{"id":229687,"date":"1974-04-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1974-04-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-amalgamated-tea-estate-co-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-april-1974"},"modified":"2015-04-04T07:18:31","modified_gmt":"2015-04-04T01:48:31","slug":"the-amalgamated-tea-estate-co-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-april-1974","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-amalgamated-tea-estate-co-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-april-1974","title":{"rendered":"The Amalgamated Tea Estate Co. … vs State Of Kerala on 2 April, 1974"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
The Amalgamated Tea Estate Co. … vs State Of Kerala on 2 April, 1974<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1974 AIR 849, \t\t 1974 SCR (3) 820<\/div>\n
Author: S Dwivedi<\/div>\n
Bench: Ray, A.N. (Cj), Reddy, P. Jaganmohan, Dwivedi, S.N., Goswami, P.K., Sarkaria, Ranjit Singh<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nTHE AMALGAMATED TEA ESTATE CO.\tLTD.  ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF KERALA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT02\/04\/1974\n\nBENCH:\nDWIVEDI, S.N.\nBENCH:\nDWIVEDI, S.N.\nRAY, A.N. (CJ)\nREDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN\nGOSWAMI, P.K.\nSARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH\n\nCITATION:\n 1974 AIR  849\t\t  1974 SCR  (3) 820\n 1974 SCC  (4) 415\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1975 SC 583\t (36)\n\n\nACT:\nConstitution  of  India,  Art.\t14--Classification  test  if\ninflexible and doctrinaire.\nKerala\tAgricultural Income Tax Act, 1950--If imposition  of\ngraduated   tax\t between  domestic  and\t foreign   companies\nviolates Art. 14.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe petitioners, two foreign companies, had been assessed to\nagricultural  income  tax  under  the  Kerala\tAgricultural\nIncome-tax  Act,  1950 as amended. by the Amendment  Act  of\n1970.\tThe Act has fixed a graduated scale on\tagricultural\nincome\ttax to a minimum of 65% on domestic companies and  a\nflat  rate of 75% of the total income on foreign  companies.\nThe petitioners contended that this discrimination between a\ndomestic company and a foreign company was violative of Art.\n14  of the Constitution because the classification  was\t not\nbase,  on any intelligible differentia and the\tdifferentia,\nif any, had no rational relation to the purpose sought to be\nachieved  by  the  taxing  statute and\tthat  it  treats  as\nunequal, companies which are equally circumstanced.\nDismissing the petitions,\nHELD : (1) The impugned provisions of the Amending Act, 1970\nwere not violative of Art. 14.\tThe impugned legislation, in\norder to get the green light from Art 14, should satisfy the\nclassification\ttest  evolved by this Court namely  (1)\t the\nclassification\t should\t  be  passed  on   an\tintelligible\ndifferentia  and (2) the differentia should bear a  rational\nrelation to the purpose of the legislation. [822 F] ,\n(2)  The classification test is, however, not inflexible and\ndoctrinaire.  It gives due regard to the complex necessities\nand  intricate\tproblems of government.\t As revenue  is\t the\nfirst  necessity  of the State and as taxes are\t raised\t for\nvarious\t purposes and by an adjustment of diverse  elements,\nthe Court grants the State greater choice of  classification\nin the field of taxation than in other spheres. [822 G]\nKhandige  Sham\tBhat  v.  Agricultural\tIncome-tax  Officer,\nA.I.R.<\/a> 1963 S.C. 591 and Kasargod Ravi verma Rajah v,  Union\nof India [1969] 3 S.C.R. 827, referred to.\n(3)  On\t a challenge to a statute on the ground of  Art.  14\nthe  court  would  raise  a  presumtion\t in  favour  of\t its\nconstitutionality.   Consequently  one\twho  challenged\t the\nsatute bears the burden of establishing that the statute  is\nclearly violative of Art. 14. [823 B]\nCharanjit  Lal v. Union of India,<\/a> [1950] S.C. R. 869  at  p.\n879  per Fazal Ali J. and State of West Bengal v. Anwar\t Ali\nSarkar,<\/a> [1952] S.C.R. 284 at p. 303. referred to.\n(4)  It\t is  not  possible  to hold  on.  the  meagre  facts\npresented  before  the\tcourt that  domestic  companies\t and\nforeign\t companies carrying on agriculture in the  State  of\nKerala are equaly circumstanced. [823 G]\nD.   P.\t Joshi V. State of Madhya  Bharat,<\/a> [1955]  1  S.C.R.\n1215, at P. 1228, Hans Muller of Nurenburg v. Superintendent\nPresidency<\/a>  fail,  Calcutta,  [1955] 1 S.C.R.  1284,  K.  T.\nMoopil Nair v. State of Kerala [1961] 3 S.C.R. 77 and  State\nof  Kerala,  v. Haji K. Kutty Naha, A.I.R.<\/a>  1959  S.C.\t378,\nreferred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petitions Nos. 2 and 9 of 1971.
\nUnder Article 32 of the Constitution for the enforcement  of
\nfundamental rights.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    821<\/span><\/p>\n
G.   B. Pai, O. C. Mathur, D. N. Misra, J. B. Dadachanji and
\nRavinder Narain, for the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
 L.  N.\t Misra,\t Solicitor  General  of\t India\tand  A.\t  G.
\nPudissary, for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nDWIVEDI,  J.-The  two  petitioners  have  been\tassessed  to
\nAgricultural  Income-tax  by the State of Kerala  under\t the
\nAgricultural  Incometax\t Act, 1950 (hereinafter\t called\t the
\nAct)  as amended by the Agricultural Income-tax\t (Amendment)
\nAct,  1970.   The assessment is made at the rate of  75\t per
\ncent  of their total income.  They challenge the  assessment
\non the ground that s. 2(hh) and (kk) and clauses (2) and (3)
\nof Part I to the Schedule of the Kerala Agricultural Income-
\ntax  (Amendment) Act, 1970 are violative of Art. 14  of\t the
\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n
It  will  facilitate  appreciation  of\tthe  facts  and\t the
\nconstitutional\t question  in  this  case  if\tthe   taxing
\nprovisions are noticed at this stage.\n<\/p>\n
The Agricultural Income-tax Act was passed in 1950.  In\t the
\nbeginning,  the\t Act  was  known  as  the  Travancore-Cochin
\nAgricultural  Income-tax  Act.\t Later as a  result  of\t the
\nState’s\t reorganisation,  the  Act  was\t renamed  simply  as
\nAgricultural  Income,-tax  Act,\t 1950.\t According  to\t the
\npreamble,  the\tAct was made to provide for levy of  tax  on
\nagricultural  income  in  the State  of\t Kerala.   Till\t the
\nAmending  Act of 1970, all companies were liable to pay\t tax
\naccording  to  their total income.  The\t tax  is  chargeable
\nunder  s.  3.  Sub-section (1)\tthereof\t provided  that\t the
\nagricultural  income at the rate or rates specified  in\t the
\nschedule  to  the Act shall be charged at  the\ttotal  agri-
\ncultural  income of the previous year of every\tperson.\t  It
\nwas  a graduated rate.\tSection 2(h) of the Amending Act  of
\n1970  has redefined a ‘Company’ as “a domestic company or  a
\nforeign company.” Section 2(hh) defines a ‘domestic company’
\n;is  “a\t company formed and registered under  the  Companies
\nAct,  1956 … and includes a company formed and  registered
\nunder any law relating to companies formerly in force in any
\npart  of India.” It is necessary that the registered  office
\nof the Company should be in India.  Section 2(kk) defines  a
\n‘foreign  company’ as ‘a foreign company within the  meaning
\nof.  s.591 of the Companies Act, 1956 …. and includes\t any
\nforeign\t association whether incorporated or not  which\t the
\nGovernment, may, by general or special order, declare to  be
\na foreign company for the purposes of this Act.”
\nClause\t(2) of Part I of the Schedule to the  Amending\tAct,
\n1970,  provides for the rate of taxation chargeable  from  a
\n‘domestic company.’ It is this :\n<\/p>\n
\t      A.    Where the total agricultural income does
\n\t      not exceed Rs. 25,000-45 per cent of the total
\n\t      agricultural income
\n\t      B.    Where  the\ttotal  agricultural   income
\n\t      exceeds.\tRs. 25,000 but does not exceed Rs. 1
\n\t      lakh-50  per  cent of the\t total\tagricultural
\n\t      income
\n\t      822<\/span>
\n\t      C. Where the total agricultural income exceeds
\n\t      Rs.  1 lakh but does not exceed Rs. 3 lakhs-55
\n\t      per cent of the total agricultural income
\n\t      D.    Where  the\ttotal  agricultural   income
\n\t      exceeds,\tRs. 3 lakhs but does not exceed\t Rs.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n\t      10   lakhs.-60   per   cent   of\t the   total\n\t      agricultural income\n\t      E.    Where  the\ttotal  agricultural   income\n\t\t\t    exceeds Rs. 10 lakhs.-65 per cent of t\nhe  total\n\t      agricultural income.\n<\/pre>\n
The  provisos  to  various alphabetical\t clauses  have\tbeen
\nomitted here from as they are not material.  Clause (3).  of
\nPart  I\t of  the  Schedule provides  for  the  rate  of\t tax
\nchargeable from a foreign company.  The rate fixed is 75 per
\ncent of the total agricultural income.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It  is obvious from the review of the  aforesaid  provisions
\nthat  while  in the case of domestic companies\ta  graduated
\nscale is fixed, in the case of foreign companies a flat rate
\nis  fixed.  Secondly, while the maximum rate of tax  in\t the
\ncase  of  a  domestic company is 65 per cent  of  the  total
\nincome, it is 75 per cent in case of all foreign companies.
\nThe  petitioners’  contention is  that\tthis  discrimination
\nbetween\t a  domestic  company  and  a  foreign\tcompany\t  is
\nviolative   of\t Art.\t14   of\t  the\tConstitution.\t The
\nclassification for the purposes of taxation is not based  on
\nany  intelligible differentia; and the differentia, if\tany,
\nhas  no\t rational  relation  to the  purpose  sought  to  be
\nachieved  by  the  taxing statute.  Reliance  is  placed  on
\nWheeling Steel Corporation v. C. Emory Glander,(1) where the
\nU.S.A. Supreme Court has said : “After a State has chosen to
\ndomesticate foreign corporations, they are entitled to equal
\nprotection with the State’s own corporate progeny, at  least
\nto the extent that their property is entitled to an  equally
\nfavourable ad valorem tax basis.”\n<\/p>\n
It  may be pointed out that the Indian Income-tax Act  also,
\nmakes a distinction between a domestic company and a foreign
\ncompany.   But that circumstance per se would not  help\t the
\nState of Kerala.  The impugned legislation, in order to\t get
\nthe   green   light  from  Art.\t 14,  should   satisfy\t the
\nclassification\ttest  evolved by this Court in a  catena  of
\ncases.\tAccording to that test (1) the classification should
\nbe  based  on  an  inteliligible  differentia  and  (2)\t the
\ndifferentia  should bear a rational relation to the  purpose
\nof the legislation.\n<\/p>\n
The  classification  test is, however,\tnot  inflexible\t and
\ndoctrinaire.  It gives due regard to the complex necessities
\nand intericate problems of government.\tThus, as revenue  is
\nthe first necessity of the State and as taxes are raised for
\nvarious\t purposes and by an adjustment of diverse  elements,
\nthe Court grants the State greater choice of  classification
\nin the field of taxation, than in other spheres.   According
\nto  Subba  Rao\tJ., “(The courts in  view  of  the  inherent
\ncomplexity of fiscal adjustment of diverse elements,  permit
\na  larger  discretion to the Legislature in  the  matter  of
\nclassification,\t so  long as it adheres to  the\t fundamental
\nprinciples  underlying the said doctrine.  The power of\t the
\nLegislature
\n(1)  93 Law.  Edn. 1544.\n<\/p>\n
823<\/span><\/p>\n
to   classify  is of wide range and flexibility so  that  it
\ncan adjust its system of taxation   in\t all   proper\t and
\nreasonable ways.” Khandige Sham Bhat v. Agricultural Income-<\/a>
\ntax  Officer,  Kasargod(1) ; Ravi Verma Rajah  v.  Union  of
\nIndia  ( 2)
\nAgain, on a challenge to a statute on the ground of Art. 14,
\nthe  Court would generally raise a presumption in favour  of
\nits constitutionality.\tConsequently, one who challenges the
\nstatute,  bears the burden of establishing that the  statute
\nis  clearly  violative of Art. 14.   “(T)he  presumption  is
\nalways\tin favour of the constitutionality of  an  enactment
\nand the burden is upon him who attacks it to show that there
\nis  a clear transgression of the constitutional\t principle.”
\n[see Charanjit Lal v.Union of India(3).\n<\/p>\n
The reason why a statute is presumed to be constitutional is
\nthat  the  Legislature\tis  the\t best  judge  of  the  local
\ncondition  and\tcircumstances and special needs\t of  various
\nclasses of persons.  “(T)he Legislature is the best judge of
\nthe  needs of particular classes and to estimate the  degree
\nof  evil  so as to adjust its legislation according  to\t the
\nexigency found to exist.” (Charanjit Lal (supra) at page 933
\nper Das J.)
\nSpeaking in the same vein, Patanjali Sastri, C.J. observed :
\n“(The  Legislatures)  alone know the  local  conditions\t and
\ncircumstances  which demanded the enactment of such  a\tlaw,
\nand  it must be remembered that “legislatures  are  ultimate
\nguardians  of  the liberties and welfare of  the  people  in
\nquite  as great a degree as the courts.” [See State of\tWest
\nBengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar<\/a> (4 )]
\nThe contention of the petitioners would have to be  examined
\nin the light of the foregoing considerations.
\nThe only relevant statement of fact in the petitions is that
\nthe  petitioners  are  Joint Stock  Companies  with  limited
\nliability and have been incorporated in the United  Kingdom.
\nOne  of them has its registered office in Scotland, and\t the
\nother  in England.  Both of them carry on business  also  in
\nthis  country, and particularly in the State of Kerala.\t  In
\nKerala\ttheir  main  business  is  one\tof  cultivation\t and
\nmarketing  of  plantation  crops such as tea.\tIt  is\talso
\nalleged that the impugned statute seeks to treat as  unequal
\ncompanies  which are equally circumstanced.  No other  facts
\nare  disclosed\tin  the petitions.  No\tcomparison  is\tmade
\nbetween\t  the  domestic\t companies  and\t foreign   companies
\ncarrying  on  agriculture  in  Kerala  in  regard  to  their
\nfinancial standing.  Magnitude of their, business inside and
\noutside\t the  country, the, fertility of the land  owned  by
\nthem and the quality of the plantation crops raised by them.
\nIt  is\tnot possible to hold on the meagre  facts  presented
\nbefore\tus  that domestic companies  and  foreign  companies
\ncarrying  on agriculture in the State of Kerala are  equally
\ncircumstanced.\n<\/p>\n
(1) A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 591.\t (2) [1969] S. C. R 827
\n(3)  [1950] S. C. R. 869 at P. 879 per Fazal Ali J.
\n(4)  [1952] S. C. R. 284 at p. 303
\n824<\/span>
\nThere  is  no denying the fact that for\t various  reasons  a
\ndomestic  company may be treated differently from a  foreign
\ncompany\t in the field of taxation.  According to Art. 48  of
\nthe  Constitution,  it is a fundamental\t obligation  of\t the
\nState to make “endeavour to organise agriculture and  animal
\nhusbandry on ,modern and scientific lines and to take  steps
\nfor  preservation and improving the breeds … of  cows\t and
\ncalves\tand  other milch and draught cattle.” So it  may  be
\nsafely presumed that the State of Kerala should be  striving
\nto  improve  agriculture  and animal  husbandry\t within\t its
\nboundaries.   It  may also be presumed that in so  doing  it
\nmust  be investing considerable money and skill.  The  State
\nis,  therefore,\t entitled to raise revenue by  taxation\t for
\ninvestment in agriculture and animal husbandry.\t So it could
\nreasonably demand 75 per cent of total income as tax from  a
\nforeign\t company.   It could demand the same amount  of\t tax
\nfrom  a domestic company also.\tBut the rate of tax on\tthem
\nis lesser.  But the tax relief given to them is riot  proved
\nto be arbitrary or unreasonable.  It may be that the  domes-
\ntic  companies\town land which is less\tfertile\t or  produce
\ninferior  quality  of  plantation crops\t while\tthe  foreign
\ncompanies own more fertile land and produce superior quality
\nof  plantation crops.  In that case, the domestic  companies
\nwould  not  be\table to withstand  the\tcompetition  of\t the
\nforeign\t companies and would not survive.  The\tState  might
\nhave  chosen  to  give\tthe  domestic  companies  protection
\nagainst\t the foreign companies.\t And there seems to  be\t yet
\nanother good reason for this.  The entire income earned by a
\ndomestic  company  from business inside as well\t as  outside
\nIndia  will remain in India.  But a good part of the  income
\nearned by the petitioners inside India would be drained\t out
\nof  India to the United Kingdom in the shape  of  dividends,
\netc.  Under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, it is
\nopen  to  a foreign company to transmit money out  of  India
\nwith  the  permission of the Reserve Bank of India.   It  is
\nthus evident that a greater part of the income and skill  of
\nthe domestic companies is likely to be utilised in improving
\nagriculture within the State.  It will not be so in the case
\nof foreign companies.\n<\/p>\n
On   these  considerations  it\tcannot\tbe  said  that\t the
\nclassification\tof  companies  into  domestic  and   foreign
\ncompanies  has\tno rational relation to the purpose  of\t the
\nimpugned provisions.\n<\/p>\n
Our view receives strong support from the Court’s opinion in
\nD. P. Joshi v. State of Madhya Bharat<\/a>(1).  That case related
\nto  the\t question  of admission of  students  in  a  Medical
\nCollege\t in  the  State of Madhya Bharat.   According  to  a
\ndirection  of  the  State of  Madhya  Bharat,  all  students
\nadmitted  to the College were required to pay  a  prescribed
\nfee.   But  students  who were not bona\t fide  residence  of
\nMadhya\tBharat were also required to pay capitation  fee  of
\nRs. 15001-.  A student who was riot a bona fide resident  of
\nMadhya Bharat challenged the capitation
\nfee  as\t being\tviolative of Art. 14.  The majority  of\t the
\nCourt overruled the contention.\t  Speaking  for\t the  Court,
\nVenkatarama Ayyar J. said
\n\t      “The  object of the classification  underlying
\n\t      the impugned rule was clearly to help to\tsome
\n\t      extent students who residents of Madhya Bharat
\n\t\t\t    in the prosecution of their studies,
\n\t      (1)   [1955] 1 S. C. R. 1215 at p. 1228.\n<\/p>\n
\t      825<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      and  it cannot be disputed that it is quite  a
\n\t      legitimate and laudable objective for a  State
\n\t      to  encourage  education within  its  borders.
\n\t      Education\t is a State subject, and one of\t the
\n\t      directive\t principles declared in Part  IV  of
\n\t      the Constitution is that the State should make
\n\t      effective\t provision for education within\t the
\n\t      limits  of its economy …. The State  has  to
\n\t      contribute  for the unkeep and the running  of
\n\t      its educational institutions.  We are in\tthis
\n\t      petition concerned with a Medical College, and
\n\t      it is well-known that it requires considerable
\n\t      finance  to maintain such as institution.\t  If
\n\t      the  State  has to spend money on\t it,  is  it
\n\t      unreasonable  that  it  should  so  order\t the
\n\t      educational  system that the advantage  of  it
\n\t      would  to some extent at least enure  for\t the
\n\t      benefit of the, State ? A concession given  to
\n\t      the  “residents of the State in the matter  of
\n\t      fee is obviously calculated to serve that end,
\n\t      as  presumaably  some  of\t them  might,  after
\n\t      passing  out of the College,,, settle down  as
\n\t      doctors and serve, the needs of the  locality.
\n\t      The  classification is thus based on a  ground
\n\t      which has a reasonable relation to the subject
\n\t      matter   of   the\t legislation,  and   is\t  in
\n\t      consequence  not open to attack.\tIt has\tbeen
\n\t      held in the State of Punjab v. Ajaib Singh and
\n\t      others<\/a>(1) that a classification might  validly
\n\t      be  made\ton  a geographical  basis.   Such  a
\n\t      classification  would  be eminently  just\t and
\n\t      reasonable,  where  it  relates  to  education
\n\t      which  is the concern primarily of the  State.
\n\t      The  contention,\ttherefore,  that  the\trule
\n\t      imposing capitation tee is in contravention of
\n\t      article 14 must be rejected.”\n<\/p>\n
Wheeling  Steel\t Corporation (supra) cannot,  in  our  view,
\nassist\tthe petitioners.  Firstly, the\tforeign\t corporation
\nthere  was  a corporation incorporated and registered  in  a
\nState  within the U.S.A. Here the petitioner  companies\t are
\nincorporated  not  in any part of India but  in\t the  United
\nKingdom.  Secondly, while there the taxing State has  chosen
\n“to  adopt” the petitioning foreign corporation, here  there
\nis, no evidence to show that the petitioners were  permitted
\nto carry on business in the State of Kerala by the choice of
\nthat  State.   In  all probability they\t had  set  up  their
\nbusiness  in  that  State before India\tbecame\ta  Sovereign
\nRepublic.  Thirdly, there the taxing State was trying to tax
\nthe property of a foreign corporation admitted in the State.
\nHere the State of Kerala is not taxing the property, but the
\nincome, of the petitioners from their agricultural property.
\nIn  Hans  Muller of Nurenbug v.\t Superintendent,  Presidency
\nJail,  Calcutta<\/a>(2), this Court upheld the classification  of
\nforeigners into those who are British subjects and those who
\nare  not  British  subjects for the  purpose  of  preventive
\ndetention.    The  Court  said\tthere  :  “(1)\t is   easily
\nunderstandable\tthat  the  reasons  of\tState  may  make  it
\ndesirable to classify foreigners into different groups.”
\nK.   T.\t Moopil\t Nair  v. State of Kerala(3)  and  State  of
\nKerala\tv. Haji K. Kutty Naha<\/a>(4) deal with taxing  statutes.
\nIn the first case.\n<\/p>\n
(1) [1953] S.C.R. 254.\t  (2) [1955] 1 S.C.R. 1284.
\n(3)[1961]3 S.C.R. 77.\t (4) A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 378.\n<\/p>\n
 826<\/span><\/p>\n
the, State of Kerala had imposed a uniform tax levy on land.
\nThe taxing provisions were struck down as violative of\tArt.
\n14   because   according   to  the  Court   there   was\t  no
\nclassification\tof persons for the purpose of taxation.\t  In
\nthe  other  case,  a uniform building  tax  was\t imposed  on
\nbuildings  according to their floor area.  The\ttaxing\tpro-
\nvisions\t were struck down as being discriminatory for  total
\nlack  of  any classification of persons or  buildings.\t The
\nimpugned  Act  of 1970 does not suffer from this  vice.\t  So
\nthese cases also do not help the petitioners.
\nWe  are\t of  opinion that the  impugned\t provisions  of\t the
\nAmending  Act  of 1970 are not violative of  Art.  14.\t The
\npetitions are accordingly dismissed with costs.\t One set.
\nP.B.R.\n<\/p>\n
Petitions dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
827<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India The Amalgamated Tea Estate Co. … vs State Of Kerala on 2 April, 1974 Equivalent citations: 1974 AIR 849, 1974 SCR (3) 820 Author: S Dwivedi Bench: Ray, A.N. (Cj), Reddy, P. Jaganmohan, Dwivedi, S.N., Goswami, P.K., Sarkaria, Ranjit Singh PETITIONER: THE AMALGAMATED TEA ESTATE CO. LTD. ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE […]<\/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-229687","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Amalgamated Tea Estate Co. ... vs State Of Kerala on 2 April, 1974 - 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\/the-amalgamated-tea-estate-co-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-april-1974\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Amalgamated Tea Estate Co. ... vs State Of Kerala on 2 April, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-amalgamated-tea-estate-co-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-april-1974\" \/>\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=\"1974-04-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-04T01:48:31+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-amalgamated-tea-estate-co-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-april-1974#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-amalgamated-tea-estate-co-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-april-1974\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Amalgamated Tea Estate Co. … vs State Of Kerala on 2 April, 1974\",\"datePublished\":\"1974-04-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-04T01:48:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-amalgamated-tea-estate-co-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-april-1974\"},\"wordCount\":2668,\"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\\\/the-amalgamated-tea-estate-co-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-april-1974#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-amalgamated-tea-estate-co-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-april-1974\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-amalgamated-tea-estate-co-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-april-1974\",\"name\":\"The Amalgamated Tea Estate Co. ... vs State Of Kerala on 2 April, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1974-04-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-04T01:48:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-amalgamated-tea-estate-co-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-april-1974#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-amalgamated-tea-estate-co-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-april-1974\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-amalgamated-tea-estate-co-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-april-1974#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Amalgamated Tea Estate Co. … vs State Of Kerala on 2 April, 1974\"}]},{\"@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":"The Amalgamated Tea Estate Co. ... vs State Of Kerala on 2 April, 1974 - 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\/the-amalgamated-tea-estate-co-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-april-1974","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Amalgamated Tea Estate Co. ... vs State Of Kerala on 2 April, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-amalgamated-tea-estate-co-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-april-1974","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1974-04-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-04T01:48:31+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-amalgamated-tea-estate-co-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-april-1974#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-amalgamated-tea-estate-co-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-april-1974"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Amalgamated Tea Estate Co. … vs State Of Kerala on 2 April, 1974","datePublished":"1974-04-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-04T01:48:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-amalgamated-tea-estate-co-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-april-1974"},"wordCount":2668,"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\/the-amalgamated-tea-estate-co-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-april-1974#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-amalgamated-tea-estate-co-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-april-1974","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-amalgamated-tea-estate-co-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-april-1974","name":"The Amalgamated Tea Estate Co. ... vs State Of Kerala on 2 April, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1974-04-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-04T01:48:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-amalgamated-tea-estate-co-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-april-1974#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-amalgamated-tea-estate-co-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-april-1974"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-amalgamated-tea-estate-co-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-april-1974#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Amalgamated Tea Estate Co. … vs State Of Kerala on 2 April, 1974"}]},{"@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\/229687","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=229687"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/229687\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=229687"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=229687"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=229687"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}