned\t Counsel for the respondent-Union of India, did\t not
\nseek to support the position taken by the Central Government
\nthat  they were justified in refusing to disclose  the\tcon-
\ntents of the report they obtained from the State  Government
\nwhich afforded them the factual basis on which they rejected
\nthe application for review.  We have therefore no hesitation
\nin  holding  that the order of the  Central  Government\t now
\nunder appeal is vitiated as being contrary to the principles
\nof  natural  justice,  in that\tthe  decision  was  rendered
\nwithout affording to the appellants a reasonable opportunity
\nof being heard which is a sine qua non of a fair hearing.
\nThe  learned Judges of the Punjab High Court  dismissed\t the
\npetition  filed before them under Art. 226,  apparently\t be-
\ncause  they  proceeded\ton the view  that  the\texercise  of
\njurisdiction of the Central Government under rules 57 and 59
\nof the Mineral Concession Rules was really administrative in
\ncharacter  so  that the reasonable opportunity\tthat  is  an
\nessential  requisite  of quasi-judicial\t procedure  was\t not
\nattracted to the
\n(1)  1960 2 S.C.R. 775.\n<\/p>\n
102<\/span><\/p>\n
case.  That was the view taken by that Court in\t the  Shivji
\nNathubhai  v. The Union of India and Ors.<\/a>(1) which  decision
\nwas reversed by this Court.  It might be mentioned that\t the
\ndecision  of  this Court was rendered  subsequent  to  their
\njudgment  now under appeal and therefore the learned  Judges
\nhad not the advantage of the pronouncement of this Court.
\nThe result is that the appeals are allowed and order of\t the
\nCentral Government dated July 9, 1958 and of the High  Court
\ndated September 24, 1958 are set aside.\t The Central Govern-
\nment will consider the review application afresh and dispose
\nof  the same in accordance with law and in the light of\t the
\nobservations contained in this judgment.  The appellants are
\nentitled to their costs in this Court (Hearing fee one set).
\nAppeals allowed.\n<\/p>\n
(1) [1960] 2 S.C.R. 775.\n<\/p>\n
103<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India V Rajlal Manilal & Co vs Union Of India And Anr on 10 March, 1964 Equivalent citations: 1964 AIR 1643, 1964 SCR (7) 97 Author: N R Ayyangar Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B. (Cj), Wanchoo, K.N., Shah, J.C., Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala, Sikri, S.M. PETITIONER: V RAJLAL MANILAL & CO. Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF […]<\/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-197758","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nV Rajlal Manilal & Co vs Union Of India And Anr on 10 March, 1964 - 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\/v-rajlal-manilal-co-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-10-march-1964\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"V Rajlal Manilal & Co vs Union Of India And Anr on 10 March, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-rajlal-manilal-co-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-10-march-1964\" \/>\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=\"1964-03-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-27T12:39:25+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\\\/v-rajlal-manilal-co-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-10-march-1964#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-rajlal-manilal-co-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-10-march-1964\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"V Rajlal Manilal & Co vs Union Of India And Anr on 10 March, 1964\",\"datePublished\":\"1964-03-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-27T12:39:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-rajlal-manilal-co-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-10-march-1964\"},\"wordCount\":1830,\"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\\\/v-rajlal-manilal-co-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-10-march-1964#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-rajlal-manilal-co-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-10-march-1964\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-rajlal-manilal-co-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-10-march-1964\",\"name\":\"V Rajlal Manilal & Co vs Union Of India And Anr on 10 March, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1964-03-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-27T12:39:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-rajlal-manilal-co-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-10-march-1964#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-rajlal-manilal-co-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-10-march-1964\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-rajlal-manilal-co-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-10-march-1964#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"V Rajlal Manilal & Co vs Union Of India And Anr on 10 March, 1964\"}]},{\"@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":"V Rajlal Manilal & Co vs Union Of India And Anr on 10 March, 1964 - 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\/v-rajlal-manilal-co-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-10-march-1964","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"V Rajlal Manilal & Co vs Union Of India And Anr on 10 March, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-rajlal-manilal-co-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-10-march-1964","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1964-03-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-27T12:39:25+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\/v-rajlal-manilal-co-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-10-march-1964#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-rajlal-manilal-co-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-10-march-1964"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"V Rajlal Manilal & Co vs Union Of India And Anr on 10 March, 1964","datePublished":"1964-03-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-27T12:39:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-rajlal-manilal-co-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-10-march-1964"},"wordCount":1830,"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\/v-rajlal-manilal-co-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-10-march-1964#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-rajlal-manilal-co-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-10-march-1964","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-rajlal-manilal-co-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-10-march-1964","name":"V Rajlal Manilal & Co vs Union Of India And Anr on 10 March, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1964-03-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-27T12:39:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-rajlal-manilal-co-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-10-march-1964#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-rajlal-manilal-co-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-10-march-1964"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-rajlal-manilal-co-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-10-march-1964#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"V Rajlal Manilal & Co vs Union Of India And Anr on 10 March, 1964"}]},{"@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\/197758","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=197758"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/197758\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=197758"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=197758"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=197758"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}