{"id":202454,"date":"1976-03-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1976-03-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-vijaylakshmi-rice-mills-new-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-22-march-1976"},"modified":"2015-06-18T02:52:09","modified_gmt":"2015-06-17T21:22:09","slug":"sri-vijaylakshmi-rice-mills-new-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-22-march-1976","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-vijaylakshmi-rice-mills-new-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-22-march-1976","title":{"rendered":"Sri Vijaylakshmi Rice Mills, New … vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 March, 1976"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Sri Vijaylakshmi Rice Mills, New … vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 March, 1976<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1976 AIR 1471, \t\t 1976 SCR (3) 775<\/div>\n
Author: J Singh<\/div>\n
Bench: Singh, Jaswant<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSRI VIJAYLAKSHMI RICE MILLS, NEW CONTRACTORS COMPANY ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT22\/03\/1976\n\nBENCH:\nSINGH, JASWANT\nBENCH:\nSINGH, JASWANT\nRAY, A.N. (CJ)\nBEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH\n\nCITATION:\n 1976 AIR 1471\t\t  1976 SCR  (3) 775\n 1976 SCC  (3)\t37\n\n\nACT:\n     Rice (Andhra  Pradesh) Price  Control  (3rd  Amendment)\norder 1964, clause 2-Whether retrospectivity of substitution\ninferred in absence of express provision.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     Under s.  3 of  the Essential Commodities Act 1955, the\nrespondent passed  the\tAndhra\tPradesh\t Procurement  (Levy)\norder 1959,  requiring\tevery  miller  and  dealer  of\trice\n(including the appellants) to sell to the respondent certain\nspecified varieties  and quantities  of rice  at  controlled\nprice on requisition being served on him. Clause 2(a) of the\norder defined  \"controlled price\" as the maximum price fixed\nby the\tCentral Government  from time  to time under s. 3 of\nthe Act\t for the  sale of  rice. On  December 19,  1963, the\nCentral Government  Passed the\tRice (Andhra  Pradesh) Price\nControl order  1963, fixing the maximum price of akkulu rice\nat Rs.\t46.89  per  quintal.  The  appellants  sold  several\nquantities of akkulu rice to the respondent from January 26,\n1964, to  February 21, 1964, and were paid at the controlled\nrate. On  March 23,  1964 the  Central Government issued the\nRice (Andhra  Pradesh) Price  Control (3rd  amendment) order\n1964, and substituted Rs. 52.28 for Rs. 46.89 as the maximum\nprice per quintal, of akkulu rice. The appellant's claim for\nthe benefit  of the enhanced price for the earlier sales was\nrejected by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The appellants\nsucceeded before  the Subordinate  Judge,  Machilipatnam  in\ntheir suits  for recovery  of the difference between the two\ncontrolled prices but lost before the High Court, in appeals\npreferred by  the State\t of Andhra Pradesh. It was contended\nbefore this  Court that\t the prices  fixed by the Government\nare for\t the entire  season, and the appellants are entitled\npayment at  the amended\t rates, regardless of the dates when\nthe supplies  were made,  and  that  the  word\t\"substitute\"\ninfers retrospective effect.\n     Dismissing the appeals, the Court.\n^\n     HELD: In  the absence  of express\twords or appropriate\nlanguage from  which  retrospectivity  may  be\tinferred,  a\nnotification takes effect from the date it is issued and not\nfrom any  prior date. Statutes should not be construed so as\nto create  new disabilities  or obligations  or\t impose\t new\nduties in respect of transactions which were complete at the\ntime the Amending Act came into force. [778B-C]\n     (2)  The property\tin the\tgoods having  passed to\t the\nGovernment of  Andhra Pradesh  on the dates the supplies the\nmade, the  appellants had  to be paid only at the controlled\nprices obtaining on the dates the sales were effects and not\nat  the\t  increased  price   which   came   into   operation\nsubsequently.[778-D]\n     K. Appayya\t Shanbhague & Co. v. The State of Mysore and\nAnr. (Unreported  decision S.C.\t dated 20-4-1962); The Union\nof India.  represented by  the Secretary  Ministry of Food &\nAgriculture,  Government  of  India,  New  Delhi  v.  Kanuri\nDamodariah & Co. Alluri Venkatanarasiah (1968) 1 An. W.K. 81\nand Mani  Gopal Mitra  v. The State of Bihar (1969) 2 S.C.R.\n411, followed.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeals Nos. 805,
\n806 and 972-977 of 1973
\n     From the  judgment and  decree dated  the 8th June 1971
\nand 23rd  November 1971\t respectively of  the High  Court of
\nAndhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Appeal Suit Nos. 766 of 1968,
\n18 of 1969, 779, 780, 782 to 785 of 1968, respectively.\n<\/p>\n
776<\/span><\/p>\n
     F. S.  Nariman, J.\t V. K.\tGurunathan, T. V. Narasimhan
\nMurty and A. Subha Rao, for the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
     P. Ram Reddy and P. P. Rao, for the respondents.
\n     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     JASWANT SINGH,  J. This  batch of Appeals Nos. 805, 806
\nand 972 to 977 of 1973 by certificate from the judgments and
\ndecrees of  the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Appeals Nos.
\n766 of\t1968, 18  of 1969,  779 of 1968, 780 of 1968, 782 of
\n1968, 783  of 1971,  784 of  1968 and  785 of  1968 raise  a
\nsimple but  an interesting  question namely, whether for the
\nsupplies of  rice made\tby the\tappellants  in\tJanuary\t and
\nFebruary, 1964,\t they are  to be paid price according to the
\nrate specified\tin the\tRice (Andhra  Pradesh) Price Control
\n(Third Amendment)  order,  1964\t dated\tMarch  23,  1964  or
\naccording to the rate specified in the Rice (Andhra Pradesh)
\nPrice Control order as it stood in 1963. The question arises
\nin the following circumstances:\n<\/p>\n
     The appellants are millers and carry on the business of
\npaddy and  rice in  the State of Andhra Pradesh. On July 31,
\n1959, the  Governor of\tAndhra Pradesh\tin exercise  of\t the
\npowers conferred  on him  by  section  3  of  the  Essential
\nCommodities Act,  1955 (Central\t Act X\tof 1955) hereinafter
\nreferred to  as `the  Act’ made\t an order  called the Andhra
\nPradesh Rice  Procurement (Levy) order, 1959 clause 3 of the
\norder required\tevery dealer and every miller to sell to the
\nState  Government  on  requisition  served  on\thim  by\t the
\nrequisitioning authority  at the  controlled  price  (a)  40
\npercent of  the quantity of rice held in stock by him at the
\ncommencement of\t the order  and (b)  40 percent of the total
\nquantity of  rice purchased  by him every day beginning with
\nthe commencement  of the  order. Clause\t 2(a) of  the  order
\ndefined “controlled  price” as\tmeaning\t the  maximum  price
\nfixed under section 3 of the Act for the sale of rice by the
\nCentral Government from time to time (emphasis supplied). On
\nDecember 19, 1963, the Central Government in exercise of the
\npower conferred\t on it by section 3 of the Act made an order
\ncalled the  Rice (Andhra Pradesh) Price Control order, 1963,
\nwhich extended\tto the\tdistricts of Krishna, West Godavari,
\nEast Godavari,\tGuntur, Nizamabad,  Warangal and  Nellore in
\nthe State  of  Andhra  Pradesh.\t Clause\t (2)  of  the  order
\nprovided that  the maximum  prices at which the varieties of
\nrice specified\tin column  (1) of the Schedule to that order
\nwere  to  be  sold  in\twholesale  quantities  would  be  as
\nspecified in  the corresponding entries in column (2) of the
\nsaid Schedule.\tThe said  Schedule inter  alia provided that
\nAkkulu rice  would be  sold at\tRs. 46.89  per\tquintal.  In
\ncompliance with\t the requisitions  served  on  them  by\t the
\nrequisitioning authority of the State of Andhra Pradesh, the
\nappellants sold\t various quantities  of that variety of rice
\nto the\tGovernment of  that State  from January 26, 1964, to
\nFebruary 21,  1964, and\t were paid  at the aforesaid rate of
\nRs. 46.89 per quintal. By means of the Rice (Andhra Pradesh)
\nPrice Control  (Second Amendment)  order, 1964,\t dated March
\n20, 1964,  the Central\tGovernment amended sub clause (1) of
\nclause 2  of the  Rice (Andhra Pradesh) Price Control order,
\n1963 and  ordained that in the said sub-clause for the words
\n“the Schedule’,\t the words  and figures\t schedule I shall be
\nsubstituted. on
\n777<\/span>
\nMarch 23,  1964, the  Central  Government  issued  the\tRice
\n(Andhra Pradesh)  Price\t Control  (Third  Amendment)  order,
\n1964. Clause 2 of the order ran thus:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  2. In\t the Rice  (Andhra  Pradesh)  Price  Control
\n     order, 1963,  in Schedule\tI, for the varieties of rice
\n     and the  maximum prices thereafter, the following shall
\n     be substituted namely:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
____________________________________________________________
\nVarieties or rice\t\t\t\t     maximum
\nprice
\n\t\t\t\t\t\tper quintal.\n<\/p>\n
____________________________________________________________\n<\/p>\n
     1. Districts other than Nellore
\n\t       ..\t      ..\t     ..\t\t  ..\n<\/p>\n
     Akulu     ..\t      ..\t     ..\t       52-25\n\t       ..\t      ..\t     ..\t\t  ..\n<\/pre>\n
____________________________________________________________
\n     On\t the  issue  of\t this  order,  the  appellants\tmade
\nrepresentations\t to   the  Government\tof  Andhra   Pradesh
\nrequesting that\t for the  aforesaid supplies  of Akkulu rice
\nmade by\t them from  January 26\tto February  21, 1964,\tthey
\nshould also  be paid  at the enhanced price of Rs. 52.25 per
\nquintal. As the representations made by them did not evoke a
\nfavourable response,  they filed  suits in  the Court of the
\nSubordinate  Judge,   Machilipatnam  for   recovery  of\t the
\ndifference between  the controlled  prices specified  in the
\nRice (Andhra  Pradesh)\tPrice  Control\torder,\t1963,  dated
\nDecember 19,  1963 and\tRice (Andhra  Pradesh) Price Control
\n(Third Amendment)  order, 1964. The suits filed by them were
\ndecreed by  that Court.\t Aggrieved by  these  judgments\t and
\ndecrees the State of Andhra Pradesh preferred appeals to the
\nHigh Court  at Hyderabad  which were  allowed on  the ground
\nthat is\t the supplies  of rice\twere made  by the appellants
\nbefore\tthe  Rice  (Andhra  Pradesh)  Price  Control  (Third
\nAmendment) order, 1964, they were entitled only to the price
\nspecified in the Schedule to the Rice (Andhra Pradesh) Price
\nControl order,\t1963. Dissatisfied  with these judgments and
\ndecrees,  the\tappellants  applied  for  certificate  under
\nArticle 133(1)\t(a) of the Constitution which was granted to
\nthem.\n<\/p>\n
     The sole  question for  determination in these appeals,
\nas already  indicated, is  whether the appellants were to be
\npaid price  for the  supplies to  rice\tmade  by  them\tfrom
\nJanuary 26,  1964, to  February 21, 1964, at the rate of Rs.
\n46.89 per  quintal the\trate specified\tin the\tRice (Andhra
\nPradesh) Price\tControl order, 1963, dated December 19, 1963
\nor at the enhanced rate of Rs. 52.25 per quintal as fixed by
\nthe Rice  (Andhra Pradesh)  Price Control  (Third Amendment)
\norder, 1964 dated March 23, 1964.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. Nariman  appearing on\tbehalf of the appellants has
\nlaid great  emphasis on\t the word “substituted” occurring in
\nclause 2  of the  Rice (Andhra Pradesh) Price Control (Third
\nAmendment) order,  1964 and  has urged that the claim of the
\nappellants  cannot   be\t validity  ignored  Elaborating\t his
\nsubmission, counsel  has contended  that as the prices fixed
\nby the\tGovernment are\tmeant for  the\tentire\tseason,\t the
\nappellants have\t to be paid at the controlled price as fixed
\nvide  the   Rice  (Andhra   Pradesh)  Price  Control  (Third
\nAmendment) order, 1964, regardless
\n778<\/span>
\nof the\tdates an  which the  supplies were  made. We  cannot
\naccede to  this contention.  It is  no doubt  true that\t the
\nliteral meaning of the word “substitute” is “to replace’ but
\nthe question  before us\t is from which date the substitution
\nor replacement\tof the new Schedule took effect. There is no
\ndeeming clause\tor some\t such provision\t in the Rice (Andhra
\nPradesh) Price\tControl (Third\tAmendment)  order,  1964  to
\nindicate that  it  was\tintended  to  have  a  retrospective
\neffect. It  is a well recognized rule of interpretation that
\nin the absence of express words or appropriate language from
\nwhich retrospectivity, may be inferred, a notification takes
\neffect from  the date  it is  issued and  not from any prior
\ndate. The  principle is\t also  well  settled  that  statutes
\nshould not  be construed  so as\t to create new disability or
\nobligations or\timpose new duties in respect of transactions
\nwhich were  complete at\t the time the Amending Act came into
\nforce. (See Mani Gopal Mitra v. The State of Bihar.\n<\/p>\n
     The aforesaid  sales in  the instant  cases having been
\nmade by\t the appellants\t before the coming into force of the
\nRice (Andhra Pradesh) Price Control (Third Amendment) order,
\n1964, and  the property\t in the\t goods having  passed to the
\nGovernment of  Andhra Pradesh on the dates the supplies were
\nmade, the  appellants had  to be paid only at the controlled
\nprice obtaining on the dates the sales were effected and not
\nat  the\t  increased  price   which   came   into   operation
\nsubsequently. This view is in consonance with the provisions
\nof section  3  of  the\tAct  and  the  Andhra  Pradesh\tRice
\nProcurement (Levy)  order, 1959\t which clearly indicate that
\nthe price  payable  to\tthe  dealers  and  Millers  for\t the
\nsupplies of rice made by them is the control price obtaining
\non the\tdate when the sale is made. Similar view is taken in
\nthe unreported\tdecision dated\tApril 20, 1962 of this Court
\nin K.  Appayya Shambhague  and Co.  v. The State of Mysore &
\nAnr. where  it was  laid down  that  the  order\t made  under
\nsection 3(2)  (f) of  the Act  are offers  of sale which the
\nperson on  whom a requisition is served has no option but to
\naccept and  that the  price that  has  to  be  paid  is\t the
\ncontrolled price  fixed by the Government under section 3(2)\n<\/p>\n
(c) of\tthe Act on the date when he goods are ascertained or
\nwhen the  property in  the goods  passes to  the buyer. This
\ndecision was followed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in
\nThe Union  of India,  represented by the Secretary, Ministry
\nof Food\t and Agriculture,  Government of India, New Delhi v.
\nKanuri Damodariah & Co. Alluri Venkatanarasiah, where it was
\nheld that  an order  under section  3(2) (f)  amounts to  an
\nagreement for  sale and the price payable for the quantities
\nof rice\t supplied is  a price payable in accordance with the
\nprice notified\tunder the  provisions of section 3(3) of the
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  instant cases, the sale having been made before
\nthe coming  into force\tof the\tRice (Andhra  Pradesh) Price
\nControl (Third Amendment) order, 1964, the appellants cannot
\njustifiably  claim   the  benefit  of  the  increased  price
\nspecified in  the Rice (Andhra Pradesh) Price Control (Third
\nAmendment) order, 1964. The acceptance of the.\n<\/p>\n
779<\/span><\/p>\n
contention raised  on behalf  of the appellants will lead to
\ngrave consequences. It will have the effect of reopening the
\ntransactions past  and closed  and would  thus give  rise to
\nlots of difficulties.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. Nariman  has, in  support of his contention, relied
\non the\tfollowing passage  occurring at\t p. 394 in Craies on
\nStatute Law (Sixth Edition):-\n<\/p>\n
“Explanatory and declaratory Acts retrospective
\n\t  Where a  Statute is  passed  for  the\t purpose  of
\n     supplying an  obvious omission in a former statute, or,
\n     as Parke  J. (afterwards  Baron Parke)  said in  R.  V.
\n     Dursley (1832)  3 B.  & Ad.  465, 469  “to\t `explain  a
\n     former statute,”  the subsequent  statute has  relation
\n     back to the time when the prior Act was passed. Thus in
\n     Att.-Gen  v.  Poughtt  (1816)  2  Price  381,  392,  it
\n     appeared that  by a  Customs Act of 1873 (53 Geo. 3, c.\n<\/p>\n
     33) a  duty was  imposed upon hides of 9s. 4d., but the
\n     Act omitted  to state  that it  was to  be 9s.  4d. per
\n     cwt., and\tto remedy  this omission another Customs Act
\n     53 Geo.  c. 105)  was passed  later in  the same  year.
\n     Between the  passing of  these two Acts some hides were
\n     exported, and  it was  contended  that  they  were\t not
\n     liable to pay the duty 9s. 4d. per cwt., but Thomson C.
\n     B., in  giving judgment for the Attorney General, said:
\n     “The duty\tin this\t instant was  in fact imposed by the
\n     first Act,\t but the  gross mistakes  of the omission of
\n     the weight for which the sum expressed was to have been
\n     payable occasioned the amendment made by the subsequent
\n     Act, but  that had\t reference to  the former statute as
\n     soon as  it passed,  and they must be taken together as
\n     if they were one and the same Act.”\n<\/p>\n
\t  Where an  Act is  in its  nature declaratory,\t the
\n     presumption against  construing it\t retrospectively  is
\n     inapplicable.’
\n     This passage  has, in  our opinion,  no bearing  on the
\nquestion before us in view of the fact that the Rice (Andhra
\nPradesh) Price\tControl (Third\tAmendment)  order,  1964  is
\nneither\t explanatory   nor  declaratory,  as  sought  to  be
\ninterpreted by the counsel.\n<\/p>\n
     The contention  of\t Mr.  Nariman  that  the  controlled
\nprices fixed  by the Central Government for sale of rice are
\nseasonal prices\t not being  based upon\tany cogent  material
\ncannot also be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
     The High  Court was,  therefore, right  in allowing the
\naforesaid appeals  preferred by the respondent and reversing
\nthe judgment  and decrees  passed by  the Subordinate Judge,
\nMachilipatnam.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  result, the appeal, fail and are dismissed with
\ncost, limited to one set.\n<\/p>\n
M.R.\t\t\t\t\t  Appeals dismissed.\n780<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Sri Vijaylakshmi Rice Mills, New … vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 March, 1976 Equivalent citations: 1976 AIR 1471, 1976 SCR (3) 775 Author: J Singh Bench: Singh, Jaswant PETITIONER: SRI VIJAYLAKSHMI RICE MILLS, NEW CONTRACTORS COMPANY ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH DATE OF JUDGMENT22\/03\/1976 BENCH: SINGH, JASWANT […]<\/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-202454","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSri Vijaylakshmi Rice Mills, New ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 March, 1976 - 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\/sri-vijaylakshmi-rice-mills-new-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-22-march-1976\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sri Vijaylakshmi Rice Mills, New ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 March, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-vijaylakshmi-rice-mills-new-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-22-march-1976\" \/>\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=\"1976-03-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-17T21:22:09+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\\\/sri-vijaylakshmi-rice-mills-new-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-22-march-1976#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-vijaylakshmi-rice-mills-new-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-22-march-1976\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sri Vijaylakshmi Rice Mills, New … vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 March, 1976\",\"datePublished\":\"1976-03-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-17T21:22:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-vijaylakshmi-rice-mills-new-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-22-march-1976\"},\"wordCount\":1959,\"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\\\/sri-vijaylakshmi-rice-mills-new-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-22-march-1976#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-vijaylakshmi-rice-mills-new-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-22-march-1976\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-vijaylakshmi-rice-mills-new-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-22-march-1976\",\"name\":\"Sri Vijaylakshmi Rice Mills, New ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 March, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1976-03-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-17T21:22:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-vijaylakshmi-rice-mills-new-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-22-march-1976#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-vijaylakshmi-rice-mills-new-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-22-march-1976\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-vijaylakshmi-rice-mills-new-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-22-march-1976#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sri Vijaylakshmi Rice Mills, New … vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 March, 1976\"}]},{\"@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":"Sri Vijaylakshmi Rice Mills, New ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 March, 1976 - 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\/sri-vijaylakshmi-rice-mills-new-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-22-march-1976","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sri Vijaylakshmi Rice Mills, New ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 March, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-vijaylakshmi-rice-mills-new-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-22-march-1976","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1976-03-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-17T21:22:09+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\/sri-vijaylakshmi-rice-mills-new-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-22-march-1976#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-vijaylakshmi-rice-mills-new-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-22-march-1976"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sri Vijaylakshmi Rice Mills, New … vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 March, 1976","datePublished":"1976-03-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-17T21:22:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-vijaylakshmi-rice-mills-new-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-22-march-1976"},"wordCount":1959,"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\/sri-vijaylakshmi-rice-mills-new-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-22-march-1976#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-vijaylakshmi-rice-mills-new-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-22-march-1976","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-vijaylakshmi-rice-mills-new-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-22-march-1976","name":"Sri Vijaylakshmi Rice Mills, New ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 March, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1976-03-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-17T21:22:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-vijaylakshmi-rice-mills-new-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-22-march-1976#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-vijaylakshmi-rice-mills-new-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-22-march-1976"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-vijaylakshmi-rice-mills-new-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-22-march-1976#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sri Vijaylakshmi Rice Mills, New … vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 March, 1976"}]},{"@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\/202454","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=202454"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/202454\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=202454"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=202454"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=202454"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}