{"id":203150,"date":"2010-05-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-05-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/simac-vs-union-on-6-may-2010"},"modified":"2017-02-10T19:17:30","modified_gmt":"2017-02-10T13:47:30","slug":"simac-vs-union-on-6-may-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/simac-vs-union-on-6-may-2010","title":{"rendered":"Simac vs Union on 6 May, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Simac vs Union on 6 May, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: D.A.Mehta,&Nbsp;Honourable Ms.Justice H.N.Devani,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/6308\/1986\t 18\/ 18\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No.6308 of 1986\n \n\n \n For\nApproval and Signature:\n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA\n \n \n\n\n \n\nHONOURABLE\nMS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI\n \n===================================================\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n===================================================\n \n\nSIMAC\nELECTRICALS PVT LTD. & 1 - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nUNION\nOF INDIA & 2 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=================================================== \nAppearance\n: \nMR VIJAY NAIR for MS\nANUJA S NANAVATI for the Petitioners None\nfor Respondent(s) : 1 - 2. \nMR RJ OZA for Respondent(s) :\n3, \n===================================================\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n           \n\t\t\tand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 06\/05\/2010 \n\n \n\n ORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA)<\/p>\n
The
\n\tpetitioner, a Private Limited Company, states that it is a 100%
\n\texport oriented unit manufacturing flat knitting machines. The
\n\tpetition when originally filed was limited to the following prayers:\n<\/p>\n
\t 15.\t\tIn
\n\tthe premises aforesaid, the petitioners, therefore, most humbly and
\n\trespectfully pray that:\n<\/p>\n
\tYour
\n\tLordships be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other
\n\tappropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to
\n\tforthwith open the seal of the factory premises of the petitioners
\n\tand to allow the petitioners to start and continue their
\n\tmanufacturing activities without let or hindrance and allow export
\n\tof the goods manufactured and direct the respondents to allow the
\n\tclearance of the goods as per the Bills of Entry submitted before
\n\tthe respondent No.3.\n<\/p>\n
\tPending
\n\tthe hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your
\n\tLordships be pleased to order the respondents to remove the seals of
\n\tthe factory premises of the petitioners forthwith and to pass the
\n\tBills of Entry and to allow the petitioners to start and continue
\n\ttheir manufacturing activities and allow the clearance and export of
\n\tthe finish goods manufactured out of the consignments in question.\n<\/p>\n
\tAd-interim
\n\tex-parte relief in terms of prayer (B) above may kindly be treated.\n<\/p>\n
\tAny
\n\tother and further relief as the nature and circumstances of the case
\n\tmay require, also be granted.\n<\/p>\n
Thereafter
\n\tvide amendments made on various dates following additional prayers
\n\twere made:\n<\/p>\n
 (a-1)\tthat
\n\tthis Hon’ble Court be pleased to issued a Writ of Certiorari or a
\n\tWrit in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ order
\n\tor direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, calling
\n\tfor the records and proceedings pertaining to the passing of the
\n\timpugned order dated 7th
\n\tMay 1987 Annexure M-3 hereto and after examining the validity,
\n\tlegality and propriety thereof, be pleased to quash and set aside
\n\tthe same;\n<\/p>\n
(b-1)\tthat
\n\tpending the hearing and final disposal of the petition, this Hon’ble
\n\tCourt be pleased to stay the operation, impugned order dated 7th
\n\tMay 1987 Annexure M-3 hereto on such terms and conditions as this
\n\tHon’ble Court may deem fit to impose;\n<\/p>\n
(c-1)\tfor
\n\tad interim relief in terms of the prayer (b-1) above;\n<\/p>\n
(a-2)\tThat
\n\tthis Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a
\n\twrit in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order
\n\tor direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated
\n\t14th December, 1987 at Annexure  M-8 .\n<\/p>\n
(b-2)\tThat
\n\tpending the hearing and final disposal of the present petition this
\n\tHon’ble Court will be pleased to stay the operation, implementation
\n\tand enforcement of the impugned order dated 14th
\n\tDecember, 1987 at Annexure  M-8 .\n<\/p>\n
(c-2)\tFor
\n\tad-interim relief in terms of prayer (b-2) above.\n<\/p>\n
(a-3)\tIn
\n\tthe alternative to the foregoing prayers your Lordships will be
\n\tpleased to permit the petitioners to file their claim for duty
\n\tdrawback in respect of the goods exported by them to USSR pursuant
\n\tto the orders of this Hon’ble Court and direct the respondents to
\n\tallow the same without taking into consideration the delay in
\n\tlodging the claim for drawback by the petitioners and till such
\n\tclaim is allowed, direct the respondents not to recover the amount
\n\tof Customs duty levied upon the
\n\tpetitioners by order dt.14th\/16th December 1987 passed by Deputy
\n\tCollector of Customs, Kandla.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tso far as the original prayers are concerned, it is an accepted
\n\tposition that as the petitioner was permitted under orders of the
\n\tCourt to export the goods after manufacture, the said prayers do not
\n\tsurvive and no orders are required to be made.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tis the say of the petitioner that on 21.01.1986 the petitioner
\n\treceived a proposed order for 12,000 knitting machines from a
\n\tRussian buyer at specified price and delivery schedule. Accordingly,
\n\tas per the say of the petitioner, the petitioner placed order for
\n\timporting certain machines\/spare-parts with a Japanese concern. On
\n\t28.01.1986 the petitioner made an application to respondent No.2
\n\tauthority, the Development Commissioner, Kandla  Free Trade Zone,
\n\tseeking allotment of a shed and registration on the basis of the
\n\tproject report and a copy of the proposed order of the Russian
\n\tbuyer.\n<\/p>\n
On
\n\t18.04.1986 a letter of approval was issued by Ministry of Commerce
\n\tfor setting up a new industrial unit in Kandla Free Trade Zone
\n\tsubject to the following three conditions:\n<\/p>\n
\tEntire
\n\tproduction shall be exported, of which at least 50% will be to
\n\tG.C.A. countries.\n<\/p>\n
\tMinimum
\n\tvalue addition without inputs will be 47% in first year, 53% in
\n\tsecond year, 62% in third year, 71% in fourth year and 81% in fifth
\n\tyear of production. If the value of both imported and indigenous
\n\toutputs are taken into account, a minimum value addition would be
\n\t32% in first year going upto 52% in the 5th year.\n<\/p>\n
\tClearance
\n\tshould be obtained from the Gujarat Water and Pollution Control
\n\tboard.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tpetitioner was asked to confirm written acceptance of the conditions
\n\tand in fact the petitioner did so vide communication dated
\n\t02.05.1986.\n<\/p>\n
Before
\n\tthe petitioner was granted registration by respondent No.2
\n\tauthority, the petitioner was called upon to confirm as to whether
\n\tthe petitioner would be in a position to comply with the
\n\tconditions\u00a0stipulated in the letter of approval in light of
\n\tthe\u00a0past history of a sister concern of the petitioner. The
\n\tpetitioner having replied in the affirmative registration was
\n\tgranted. The registration was granted on 07.10.1986 and immediately
\n\ton the next day, namely, 08.10.1986 the petitioner approached
\n\trespondent No.2 authority seeking reduction in the stipulated
\n\tminimum value addition as per Condition No.2 of letter of approval
\n\tdated 18.04.1986.\n<\/p>\n
Subsequent
\n\tthereto respondent No.2 sealed the factory premises of the
\n\tpetitioner and the petitioner approached this Court. Suffice it to
\n\tstate that the petitioner had entered into correspondence with
\n\tvarious authorities and also approached this Court by way of
\n\tdifferent proceedings at different stages. Ultimately, at the end of
\n\tthe entire exercise admittedly the petitioner could not achieve the
\n\tminimum value addition even though the petitioner was permitted to
\n\texport manufactured goods under directions of this Court. As a
\n\tconsequence respondent No.2 made an order on 07\/08.05.1987
\n\t(Annexure-M3) levying a penalty of Rs.25,00,000\/- for mis-utilizing
\n\tthe imported components and violating provisions of Section
\n\t4-I(1)(a) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947.\n<\/p>\n
This
\n\twas followed by an order made by respondent No.3 authority on
\n\t14\/16.12.1987 under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. A
\n\tdemand of Rs.3,14,84,373.10 was confirmed by the said order. Both
\n\tthe orders made by respondent No.2 authority and respondent No.3
\n\tauthority respectively are under challenge.\n<\/p>\n
Learned
\n\tadvocate for the petitioners assailed the impugned orders
\n\tprincipally on the ground that as per the Export Import (EXIM)
\n\tpolicy applicable at the relevant point of time there was no
\n\tcompulsion to achieve value addition and such a condition could not
\n\thave been incorporated in a letter of approval; that even if such a
\n\tcondition had been incorporated in the letter of approval, the
\n\tpetitioner could not be bound by the same as while granting approval
\n\tthe authority cannot impose a condition contrary to the policy.
\n\tAlternatively, it was submitted that the policy cannot be treated as
\n\ta statute and in absence of any statutory provision providing for
\n\tsuch a contingency no such condition could be imposed upon the
\n\tpetitioner, and hence, the petitioner was not legally obliged to
\n\tfulfill such a condition. A further alternative contention was that
\n\tthe authorities failed to consider the circumstances in which the
\n\tpetitioner was put by virtue of sudden fluctuation in the import
\n\trate making it impossible to achieve the limit specified in the
\n\tcondition and, therefore, the petitioner could not have been called
\n\tupon to achieve what was not possible. Lastly, it was contended that
\n\tthe proceedings had been initiated even before the period of one
\n\tyear was over as stipulated in the condition and, therefore, also
\n\tthe respondent authorities could not have either levied the penalty
\n\tor confirmed the demand in hands of the petitioner. In support of
\n\tthe submission made, attention was invited to Appendix 15 (Chapter
\n\tXX) and Paragraph No.4 thereof as appearing in the EXIM Policy at
\n\tthe relevant point of time as well as Customs Notification
\n\tNo.77-Cus. dated 17.04.1980 to submit that the notification nowhere
\n\tprovided for\u00a0value addition and in absence of such direct
\n\tprovision, any condition imposed in a letter of approval cannot be
\n\tinsisted upon. In support of the submission, reliance was placed on
\n\tjudgment in case of  Choksi Tube Company Limited Vs. Union of
\n\tIndia, 1998 (97) E.L.T. 404 (S.C.) to submit that in that case
\n\tsimilarly situated persons were not called upon to either pay
\n\tpenalty or demand despite similar default and hence, the impugned
\n\torders were required to be quashed and set aside as persons whose
\n\tcases were similar were not called upon to either pay duty or
\n\tpenalty. Judgment in case of  Baliga Exports (P) Limited Vs. Addl.
\n\tChief Controller of Imports & Exports, 2001 (129) E.L.T. 321
\n\t(Kar.) rendered by Karnataka High Court was pressed into service in
\n\tsupport of the submission that till the permitted period was not
\n\tover no action could have been initiated as stated in Paragraph
\n\tNos.13 and 14 of the said judgment.\n<\/p>\n
Paragraph
\n\tNo.4 of the EXIM Policy prevalent at the relevant point of time
\n\treads as under:\n<\/p>\n
 4.\tA
\n\tcopy of the Open General Licence is given in this Appendix. The
\n\timporters are advised to regulate their imports under the Open
\n\tGeneral Licence in such a way that they adhere to the value added
\n\tcriterion on the basis of which their project was approved. The
\n\tdevelopment Commissioner of the Zone shall examine
\n\tthat the value added criterion is being observed.\n<\/p>\n
A
\n\tplain reading of the said paragraph of the EXIM Policy makes it
\n\tclear that the importers have been advised to ensure that the
\n\timports are so regulated under the Open General Licence that the
\n\timporters ultimately are in a position to adhere to the value added
\n\tcriterion on the basis of which the project is approved. The
\n\tDevelopment Commissioner of the  respective zone is obliged to
\n\texamine that the value added criterion is being observed. Therefore,
\n\tthe contention that the policy only  envisages a directory or
\n\tadvisory achievement of the value addition stipulated by the letter
\n\tof approval cannot be accepted. The paragraph in question has been
\n\tcouched in clear and unambiguous language. An importer has been
\n\tcalled upon to regulate the imports to ensure that the importer
\n\tcomplies with the value addition criterion. Therefore, submission
\n\tthat the policy document does not oblige an importer\/exporter to
\n\tfulfill the condition of value addition does not merit acceptance.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tso far as Customs Notification No.77-Cus. dated 17.04.1980 is
\n\tconcerned, Condition No.4 which appears immediately after preamble
\n\treads as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t (4)\tthe
\n\timporter agrees to execute a bond in such form and for such sum as
\n\thas been prescribed by the Development Commissioner of the Zone
\n\tbinding himself to fulfill the export obligations, and to fulfill,
\n\tinter alia the conditions stipulated in this notification.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tsaid condition stipulates that an importer agrees to execute a bond
\n\tin the prescribed form and for such sum specified by the Development
\n\tCommissioner so as to bind the importer to fulfill the export
\n\tobligation and fulfill other conditions stipulated in the
\n\tnotification. Thus, on a plain reading it emerges that once an
\n\timporter has executed a bond in the prescribed form for a prescribed
\n\tsum he is under a legal obligation to fulfill the export obligation.
\n\tWhen one talks of fulfillment of an export obligation it goes
\n\twithout saying that the same would also include the aspect of value
\n\taddition in so far as the exports are concerned. In the facts of the
\n\tpresent case it is an accepted position that the petitioner did
\n\texecute such a bond. The petitioner was, therefore, duty bound to
\n\tfulfill the export obligation, including achieving the stipulated
\n\tlimit of value addition. In the circumstances, it is not possible to
\n\tstate that the letter of approval has gone beyond either the policy
\n\tdocument or the customs notification.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tso far as the submission that the petitioner was called upon to pay
\n\tthe demand and penalty was levied even before the stipulated period
\n\tof one year was over, suffice it to state that the petitioner was
\n\tnot in a position to comply with the stipulated limit of value
\n\taddition even if the authorities had granted further time to the
\n\tpetitioner as the facts on record reveal. As per the letter of
\n\tapproval the petitioner was required to attain minimum value
\n\taddition to the tune of 47% in the first year without taking into
\n\taccount indigenous inputs. Letter of approval is dated 18.08.1986.
\n\tThe period of one year, namely, the first year for achieving 47%
\n\tvalue addition would expire on 17.06.1987. The petitioner imported
\n\ttwo consignments of components for flat knitting machines having
\n\ttotal CIF value of Rs.2.30 crores and filed bills of entry dated
\n\t07.10.1986 and 11.11.1986 seeking benefit of exemption under Customs
\n\tNotification No.77-Cus. dated 17.04.1980. However, the petitioner
\n\tmanufactured and exported only 4,000 pieces of flat knitting
\n\tmachines by March 1987 as against 12,000 knitting machines which
\n\twere required to be exported latest by 17.06.1987. Admittedly, for
\n\texporting 4,000 pieces of flat knitting machines the petitioner had
\n\texhausted the entire imported components, the petitioner had not
\n\timported any further components, and was not in a position to import
\n\tany further components so as to manufacture shortfall of 8,000 flat
\n\tknitting machines between March, 1987 and 17.06.1987.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tthe circumstances, as noted by the authority, against stipulated
\n\tvalue addition of 47% the petitioner had been able to achieve only
\n\t21.3% value addition (at one place stated to be 17.15% \/ 16.26%).
\n\tThe shortfall was thus to the extent of more than 50% of the
\n\tstipulated limit as the petitioner was not in a position to complete
\n\tmanufacture and achieve export of almost 26% within the period of
\n\tremaining three months. Hence, even if the authorities had initiated
\n\taction after 17.06.1987 the result would not have changed and,
\n\ttherefore, merely because the authorities have taken action within
\n\tthe period of one year no prejudice has been caused to the
\n\tpetitioner in the facts of the case, and in fact no prejudice is
\n\tshown to have been actually caused to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tso far as the plea based on the Apex Court decision in the case of
\n\tChoksi Tube Company Limited (supra) is concerned, suffice it
\n\tto state that the principle of unjust discrimination cannot be
\n\tconverted into a principle of negative discrimination and assuming
\n\tthat some other person appears to have violated law that would not
\n\tentitle the petitioner to violate the law.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tthe circumstances, the petitioner cannot succeed on any of the
\n\tgrounds pleaded and urged at the time of hearing. In relation to the
\n\tprayer clause 15(a-3), suffice it to state that respondent No.3
\n\tauthority has already recorded that it will be open to the
\n\tpetitioner to make a claim for duty drawback and, therefore, the
\n\tsaid prayer cannot be granted. The petitioner has, in the first
\n\tinstance, to make an application in accordance with law and only
\n\tafter the petitioner is in a position to show that the petitioner is
\n\tentitled to, the authority would be in a position to consider such a
\n\tclaim.\n<\/p>\n
Hence,
\n\tnone of the prayers made in the petition, even after various
\n\tamendments, can be granted. The petition is accordingly rejected.
\n\tRULE discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
At
\n\tthis stage, learned advocate for the petitioners seeks stay of
\n\toperation of this judgment for a period of four weeks. Considering
\n\tthe facts on record and the fact that the orders impugned were made
\n\tin 1987, the request is rejected.\n<\/p>\n
Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
[D. A.\n<\/p>\n
MEHTA, J]<\/p>\n
Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
[
\nH.N.DEVANI, J]<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
Bhavesh*<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Simac vs Union on 6 May, 2010 Author: D.A.Mehta,&Nbsp;Honourable Ms.Justice H.N.Devani,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/6308\/1986 18\/ 18 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.6308 of 1986 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI =================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local […]<\/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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-203150","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSimac vs Union on 6 May, 2010 - 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\/simac-vs-union-on-6-may-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Simac vs Union on 6 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/simac-vs-union-on-6-may-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-05-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-10T13:47:30+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/simac-vs-union-on-6-may-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/simac-vs-union-on-6-may-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Simac vs Union on 6 May, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-10T13:47:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/simac-vs-union-on-6-may-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2617,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/simac-vs-union-on-6-may-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/simac-vs-union-on-6-may-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/simac-vs-union-on-6-may-2010\",\"name\":\"Simac vs Union on 6 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-10T13:47:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/simac-vs-union-on-6-may-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/simac-vs-union-on-6-may-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/simac-vs-union-on-6-may-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Simac vs Union on 6 May, 2010\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Simac vs Union on 6 May, 2010 - 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\/simac-vs-union-on-6-may-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Simac vs Union on 6 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/simac-vs-union-on-6-may-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-05-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-10T13:47:30+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/simac-vs-union-on-6-may-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/simac-vs-union-on-6-may-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Simac vs Union on 6 May, 2010","datePublished":"2010-05-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-10T13:47:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/simac-vs-union-on-6-may-2010"},"wordCount":2617,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/simac-vs-union-on-6-may-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/simac-vs-union-on-6-may-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/simac-vs-union-on-6-may-2010","name":"Simac vs Union on 6 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-05-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-10T13:47:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/simac-vs-union-on-6-may-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/simac-vs-union-on-6-may-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/simac-vs-union-on-6-may-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Simac vs Union on 6 May, 2010"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/203150","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=203150"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/203150\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=203150"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=203150"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=203150"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}