{"id":21492,"date":"1996-07-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-07-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-everest-copiersthrough-r-a-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-july-1996"},"modified":"2018-11-13T04:57:55","modified_gmt":"2018-11-12T23:27:55","slug":"ms-everest-copiersthrough-r-a-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-july-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-everest-copiersthrough-r-a-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-july-1996","title":{"rendered":"M\/S Everest Copiersthrough R.A. &#8230; vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 25 July, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">M\/S Everest Copiersthrough R.A. &#8230; vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 25 July, 1996<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: JT 1996 (7)\t40, \t  1996 SCALE  (5)535<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: B S.P.<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Bharucha S.P. (J)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nM\/S EVEREST COPIERSTHROUGH R.A. PARTNER\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF TAMIL NADU\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t25\/07\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nBHARUCHA S.P. (J)\nBENCH:\nBHARUCHA S.P. (J)\nTHOMAS K.T. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n JT 1996 (7)\t40\t  1996 SCALE  (5)535\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\t\t    WITH<br \/>\n\t       CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5339 OF 1992<br \/>\n\t\t\t O R D E R<br \/>\n     The appellant runs a photocopying business. It has been<br \/>\nassessed to  sales tax\tfor the\t Assessment Year 1978-79 (in<br \/>\nCivil Appeal  No. 5339\/92)  and the  Assessment Year 1979-80<br \/>\n(in Civil  Appeal No.2672\/92)  on the  basis that  there was<br \/>\nsale by\t it of\tthe photocopied\t or xeroxed  document to the<br \/>\ncustomer.  The\t question  that\t  we  are   concerned  with,<br \/>\ntherefore, is  whether the  making of  photostat copies with<br \/>\nthe use\t of a  xerox or\t other machine\tand  delivering\t the<br \/>\ncopies so  taken to  the  customer  on\treceipt\t or  payment<br \/>\namounts to  a sale  of goods exigible to tax under the Tamil<br \/>\nNadu General Sale Tax Act, 1959.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Section 2(n)  of the  Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act,<br \/>\n1959 read as under at the relevant time:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8221; &#8216;Sale&#8217;  with all\t its grammatical<br \/>\n     variations and  cognate expressions<br \/>\n     means   every   transfer\tof   the<br \/>\n     property in  goods by one person to<br \/>\n     another in\t the course  of business<br \/>\n     for cash or for deferred payment or<br \/>\n     other valuable  consideration,  but<br \/>\n     does  not\t include   a   mortgage,<br \/>\n     Hypothecation, charge on pledge.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     It is  the case  of the  appellant that  no sale tax is<br \/>\ninvolved in  that the  contract that he enters into with the<br \/>\ncustomer is  only a  works contract.  It is  the case of the<br \/>\nrespondents that the contract is of sale of the photocopies.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The Karnataka  High Court,\t In B.\tGirija and  Anr. Vs.<br \/>\nSate  of  Karnataka,  (1984)  56  STC  297,  considered\t the<br \/>\nquestion that  arises in these appeals and observed that the<br \/>\nturnover of  the assessee  was made  up of amounts collected<br \/>\nfrom customers\tas labour  charges  towards  developing\t and<br \/>\nprinting of  photostat copies  and the\tcost of the material<br \/>\nused for  taking  such\tcopies.\t It  was  matter  of  common<br \/>\nexperience that\t persons went  to a  xerox establishment not<br \/>\nwith a\tview to by supplicates of their documents but to get<br \/>\ncopies made  of their  documents. It was no less true in the<br \/>\ncase of\t the assessee.\tThe assessee  utilised her own paper<br \/>\nand ink\t and, by  the use  of the  xerox machine, turned out<br \/>\ncopies of documents brought to her. The assessee charged for<br \/>\nthe service rendered in addition to the cost of the material<br \/>\nused. On  these facts,\tit had\tto be found what the primary<br \/>\nobject of  the transaction  was and  the  intention  of\t the<br \/>\nparties, namely, whether it was a contract purely of work or<br \/>\nservice or  a contract\tof sale.  The High Court noticed the<br \/>\ndecision of  this Court\t in Hindustan  Aeronautics Ltd.\t Vs,<br \/>\nTate of\t karnataka,(1984) 55  STC 314  =(1984)\t2  SCR\t248,<br \/>\nwherein it was held:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;Mere passing  of property<br \/>\n     in an  article or\tcommodity during<br \/>\n     the course\t of performance\t of  the<br \/>\n     transaction in  question  does  not<br \/>\n     render  the   transaction\t to   be<br \/>\n     transaction of  sale. Even\t   in  a<br \/>\n     contract purely of work or service,<br \/>\n     it is  possible that  articles  may<br \/>\n     have  to  be  used\t by  the  parson<br \/>\n     executing the work, and property in<br \/>\n     such articles or materials may pass<br \/>\n     to the  other party. That would not<br \/>\n     necessarily  convert  the\tcontract<br \/>\n     into   one\t  of   sale   of   those<br \/>\n     materials. In every case, The would<br \/>\n     have  to  find  out  what\twas  the<br \/>\n     primary object  of the  transaction<br \/>\n     and the  intention of  the\t parties<br \/>\n     while entering into it&#8230;&#8230;.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>As has\tbeen noticed,  the High\t Court stated that no person<br \/>\nwent to the assessee for buying duplicates of his documents.<br \/>\nHe went\t to ask\t whether the  could get\t xerox copies of his<br \/>\ndocuments. The\tassessee  undertook  to\t get  the  documents<br \/>\nduplicated  and\t  collected  a\t certain  charge.  This\t was<br \/>\nessentially a  contract of work or labour or service and not<br \/>\na contract  of sale.  The distinction  had been explained in<br \/>\nthe Hindustan Aeronautics&#8217;s case (supra) thus:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..A contract of sale is a<br \/>\n     contract whose  main object  is the<br \/>\n     transfer of  the property\tin,  and<br \/>\n     the delivery  of the possession of,<br \/>\n     a\tchattel\t as  a\tchattel\t to  the<br \/>\n     Buyer.  Where   however  the   main<br \/>\n     object of\twork under  taken by the<br \/>\n     payee of  the  price  was\tnot  the<br \/>\n     transfer of  chattel  qua\tchattel,<br \/>\n     the contract  is one  of  work  and<br \/>\n     labour,. The  test is,  whether  or<br \/>\n     not the  work and\tlabour\tbestowed<br \/>\n     and in  anything that  can properly<br \/>\n     become the subject of sale; neither<br \/>\n     the ownership of the materials, nor<br \/>\n     the value\tof the\tskill and labour<br \/>\n     as compared  with the  value of the<br \/>\n     materials, is  conclusive, although<br \/>\n     such  matters  may\t be  taken  into<br \/>\n     consideration  in\tdetermining,  in<br \/>\n     the circumstances\tof a  particular<br \/>\n     case  where  the  contract\t was  in<br \/>\n     substance one  for work  and labour<br \/>\n     and one for the sale of a chattel&#8221;.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The High  Court, therefore,  held that what was involved was<br \/>\nnot a contract of sale, but a contract of work or service.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The principles  enunciated in Hindusan Aeronautics case<br \/>\n(supra), quoted\t by the\t High Court, also find expression in<br \/>\nthe earlier  decision of  this Court  in <a href=\"\/doc\/1024429\/\">Assistant Sales Tax<br \/>\nOfficer &amp;  Ors,, vs. B.C. Kame.<\/a> (1977) 39 STC 237 = (1977) 2<br \/>\nSCR 435.  In Kame&#8217;s  case  the\trespondent  carried  on\t the<br \/>\nbusiness  of   supplying  Photographs\tto  those   who\t got<br \/>\nthemselves photographed\t at his studios. It was held that he<br \/>\ndid not enter into a contract of Sale.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The judgment  of the  Karnataka High  Court  was  cited<br \/>\nbefore the  Division Bench that wrote the Judgment and order<br \/>\nunder appeal  (reported in 83 STC 420). It was distinguished<br \/>\non the\tground that  it &#8220;Proceeded  upon an  erroneous under<br \/>\nstanding     of\t the  nature  of  the  transaction  and\t was<br \/>\napparently carried  away by  the corporeal  rights over\t the<br \/>\ncontents or  subject-Matter of\tthe copies with the material<br \/>\nturned out,  namely, the duplicate copies made. If an author<br \/>\nor a  publisher of a text orders for the printing and supply<br \/>\nof a specified number of copies of the literature concerned,<br \/>\nit could  not be said that the work merely is a contract for<br \/>\nwork and  labour or  service and  not a\t contract for  sale.<br \/>\nDuplication or\tmaking out copies does not get its character<br \/>\naltered merely\ton account  of the  proprietory ownership of<br \/>\nthe  material\twhich  was   sought  to\t  be  duplicated  or<br \/>\nMultiplied&#8221;. The  Division Bench  held that  the supply of a<br \/>\nxerox copy  manufactured by the use of a xerox machine for a<br \/>\nprice consisted\t of a  an indivisible  contract of sale and,<br \/>\nconsequently, the  turnover relating to the same had rightly<br \/>\nbeen subjected to tax by the assessing authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>     As we  see it,  the view  taken by\t the Karnataka\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt is  right and  is based  upon the\t decisions  of\tthis<br \/>\nCourt. Where the main subject of the work under taken by the<br \/>\nperson to  whom the  price is  paid is not the transfer of a<br \/>\nchattel as  a chattel,\tthe contract  is  one  of  work\t and<br \/>\nlabour. The  main object  of  the  work\t undertaken  by\t the<br \/>\noperator of  the photocopier  or xerox\tmachine is  not\t the<br \/>\ntransfer of  paper upon which the copy is produced; it is to<br \/>\nduplicate or  the price\t wants duplicated.  The\t paper\tupon<br \/>\nwhich the Duplication takes place is only incidental to this<br \/>\ntransaction. The  object of  the payment  of the price is to<br \/>\nget the\t document duplicated,  not to receive the paper. The<br \/>\npayer of  the price  has not interest in the bare paper upon<br \/>\nwhich his  document is\tduplicated. He\tis interested  in it<br \/>\nonly if it bears such Duplication.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The case is very similar to Kame&#8217;s case. The tests laid<br \/>\ndown  by  this\tCourt  as  aforestated\tare  satisfied;\t the<br \/>\ncontract between  the appellant\t and the  payer the price to<br \/>\nhim is\tcontract of  work or service, not a contract of sale<br \/>\nupon which sale tax is exigible.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In\t the   result,\tthe  appeals  are  allowed  and\t the<br \/>\njudgments and orders under appeal are set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>     There shall be not order to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"\/doc\/1855595\/\"><\/p>\n<p>The South Indian Photographic<br \/>\nand Allied Trades Association.\n<\/p>\n<p>V.\n<\/p>\n<p>The State of Tamil Nadu &amp;<\/p>\n<p><\/a> ors<br \/>\n\t\t\t O R D E R<br \/>\n      Learned  counsel for  the appellants  seeks  leave  to<br \/>\nwithdraw these\tappeals. He  states that  in an\t appropriate<br \/>\ncase where  the judgment  under appeal\tis  relied  upon  in<br \/>\nassessment proceedings\tor proceedings\tsubsequent thereto a<br \/>\nchallenge to the judgment shall be made.<\/p>\n<p>     The appeals are dismissed as withdrawn.<br \/>\nCIVIL APPEAL NO. 11903 OF 1995\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;\n<\/p>\n<p>     Learned  counsel  for  the\t appellant  seeks  leave  to<br \/>\nwithdraw this  appeal. He  states that in a appropriate case<br \/>\nwhere the judgment under appeal is relied upon in assessment<br \/>\nproceedings or\tproceedings subsequent\tthereto, a challenge<br \/>\nto the\tjudgment shall be made. Learned counsel adds that in<br \/>\nthis matter  the agreement of inapplicability of the statute<br \/>\nto the\tcommodities used  by the appellants was urged before<br \/>\nthe High Court, But was not considered in the judgment.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.\n<\/p>\n<p>CIVIL APPEAL NO 11294 OF 1995:\n<\/p>\n<p>     Learned  counsel\tfor  the  appellant  sees  leave  to<br \/>\nwithdraw this  appeal. He states that in an appropriate case<br \/>\nwhere the judgment under appeal is relied upon in assessment<br \/>\nproceedings or\tproceedings subsequent\tthereto, a challenge<br \/>\nto the\tjudgment shall\tbe made.  The appeal is dismissed as<br \/>\nwithdrawn.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India M\/S Everest Copiersthrough R.A. &#8230; vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 25 July, 1996 Equivalent citations: JT 1996 (7) 40, 1996 SCALE (5)535 Author: B S.P. Bench: Bharucha S.P. (J) PETITIONER: M\/S EVEREST COPIERSTHROUGH R.A. PARTNER Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF TAMIL NADU DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25\/07\/1996 BENCH: BHARUCHA S.P. (J) BENCH: [&hellip;]<\/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-21492","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>M\/S Everest Copiersthrough R.A. ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 25 July, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/ms-everest-copiersthrough-r-a-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-july-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S Everest Copiersthrough R.A. ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 25 July, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-everest-copiersthrough-r-a-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-july-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1996-07-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-12T23:27:55+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-everest-copiersthrough-r-a-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-july-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-everest-copiersthrough-r-a-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-july-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S Everest Copiersthrough R.A. &#8230; vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 25 July, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-07-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-12T23:27:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-everest-copiersthrough-r-a-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-july-1996\"},\"wordCount\":1524,\"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\\\/ms-everest-copiersthrough-r-a-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-july-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-everest-copiersthrough-r-a-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-july-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-everest-copiersthrough-r-a-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-july-1996\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S Everest Copiersthrough R.A. ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 25 July, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-07-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-12T23:27:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-everest-copiersthrough-r-a-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-july-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-everest-copiersthrough-r-a-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-july-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-everest-copiersthrough-r-a-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-july-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S Everest Copiersthrough R.A. &#8230; vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 25 July, 1996\"}]},{\"@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":"M\/S Everest Copiersthrough R.A. ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 25 July, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/ms-everest-copiersthrough-r-a-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-july-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S Everest Copiersthrough R.A. ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 25 July, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-everest-copiersthrough-r-a-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-july-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-07-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-12T23:27:55+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-everest-copiersthrough-r-a-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-july-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-everest-copiersthrough-r-a-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-july-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S Everest Copiersthrough R.A. &#8230; vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 25 July, 1996","datePublished":"1996-07-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-12T23:27:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-everest-copiersthrough-r-a-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-july-1996"},"wordCount":1524,"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\/ms-everest-copiersthrough-r-a-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-july-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-everest-copiersthrough-r-a-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-july-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-everest-copiersthrough-r-a-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-july-1996","name":"M\/S Everest Copiersthrough R.A. ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 25 July, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-07-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-12T23:27:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-everest-copiersthrough-r-a-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-july-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-everest-copiersthrough-r-a-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-july-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-everest-copiersthrough-r-a-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-25-july-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S Everest Copiersthrough R.A. &#8230; vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 25 July, 1996"}]},{"@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\/21492","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=21492"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21492\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=21492"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=21492"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=21492"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}