{"id":214977,"date":"2006-07-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-07-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/messrs-dinosaur-vs-the-joint-on-18-july-2006"},"modified":"2017-12-18T23:06:27","modified_gmt":"2017-12-18T17:36:27","slug":"messrs-dinosaur-vs-the-joint-on-18-july-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/messrs-dinosaur-vs-the-joint-on-18-july-2006","title":{"rendered":"Messrs Dinosaur vs The Joint on 18 July, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Messrs Dinosaur vs The Joint on 18 July, 2006<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 18\/07\/2006  \n\nCoram \n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN         \nAND  \nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA           \n\nTax Case Appeal No.1927 of 2006  \n\nMessrs Dinosaur \nSteels Limited\n1\/110\nMariamman Koil Street \nChinnampalayam Post   \nCoimbatore.                            ..Appellant\n\n-Vs-\n\nThe Joint\nCommissioner of Income Tax  \nSpecial Range II\nCoimbatore.                            ..Respondent\n\n        Appeal under Section 260A of the Income  Tax  Act,  1961  against  the\norder of  the  Income  Tax  Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, 'D' Bench in I.T.  A.\nNo.96\/Mds\/2000 for the assessment year 1997-98.  \n\n!For Appellant  :  Mr.J.Balachander for\n                   Mr.S.Sridhar\n\n^For Respondent : \n\n:JUDGMENT   \n<\/pre>\n<p>       (Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.P.S.Janarthana Raja, J.)<\/p>\n<p>        The present appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax  Act,<br \/>\n1961 by the  assessee,  in  I.T.A.  No.  96\/Mds\/2000, passed by the Income Tax<br \/>\nAppellate Tribunal, Chennai,  &#8216;D&#8217;  Bench  raising  the  following  substantial<br \/>\nquestions of law.\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;1.   Whether  the  Tribunal  is  correct  in  concluding  that  the  order of<br \/>\nrectification passed by the Respondent in restricting the quantum of deduction<br \/>\nunder section 80 IA of the Act upon taking into consideration  the  unabsorbed<br \/>\nlosses is sustainable on facts and in law?\n<\/p>\n<p>2.   Whether the Tribunal is correct in concluding that there was no debate in<br \/>\nunderstanding and interpreting the provisions of section 80  IA  of  the  Act,<br \/>\nespecially with reference to the computation part of the said section?&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.      The  brief  facts leading to the above questions of law are as<br \/>\nunder:\n<\/p>\n<p>        The  relevant  assessment  year  is  1997-98  and  the   corresponding<br \/>\naccounting year  ended  on 31.03.1997.  The assessee filed return of income on<br \/>\n28.11.1997 disclosing an income of Rs.3,31,188\/-.  The gross  income  declared<br \/>\nwas  Rs.34,92,096.87  and on this, deduction under Section 80 IA of the Income<br \/>\nTax Act (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  &#8220;Act&#8221;),  at  3  0%  amounting  to<br \/>\nRs.10,47,629\/- was  claimed.    On  the  balance  Rs.24,44,4  67.87,  a sum of<br \/>\nRs.21,13,280\/- was adjusted being carry forward  loss  of  earlier  assessment<br \/>\nyears.   The  said return was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act and<br \/>\nan intimation was also sent to the assessee  on  28.12.1998,  determining  the<br \/>\nincome at  Rs.3,31,190\/-.  Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued a notice<br \/>\nunder Section 154 of the Act, on 28.06.1999 calling for objections, if any, on<br \/>\nthe ground that the following mistakes had been crept in.\n<\/p>\n<p>1.Bonus unpaid of Rs.20,000\/- had been omitted to be disallowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The assessee&#8217;s claim of deduction under Section 80IA had been allowed before<br \/>\nsetting of the earlier  years  losses  from  the  profits  and  gains  of  the<br \/>\nIndustrial Undertaking.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  assessee,  by  letter  dated 12.06.1999, while accepting the disallowance<br \/>\nunder Section 43B of the Act, had objected to the proposal of restricting  its<br \/>\nclaim under  Section 80IA of the Act.  Rejecting the contention, the Assessing<br \/>\nOfficer completed the assessment under Section 154 of the Act  and  held  that<br \/>\nthe  deduction  under  Section 80IA should be given only after setting off the<br \/>\nunabsorbed loss of the earlier years.  Aggrieved by the  order,  the  assessee<br \/>\nfiled an appeal  to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).  The C.I.T.  (A)<br \/>\ndismissed the appeal by following the Supreme Court Judgment reported  in  224<br \/>\nITR 604  in  the  case  of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs.  Kotagiri Industrial<br \/>\nCoOperative Tea Factory Ltd.    and  confirmed  the  order  of  the  Assessing<br \/>\nOfficer.   Aggrieved  by  the  order  of  the  first  appellate authority, the<br \/>\nassessee filed an appeal to the Income Tax Appellate  Tribunal  (  hereinafter<br \/>\nreferred to  as  the  &#8220;Tribunal&#8221;).  The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by<br \/>\nthe assessee by following the Supreme Court judgments reported in 155 ITR  120<br \/>\nand 224 ITR 604, thus confirming the order of the lower authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.      The  learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that<br \/>\nthe issue involved is not a mistake apparent on the face of the record and  it<br \/>\nis  only  a  debatable  one  and  hence,  the rectification order passed under<br \/>\nSection 154 of the Act is without jurisdiction.  The learned  counsel  further<br \/>\nstated that any debatable issue should not be subjected to rectification under<br \/>\nSection 154 of the Act and relied on the Supreme Court judgment reported in 82<br \/>\nITR 50  in  the  case of T.S.  Balaram, Income Tax Officer, Company Circle IV,<br \/>\nBombay Vs.  Volkart Brothers and Others, and the  Delhi  High  Court  judgment<br \/>\nreported in 266  ITR  2  08  in  the  case  of  C.I.T.    Vs.   Krishak Bharti<br \/>\nCo-operative Ltd., to support his contention.  The  learned  counsel  for  the<br \/>\nassessee also relied on the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reported<br \/>\nin 226 ITR  547  in  the  case  of  Commissioner  of Income Tax Vs.  K.N.  Oil<br \/>\nIndustries, wherein it was held as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The benefit under Section 80HH and 80-I of the Income Tax Act,  1961  are  in<br \/>\nthe  nature  of  incentives  for  these  industries  in  the  backward  areas.<br \/>\nTherefore, a positive approach should be taken in the matter.  The assessee is<br \/>\nentitled to the full amount o f deduction  under  both  the  sections  without<br \/>\ndeducting earlier years&#8217; losses from the current income.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.      Heard the  counsel.   The issue is well settled now by Supreme<br \/>\nCourt judgment in the case of C.I.T.  Vs.  Kotagiri Industrial Cooperative Tea<br \/>\nFactory Ltd.  reported in 224 ITR 604, wherein it was held as follows:<br \/>\n&#8220;Having regard to the law as laid down by this Court in Distributors  (Baroda)<br \/>\nPvt.  Ltd.&#8217;s  case  [1985]  155 ITR 120 and H.H.  Sir Rama Varma&#8217;s case [1994]<br \/>\n205 ITR 433, it must be held that before considering the matter  of  deduction<br \/>\nunder  section  80P(2), the Income-tax Officer had rightly set off the carried<br \/>\nforward losses of the earlier years in accordance with section 72 of  the  Act<br \/>\nand  on  finding  that the said losses exceeded the income, he rightly did not<br \/>\nallow  any  deduction  under  section  80P(2)  and  the  Appellate   Assistant<br \/>\nCommissioner  as  well  as  the  Tribunal  and the High Court were in error in<br \/>\ntaking a contrary view.\n<\/p>\n<p>        The principle of statutory construction  invoked  by  Mrs.Ramachandran<br \/>\nhas  no  application  in  construing  the  expression  &#8220;gross total income&#8221; in<br \/>\nsub-section(1) of section 80P.  In view of the express provision defining  the<br \/>\nsaid expression in section 80B(5) for the purpose of Chapter VI-A, there is no<br \/>\nscope for construing the said expression differently in section 80P.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.      The  Madhya  Pradesh  High  Court judgment reported in 226 ITR<br \/>\n547, relied on by the learned counsel for the assessee, is no longer good  law<br \/>\nin  view of the Supreme Court judgment reported in 224 ITR 604, in the case of<br \/>\nC.I.T.  Vs.  Kotagiri Industrial Co-operative Tea Factory Ltd.  and the  later<br \/>\njudgment 266 ITR  521  in  the  case  of  IPCA  Laboratory  Ltd.   Vs.  Deputy<br \/>\nCommissioner of Income Tax.  The Delhi High Court judgment reported in 266 ITR<br \/>\n208 in the case of C.I.T.  Vs.  Krishak Bharti Co-operative Ltd., relied on by<br \/>\nthe counsel for the assessee is also not relevant to the present case,  as  in<br \/>\nthat  case,  the  finding  was that the issue involved was a debatable one and<br \/>\nhence it was not a subject matter for rectification under Section 154  of  the<br \/>\nAct.   In  the  present case, the issue involved is not a debatable one and is<br \/>\nsettled by the Supreme Court judgments cited supra.   While  interpreting  the<br \/>\nscope of rectification under Section 154 of the Act, the Supreme Court, in the<br \/>\ncase of  T.S.    Balaram,  Income  Tax  Officer, Company Circle IV, Bombay Vs.<br \/>\nVolkart Brothers and Others, reported in 82 ITR 50, held as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;A mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and  patent  mistake  and<br \/>\nnot something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on<br \/>\npoints on  which  there  may  be  conceivably  two  opinions.  A decision on a<br \/>\ndebatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>From a reading of the above Supreme Court observation, it is clear  that  only<br \/>\napparent  mistake  and  non-debatable  issue,  would  be the subject matter of<br \/>\nrectification under Section 154 of the Act.  As in this case, the order sought<br \/>\nto be rectified is not in confirmity with the  law  declared  by  the  Supreme<br \/>\nCourt  cited  supra,  which  amounts  to  mistake  apparent on the face of the<br \/>\nrecord.  Hence, the action of Assessing Officer in rectifying the order  under<br \/>\nSection 154 of the Act, is perfectly justified.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.      In  view of the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the<br \/>\norder of the Tribunal is in confirmity with law  and  there  is  no  error  or<br \/>\ninfirmity  in the order of the Tribunal and the same requires no interference.<br \/>\nHence, no substantial questions of law arise for consideration of  this  Court<br \/>\nand the tax case is dismissed.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>km <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Messrs Dinosaur vs The Joint on 18 July, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18\/07\/2006 Coram THE HON&#8217;BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN AND THE HON&#8217;BLE MR.JUSTICE P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA Tax Case Appeal No.1927 of 2006 Messrs Dinosaur Steels Limited 1\/110 Mariamman Koil Street Chinnampalayam Post Coimbatore. ..Appellant -Vs- The Joint Commissioner [&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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-214977","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Messrs Dinosaur vs The Joint on 18 July, 2006 - 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\/messrs-dinosaur-vs-the-joint-on-18-july-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Messrs Dinosaur vs The Joint on 18 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/messrs-dinosaur-vs-the-joint-on-18-july-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-07-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-18T17:36:27+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/messrs-dinosaur-vs-the-joint-on-18-july-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/messrs-dinosaur-vs-the-joint-on-18-july-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Messrs Dinosaur vs The Joint on 18 July, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-07-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-18T17:36:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/messrs-dinosaur-vs-the-joint-on-18-july-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1311,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/messrs-dinosaur-vs-the-joint-on-18-july-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/messrs-dinosaur-vs-the-joint-on-18-july-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/messrs-dinosaur-vs-the-joint-on-18-july-2006\",\"name\":\"Messrs Dinosaur vs The Joint on 18 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-07-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-18T17:36:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/messrs-dinosaur-vs-the-joint-on-18-july-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/messrs-dinosaur-vs-the-joint-on-18-july-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/messrs-dinosaur-vs-the-joint-on-18-july-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Messrs Dinosaur vs The Joint on 18 July, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Messrs Dinosaur vs The Joint on 18 July, 2006 - 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\/messrs-dinosaur-vs-the-joint-on-18-july-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Messrs Dinosaur vs The Joint on 18 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/messrs-dinosaur-vs-the-joint-on-18-july-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-07-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-18T17:36:27+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/messrs-dinosaur-vs-the-joint-on-18-july-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/messrs-dinosaur-vs-the-joint-on-18-july-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Messrs Dinosaur vs The Joint on 18 July, 2006","datePublished":"2006-07-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-18T17:36:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/messrs-dinosaur-vs-the-joint-on-18-july-2006"},"wordCount":1311,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/messrs-dinosaur-vs-the-joint-on-18-july-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/messrs-dinosaur-vs-the-joint-on-18-july-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/messrs-dinosaur-vs-the-joint-on-18-july-2006","name":"Messrs Dinosaur vs The Joint on 18 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-07-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-18T17:36:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/messrs-dinosaur-vs-the-joint-on-18-july-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/messrs-dinosaur-vs-the-joint-on-18-july-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/messrs-dinosaur-vs-the-joint-on-18-july-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Messrs Dinosaur vs The Joint on 18 July, 2006"}]},{"@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\/214977","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=214977"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/214977\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=214977"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=214977"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=214977"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}