{"id":220836,"date":"2006-08-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-08-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-ors-vs-ms-amritsar-beverages-ltd-ors-on-8-august-2006"},"modified":"2017-11-30T09:38:48","modified_gmt":"2017-11-30T04:08:48","slug":"state-of-punjab-ors-vs-ms-amritsar-beverages-ltd-ors-on-8-august-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-ors-vs-ms-amritsar-beverages-ltd-ors-on-8-august-2006","title":{"rendered":"State Of Punjab & Ors vs M\/S. Amritsar Beverages Ltd. & Ors on 8 August, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Punjab & Ors vs M\/S. Amritsar Beverages Ltd. & Ors on 8 August, 2006<\/div>\n
Author: S.B. Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B. Sinha, Dalveer Bhandari<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  3419 of 2006\n\nPETITIONER:\nState of Punjab & Ors.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nM\/s. Amritsar Beverages Ltd. & Ors.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 08\/08\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nS.B. Sinha & Dalveer Bhandari\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T
\n[Arising out of  SLP (Civil) No. 10371-10374 of 2004]<\/p>\n
S.B. SINHA, J :\n<\/p>\n
\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n
 \tSituational change how far could give rise to a new interpretation
\nof a statutory provision is the question involved in this appeal which
\narises out of the judgment and order dated 21.10.2003 passed by the
\nDivision Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
\nin CWP No. 14659 of 2003.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe Respondent is a dealer within the meaning of the Punjab
\nGeneral Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for short “the Act”).  A raid was conducted
\nin his premises and a larger number of books and documents were seized
\nby the officers of the Sales Tax Department of the State of Punjab.  The
\ndocuments were in the form of the cash book ledger or other registers.
\nThey were contained in a hard disk.  Seizure of documents indisputably
\nwas done in exercise of the powers of the authorities under Section 14 of
\nthe Act, Sub-section (3) whereof reads, thus:\n<\/p>\n
“14. Production and Inspection of Books,
\nDocuments and Accounts:\n<\/p>\n
(1)\t***
\n(2)\t***
\n(3)\tIf any officer referred to in sub-section
\n(1) has reasonable ground for believing that any
\ndealer is trying to evade liability for tax or other
\ndues under this Act and that anything necessary
\nfor the purpose of an investigation into his
\nliability may be found in any book, account,
\nregister or document, he may seize such book,
\naccount, register or document, as may be
\nnecessary.  The officer seizing the book,
\naccount, register or document shall forthwith
\ngrant a receipt for the same and shall\n<\/p>\n
(a)\tIn the case of book, account, register or
\ndocument which was being used at the time of
\nseizing, within a period of ten days from the
\ndate of seizure, and\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tin any other case, within a period of sixty
\ndays from the date of seizure, return it to the
\ndealer or the person from whose custody it was
\nseized after examination or after having such
\ncopies or extracts taken therefrom as may be
\nconsidered necessary, provided the dealer or the
\naforesaid person gives a receipt in writing for
\nthe book, account, register or document
\nreturned to him.  The officer may, before
\nreturning the book, account, register or
\ndocument, affix his signatures and his official
\nseal at one or more places thereon, and in such
\ncase the dealer or the aforesaid person will be
\nrequired to mention in the receipt given by him
\nthe number of places where the signature and
\nseal of such officers have been affixed on each
\nbook, account, register or document”\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe officers of the Sales Tax Department asked the Respondents to
\nappear on several occasions so as to enable them to verify the contents
\nthereof.  Cooperation from the Respondents was not forthcoming as a
\nresult whereof the documents were not returned within the period
\nstipulated thereunder.\n<\/p>\n
 \tA writ petition was filed by the Respondents herein praying for
\nissuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing the
\nRespondents to return the seized books, accounts, documents, computer
\ndisk in terms of the said provision.  Applying the principle of literal
\ninterpretation and following an earlier precedent, the High Court not only
\nissued mandamus as had been prayed for but also imposed costs of Rs.
\n2,500\/- in each case.  It was directed that the costs would be paid by the
\nofficers responsible for withholding the books, accounts, etc. personally
\nfrom their pockets and the same shall not be a burden on the State
\nexchequer.\n<\/p>\n
\tContention of Mr. Sarup Singh, Addl. Advocate General,
\nappearing on behalf of the State of Punjab, is that Section 14 of the Act is
\ndirectory in nature and not mandatory.\n<\/p>\n
 \tMr. Vikas Mahajan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
\nRespondents, on the other hand, supported the judgment of the High
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
\tBefore adverting to the rival contentions, we may at the outset
\nnotice that pursuant to or in furtherance of the directions of the High
\nCourt, the Appellants have returned the hard disk upon keeping a copy
\nthereof.  The Respondents in their counter-affidavit stated:\n<\/p>\n
“That it may be mentioned here that dealer was
\nalways willing to cooperate with the department
\nand the only reason for not complying with the
\nnotices of assessment or proceedings taken were
\nthat in absence of return of book it was not
\nfeasible or practical to give any statement or
\nverify the entries in the seized documents.\n<\/p>\n
Although the seized documents have been
\nreturned the answering respondent have no
\nobjection even if now in presence of their
\nrepresentative the departmental authorities want
\nto obtain any copy of the returned documents.
\nBut this copy must be counter signed by the
\nrepresentative as well as the respondents.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe Act was enacted in the year 1948.  Information Technology at
\nthat time far from being developed was unknown.  Constitution of India
\nis a living organ.  It had been interpreted differently having regard to
\ndifferent societal situations.  [See Liverpool & London S.P. & I
\nAssociation Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I and Another,<\/a> (2004) 9 SCC 512,
\nUnion of India v. Naveen Jindal and Another,<\/a> (2004) 2 SCC 510, John
\nVallamattom and Another v. Union of India,<\/a> (2003) 6 SCC 1, and Kapila
\nHingorani v. State of Bihar,<\/a> (2003) 6 SCC 1]  Same principle is
\napplicable in respect of some statutes.\n<\/p>\n
\tCreative interpretation had been resorted to by the Court so as to
\nachieve a balance between the age old and rigid laws on the one hand and
\nthe advanced technology, on the other.  The Judiciary always responds to
\nthe need of the changing scenario in regard to development of
\ntechnologies. It uses its own interpretative principles to achieve a balance
\nwhen Parliament has not responded to the need to amend the statute
\nhaving regard to the developments in the field of science.\n<\/p>\n
 \tInternet and other information technologies brought with them the
\nissues which were not foreseen by law as for example, problems in
\ndetermining statutory liabilities.  It also did not foresee the difficulties
\nwhich may be faced by the officers who may not have any scientific
\nexpertise or did not have the sufficient insight to tackle with the new
\nsituation.  Various new developments leading to various different kinds
\nof crimes unforeseen by our legislature come to immediate focus.
\nInformation Technology Act, 2000 although was amended to include
\nvarious kinds of cyber crimes and the punishments therefor, does not deal
\nwith all problems which are faced by the officers enforcing the said Act.\n<\/p>\n
 \tWe may notice some recent amendments in this behalf.  Section
\n464 of the Indian Penal Code deals with the inclusion of the digital
\nsignatures.  Sections 29, 167, 172, 192 and 463 of the Indian Penal Code
\nhave been amended to include electronics documents within the
\ndefinition of ‘documents’.  Section 63 of the Evidence Act has been
\namended to include admissibility of computer outputs in the media,
\npaper, optical or magnetic form.  Section 73A prescribes procedures for
\nverification of digital signatures.  Sections 85A and 85B of the Evidence
\nAct raise a presumption as regards electronic contracts, electronic
\nrecords, digital signature certificates and electronic messages.\n<\/p>\n
 \tSection 14 of the Act although has been amended, the problem, in
\nour opinion, should be dealt with keeping in view of the fact that the
\nprocedural laws should be construed to be ongoing statutes similar to the
\nConstitution and, thus, creative interpretation according to the
\ncircumstances is permitted.  The Court in view of development of science
\nhas to meet and contend with challenges as an intermediary between the
\nlitigant and the court.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIn SIL, Import, USA v. Exim Aides Silk Exporters, Bangalore,<\/a>
\n[(1999) 4 SCC 567], notice in terms of Section 138 of the Negotiable
\nInstruments Act was construed to include notice by fax.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIn State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai<\/a> [(2003) 4 SCC 601],
\nthis Court opined that recording of evidence through video conferencing
\nis permissible in terms of Section 273 of the Code of Criminal Procedure;
\nstating:\n<\/p>\n
“This Court has approved the principle of updating
\nconstruction, as enunciated by Francis Bennion, in
\na number of decisions. These principles were
\nquoted with approval in the case of CIT v. Podar
\nCement (P) Ltd. They were also cited with
\napproval in the case of State v. S.J. Choudhary. In<\/a>
\nthis case it was held that the Evidence Act was an
\nongoing Act and the word “handwriting” in
\nSection 45 of that Act was construed to include
\n“typewriting”. These principles were also applied
\nin the case of SIL Import, USA v. Exim Aides Silk
\nExporters<\/a> 9. In this case the words “notice in
\nwriting”, in Section 138 of the Negotiable
\nInstruments Act, were construed to include a
\nnotice by fax. On the same principle courts have
\ninterpreted, over a period of time, various terms
\nand phrases. To take only a few examples: “stage
\ncarriage” has been interpreted to include “electric
\ntramcar”; “steam tricycle” to include
\n“locomotive”; “telegraph” to include “telephone”;
\n“banker’s books” to include “microfilm”; “to take
\nnote” to include “use of tape recorder”;\n<\/p>\n
“documents” to include “computer databases”.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe officers of the Sales Tax Department of the State of Punjab
\nmust have felt immense difficulties in giving effect to the provisions of
\nSection 14 of the Act.  It no doubt mandates the authorities to return to
\nthe dealer all documents after examination or after having such copies or
\nextracts taken therefrom as may be considered necessary within a period
\nof 60 days of seizure but in the instant case even for the said purpose, not
\nonly a copy was required to be made from the hard disk, the same was
\nrequired to be verified.  The Respondents were asked by the authorities of
\nthe department that they should come and verify the contents but they did
\nnot do so.  Active cooperation of the Respondents was necessary having
\nregard to the proviso appended to Sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the Act
\ninasmuch as in terms thereof the officer was entitled not only to affix his
\nsignature and his official seal at one or more places thereupon but also the
\ndealer was required to give a receipt therefor.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIn case of a hard disk, literal compliance of the said provision was
\nimpossible.  Recourse to scientific method, therefore, was necessary.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIt may be true that even in absence of cooperation from the
\nRespondents nothing prevented the authorities of the Sales Tax
\nDepartment to make out copies of the said hard disk or obtain a hard copy
\nand fix their signatures or official seal in physical form thereupon and
\nfurnish a copy thereof to the Respondents.  However, the High Court
\nfailed to notice that as problem arose for the first time, the officers of the
\nSales Tax Department might not have been able to formulate or lay down
\ntheir own procedure as indicated hereinbefore or otherwise.\n<\/p>\n
 \tFor the reasons aforementioned, although we are of the opinion
\nthat fulfillment of the conditions laid down in the proviso contained in
\nClause (b) of Sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the Act are imperative in
\ncharacter, the authorities may take recourse to the aforementioned
\nprocedure in respect of seizure of a hard disk.\n<\/p>\n
 \tWe, in the facts and circumstances of the case, think that it is
\nnecessary to explain the legal position so that the complications arising
\nout of seizure of hard disk may be avoided in future.  The hard disk,
\nhowever, has already been returned.  We have noticed hereinbefore the
\noffer made by the Respondents and, thus, the authorities may now ask the
\nrepresentative of the Respondents  Company to make themselves
\navailable and obtain his signatures on the receipt or otherwise of the hard
\ncopies; in terms of their undertaking in the counter-affidavit.\n<\/p>\n
 \tWe, however, set aside that portion of the impugned judgment
\nwhereby and whereunder personal costs have been imposed upon the
\nofficers.  The appeal is allowed to the aforementioned extent and with the
\naforementioned observations and directions.  The parties shall pay and
\nbear their own costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Punjab & Ors vs M\/S. Amritsar Beverages Ltd. & Ors on 8 August, 2006 Author: S.B. Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, Dalveer Bhandari CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 3419 of 2006 PETITIONER: State of Punjab & Ors. RESPONDENT: M\/s. Amritsar Beverages Ltd. & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08\/08\/2006 BENCH: S.B. Sinha […]<\/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-220836","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Punjab & Ors vs M\/S. Amritsar Beverages Ltd. & Ors on 8 August, 2006 - 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\/state-of-punjab-ors-vs-ms-amritsar-beverages-ltd-ors-on-8-august-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Punjab & Ors vs M\/S. Amritsar Beverages Ltd. & Ors on 8 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-ors-vs-ms-amritsar-beverages-ltd-ors-on-8-august-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-08-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-30T04:08:48+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-ors-vs-ms-amritsar-beverages-ltd-ors-on-8-august-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-ors-vs-ms-amritsar-beverages-ltd-ors-on-8-august-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Punjab & Ors vs M\\\/S. Amritsar Beverages Ltd. & Ors on 8 August, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-08-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-30T04:08:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-ors-vs-ms-amritsar-beverages-ltd-ors-on-8-august-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1985,\"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\\\/state-of-punjab-ors-vs-ms-amritsar-beverages-ltd-ors-on-8-august-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-ors-vs-ms-amritsar-beverages-ltd-ors-on-8-august-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-ors-vs-ms-amritsar-beverages-ltd-ors-on-8-august-2006\",\"name\":\"State Of Punjab & Ors vs M\\\/S. Amritsar Beverages Ltd. & Ors on 8 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-08-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-30T04:08:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-ors-vs-ms-amritsar-beverages-ltd-ors-on-8-august-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-ors-vs-ms-amritsar-beverages-ltd-ors-on-8-august-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-ors-vs-ms-amritsar-beverages-ltd-ors-on-8-august-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Punjab & Ors vs M\\\/S. Amritsar Beverages Ltd. & Ors on 8 August, 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":"State Of Punjab & Ors vs M\/S. Amritsar Beverages Ltd. & Ors on 8 August, 2006 - 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\/state-of-punjab-ors-vs-ms-amritsar-beverages-ltd-ors-on-8-august-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Punjab & Ors vs M\/S. Amritsar Beverages Ltd. & Ors on 8 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-ors-vs-ms-amritsar-beverages-ltd-ors-on-8-august-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-08-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-30T04:08:48+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-ors-vs-ms-amritsar-beverages-ltd-ors-on-8-august-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-ors-vs-ms-amritsar-beverages-ltd-ors-on-8-august-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Punjab & Ors vs M\/S. Amritsar Beverages Ltd. & Ors on 8 August, 2006","datePublished":"2006-08-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-30T04:08:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-ors-vs-ms-amritsar-beverages-ltd-ors-on-8-august-2006"},"wordCount":1985,"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\/state-of-punjab-ors-vs-ms-amritsar-beverages-ltd-ors-on-8-august-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-ors-vs-ms-amritsar-beverages-ltd-ors-on-8-august-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-ors-vs-ms-amritsar-beverages-ltd-ors-on-8-august-2006","name":"State Of Punjab & Ors vs M\/S. Amritsar Beverages Ltd. & Ors on 8 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-08-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-30T04:08:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-ors-vs-ms-amritsar-beverages-ltd-ors-on-8-august-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-ors-vs-ms-amritsar-beverages-ltd-ors-on-8-august-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-ors-vs-ms-amritsar-beverages-ltd-ors-on-8-august-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Punjab & Ors vs M\/S. Amritsar Beverages Ltd. & Ors on 8 August, 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\/220836","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=220836"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/220836\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=220836"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=220836"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=220836"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}