{"id":234516,"date":"1966-10-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1966-10-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishna-coconut-co-anr-vs-east-godavari-coconut-tobacco-on-27-october-1966"},"modified":"2017-04-12T06:26:01","modified_gmt":"2017-04-12T00:56:01","slug":"krishna-coconut-co-anr-vs-east-godavari-coconut-tobacco-on-27-october-1966","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishna-coconut-co-anr-vs-east-godavari-coconut-tobacco-on-27-october-1966","title":{"rendered":"Krishna Coconut Co. & Anr vs East Godavari Coconut & Tobacco … on 27 October, 1966"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Krishna Coconut Co. & Anr vs East Godavari Coconut & Tobacco … on 27 October, 1966<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 973, \t\t 1967 SCR (1) 974<\/div>\n
Author: Shelat<\/div>\n
Bench: Rao, K. Subba (Cj), Hidayatullah, M., Sikri, S.M., Bachawat, R.S., Shelat, J.M.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nKRISHNA COCONUT CO. & ANR.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nEAST GODAVARI COCONUT & TOBACCO MARKETCOMMITTEE\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n27\/10\/1966\n\nBENCH:\nSHELAT, J.M.\nBENCH:\nSHELAT, J.M.\nRAO, K. SUBBA (CJ)\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\nSIKRI, S.M.\nBACHAWAT, R.S.\n\nCITATION:\n 1967 AIR  973\t\t  1967 SCR  (1) 974\n\n\nACT:\nMadras Commercial Crops Market Act, 1933, ss. 2(1) (a),\t and\n11  (1)\t on Goods declared under s. 2(1) (a)  as  commercial\ncrops--levy of fee under S. 11(1) on goods \"bought and sold\"\nin  notified area-whether referred to single transaction  of\npurchase  and corresponding sale--or applied  to  subsequent\nsale   by  purchaser-whether  object  of  the  Act   to\t  be\nconsidered-whether levy valid.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nBy  a  notification in June 1949, the State  Government,  in\nexercise  of  a\t power\tunder  s.  2(1)(a)  of\tthe   Madras\nCommerical  Crops  Market Act, 1933, declared  coconuts\t and\ncopra  to  be 'commercial crops' within the meaning  of\t the\nAct.  The respondent Market Committee IL-vied in respect  of\nthe  declared commerical crops, a fee on the  goods  'bought\nand  sold'  within the notified area under s. 11(1)  of\t the\nAct,  read with Rule 28(1) of the Rules made under the\tAct.\nThe  appellants filed various suits contesting the  levy  on\nthe  ground that they sold coconuts and copra  to  customers\noutside\t the  notified area and in some\t cases\toutside\t the\nState;\t consequently,\tthey  sought  refund  of  the\tfees\ncollected by the respondent committee.\nThe suits filed were tried together and the trial Judge held\nthat  the levy, though called a \"fee\", was -really a  \"tax\",\nand that the Committee was only empowered to impose such tax\nwhen  the  goods were bought and sold  within  the  notified\narea.\tHe  therefore passed decrees in all the\t suits\t.for\nrefund of the fees collected.\nThe  first appeal by the respondent Committee was  dismissed\nby the Sub-Judge who further held that the fee in  substance\nbeing  a tax, such tax on sales completed outside the  State\nwould also offend Art. 286 of the Constitution.\t However,  a\nsecond appeal to the High Court was allowed on the view that\nthe  transactions which were the subject-matter of the\tlevy\nunder  Section\t11(1) were transactions\t consisting  of\t the\npurchase   of\tthe  goods  by\tthe   appellants   and\t the\ncorresponding  sales  to them by the producers and  not\t the\nsubsequent  sales effected by the appellants to\t their\tcus-\ntomers\toutside the notified area or the  States;  therefore\nthe  transactions  on  which the said fee  was\tlevied\twere\neffected  and  completed inside the notified area  and\tfell\nwithin the expression \"bought and sold\" in section 11(1).\nIn  the appeal before this court it was contended on  behalf\nof  the\t appellants that the transactions effected  by\tthem\nconsisted  in their purchasing the goods and stopped at\t the\nstage  of goods \"bought\" so that no fee could be  levied  in\nthe  absence of the other ingredient, i.e., sale within\t the\nnotified area.\nHELD  :\t The construction placed on s. II (1)  by  the\tHigh\nCourt was correct and the respondent Committee had therefore\nrightly charged the fee. [983 B]\n975\nThe  words \"bought and sold\" used in s. 11(1) aim  at  those\ntransactions  where under a dealer buys from a producer\t who\nbrings\tto the market his goods for sale.   The\t transaction\naimed  at  must\t be  viewed  in\t the  sense  in\t which\t the\nlegislature  intended  it  to be viewed,  that\tis,  as\t one\ntransaction resulting in buying on the one hand and  selling\non the other.  Such a construction is commendable because it\nis  not only in-consonance with the words used in s. 11\t (1)\nbut  is consistent with the object of the Act  as  expressed\nthrough\t its  various  provisions,,  i.e.,  to\tprevent\t the\nmischief  of exploitation of producers of  commercial  crops\nsuch  as coconuts and copra and to see that  such  producers\ngot a fair price for their goods. [982 A-B, E-F]\nKutti  Koya  v.\t State\tof  Madras  A.I.R.  1954  Mad.\t621;\nSatyanarayana  and  Venkataraju\t Firm  v.  Godavari   Market\nCommittee  A.I.R. 1959 Andh. Pra. 398;\tM.C.V.S.  Arunachala\nNadar  v.  The State of Madras<\/a> [1959] Suppl.  1\t S.C.R.\t 92;\nLouis  Drevfus\t&  Co.\tv.  South  Arcot  Groundnut   Market\nCommittee A.I.R. 1945 Mad. 383; referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 858 to\t 861
\nof 1964.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order of\t the
\nAndhra Pradesh High Court in Second Appeals Nos. 720 and 724
\nto 726 of 1957.\n<\/p>\n
C.B. Agarwala and T. V. R. Tatachari, for the appellants (in
\nall the appeals).\n<\/p>\n
P.   Ram  Reddy and K. R. Sharma for the respondent (in\t all
\nthe appeals. )
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nShelat, J. All these four appeals by special leave raise a
\ncommon\t  question regarding interpretation of section 11(1)
\nof the\t  Madras Commercial Crops Market Act, XX of 1933 and
\nRule  28 of the Rules made thereunder and therefore  can  be
\ndisposed of by a common judgment.\n<\/p>\n
The  Act was originally enacted by the\tMadras\tLegislature.
\nIt was a law in force immediately before the constitution of
\nthe State of Andhra Pradesh and governed the territories now
\nforming part of that State.  By virtue of Andhra Pradesh Act
\nof 1953 and the Adaptation of Laws Order passed on  November
\n1, 1953 by the State Government of Andhra Pradesh it  became
\napplicable to the newly formed State of Andhra Pradesh.\t  By
\na  Notification dated June 27, 1949 the then  Government  of
\nMadras, in exercise of the power conferred on it by  section
\n2(1)(a), declared coconuts and copra to be commercial crops.
\nUnder  section\t4  of the Act,\tthe  State  Government\talso
\ndeclared  the  District of East Godavari  as  the  “notified
\narea”  for  purposes of the Act in respect of  coconuts\t and
\ncopra.\t By  a further notification dated December  5,\t1950
\nissued under section 4(a) of the Act it established a Market
\nCom-\n<\/p>\n
976<\/span><\/p>\n
mittee at Rajahmundry for the said notified area.  The\tsaid
\nMarket\tCommittee  levied the following fees,  viz.,  (1)  a
\nlicence\t fee under s. 5(1) of the Act read with Rule  28(3);
\n(2) a licence fee for storage, wharfage etc., under  section
\n5(3) read with Rule 28(3); (3), a registration fee under  s.
\n18 read with Rule 37; (4) a fee on the said goods bought and
\nsold within the notified area and under s.   II\t  (1)\tread
\nwith Rule 28(1); and (5) a fee under the same section on   consign
\nments
\nof coconut oil.\n<\/p>\n
Contesting  the\t levy of fees under items 2 to\t5  as  being
\nillegal\t on the ground that they sold coconuts and copra  to
\ncustomers  outside  the\t notified area\tand  in\t some  cases
\noutside the State, the appellants filed various suits in the
\ncourt  of the District Munsif, Amalapuram for refund of\t the
\nsaid  fees  collected  by the said  Committee  at  different
\ntimes.\t The  Market  Committee\t resisted  the\tsaid   suits
\nclaiming that the aforesaid provisions conferred power\tupon
\nit  to levy the said- fees and that the said levy was  valid
\nand  legal.   The  said suits were tried  together  and\t the
\nDistrict  Munsif  by his judgment dated\t October  17,  1955,
\ninter alia, held that the levy under section 11(1) read with
\nRule  28(1) though called a “fee” was really a\t“tax”,\tthat
\nthe  said provisions empowered the Committee to\t impose\t the
\nsaid  tax  only\t when the said goods were  bought  and\tsold
\nwithin\tthe  notified area, that the sales effected  by\t the
\nappellants  were to customers outside the said area  and  in
\nsome  cases  outside the State, that the  Committee  had  no
\npower  to levy and collect the said fees’ and therefore\t the
\nappellants  were  entitled to refund of the  said  fees\t and
\naccordingly passed decrees in all the suits.  In appeals  by
\nthe Committee, the Subordinate Judge, Amalapuram, held\tthat
\nthough\tthe appellants purchased the said goods\t within\t the
\nnotified area they exported them to their customers  outside
\nthe notified area and outside the State and relying upon the
\ndecision  in  Kutti Koya v. State of Madras() he  held\tthat
\nthough section II (1) called the said levy as fee it was  in
\nsubstance  a  tax  and\tthat such  a  tax  being  oil  sales
\ncompleted at the places of their customers outside the State
\noffended  Art.\t286 of the Constitution\t and  was  therefore
\nillegal.   The\tSubordinate Judge, except for  deleting\t the
\nrelief\tgranted in respect of licence fee under s.  5(3)  of
\nthe  Act, dismissed the appeals and confirmed  the  judgment
\nand  decree  of\t the  Trial  Court.   The  Market  Committee
\nthereupon  filed Second Appeals in the High Court of  Andhra
\nPradesh.   Before  the High Court the  controversy  centered
\nround  the  question of fee under s. 11 (1)  only.   By\t its
\ncommon\tjudgment  dated\t November 8,  1961  the\t High  Court
\nrelying upon the judgment of a Division Bench of that  Court
\nin  Satyanarayana  and Venkataraju Firm v.  Godavari  Market
\nCommittee(2) held that the word “fee” in section II (1)\t was
\nin  fact a fee and not a tax, The Division Bench  also\theld
\nthat the said goods were pur-\n<\/p>\n
(1) A.I.R., 1954 Mad. 621.\n<\/p>\n
(2) A.I.R. 1959 Andh.\tPradesh 398.\n<\/p>\n
977<\/span><\/p>\n
chased\tby  the appellants from producers or  petty  dealers
\nwithin the notified area and then sold by them to  customers
\noutside\t the said area or the State, that  the\ttransactions
\nwhich  were the subjected matter of the levy  under  section
\n11(1)  were transactions consisting of purchase of the\tsaid
\ngoods by the appellants and the corresponding sales to\tthem
\nby  the producers and petty dealers and not  the  subsequent
\nsales  effected\t by  them to  their  customers\toutside\t the
\nnotified area or the State, that therefore the\ttransactions
\non which the said fee was levied were effected and completed
\ninside\tthe  notified area and fell  within  the  expression
\n“bought and sold” in section 11 (1) and therefore the Market
\nCommittee   rightly   levied   the  said   fee\t on   those.
\ntransactions.  In the result, the Division Bench allowed the
\nappeals and dismissed the appellants’ suits.  It is this
\njudgment   and\tdecree\tagainst\t which\tthese  appeals\t are
\ndirected.\n<\/p>\n
The  preamble of the Act states that the Act was passed\t for
\nmaking\tprovisions  for\t better\t regulation  of\t buying\t and
\nselling\t of and the establishment of markets for  commercial
\ncrops.\tAs stated in M.C.V.S. Arunachala Nadar v. The  State
\nof  Madras<\/a>(1),\tthe Act was the result of  long\t exploratory
\ninvestigation by experts in the field, conceived and enacted
\nto  regulate the buying and selling of Commmercial crops  to
\nprovide\t  suitable  and\t regulated  markets,  to   eliminate
\nmiddlemen and bring face to face the producer and the  buyer
\nso  that they meet on equal terms thereby eradicating or  at
\nany  rate  reducing  the  scope\t for  exploitation  of\t the
\nproducers.  It therefore provided a machinery for regulating
\ntrade by providing a common place where facilities would  be
\nfurnished   by\t way  of  space,   buildings   and   storage
\naccommodation,\t and   where  market  practices\t  would\t  be
\nregularised   and   market  charges  clearly   defined\t and
\nunwarranted  ones prohibited, where correct weighment  would
\nbe  ensured  by licensed weighmen and all weights  would  be
\nchecked and stamped, where payment on hand would be ensured,
\nwhere  provision would be made for settlement  of  disputes,
\nwhere daily prevailing prices would be made available to the
\ngrower\tand reliable market information\t provided  regarding
\narrivals,  stocks, prices etc., and where quality  standards
\nwould\tbe   fixed  when  necessary   and   contract   forms
\nstandardized  for  purchase  and sale.\tThe  result  of\t the
\nimplementation\tof the Act would be thus to give  reasonable
\nfacilities  to\tthe  growers of\t commercial  crops  ensuring
\nproper price for their commodities.\n<\/p>\n
Section 4(a) (1) provides for the formation of a market com-
\nmittee for enforcing the provisions of the Act and the Rules
\nand  bylaws  framed thereunder.\t Sub-section (2)  lays\tdown
\nthat the Committee shall establish in the notified area such
\nnumber\tof markets providing such facilities, as  the  State
\nGovernment  may from time to time direct, for  purchase\t and
\nsale of commercial crops.  Section 5
\n(1)  [1959] Suppl. 1 S.C.R. 92.\n<\/p>\n
978<\/span><\/p>\n
prohibits  any person to set up, establish or use,  continue
\nor .allow to be continued any place within the notified area
\nfor the purchase or sale of commercial crops except under  a
\nlicence and in accordance with the conditions thereof.\t The
\nMarket Committee, however, can exempt from the provisions of
\nthis  sub-section any person who carries on the business  of
\npurchasing  or selling any .,commercial crop  in  quantities
\nnot  exceeding\tthose  prescribed by  the  Rules.   It\talso
\nexempts from the provisions of this section a person selling
\na  commercial  crop  which has been grown by him  or  a\t co-
\noperative  society selling a commercial crop which has\tbeen
\ngrown by any of its members and also a person purchasing for
\nhis  private  use  a  commercial  crop\tin  quantities\t not
\nexceeding those prescribed by the rules.  Section 6 provides
\nthat every market committee shall consist of such number  of
\nmembers\t not exceeding twelve as may be fixed by  the  State
\nGovernment  and\t provides for representatives  of  licencees
\nunder  section 5 and buyers, sellers and buyers and  sellers
\nregistered  under  the\tRules  prescribed  in  that  behalf.
\nSection II (1) with which we are concerned in these  appeals
\nreads:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The  Market Committee shall, subject to\tsuch
\n\t      rules as may be made in this behalf, levy fees
\n\t      on  the  notified\t commercial  crop  or  crops
\n\t      bought  and sold in the notified area at\tsuch
\n\t      rates as it may determine.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  Explanation  to  sub-section  (1)\tprovides  that\t all
\nnotified  commercial  crops leaving a notified\tarea  shall,
\nunless the contrary is proved, be presumed to be bought\t and
\nsold within such area.\tSub-section 2 provides that the\t fee
\nchargeable  under  sub-section(1)  shall  be  paid  by\t the
\npurchaser  of  the commercial crop concerned  provided\tthat
\nwhere such a purchaser cannot be identified the fee shall be
\npaid  by  the seller.  Section 12 provides that\t all  monies
\nreceived by a market committee shall be paid into a fund and
\nall  expenditure incurred by the market committee  shall  be
\ndefrayed  out of the said fund.\t The expenditure  which\t the
\ncommittee  can incur is for purposes set out in\t section  13
\nwhich  incidentally  reflect the object and purpose  of\t the
\nAct.  Section 18 empowers the State Government to make rules
\nincluding  rules  for  licence fee  under  section,  5,\t the
\nregistration  fee and the prohibition of buying and  selling
\n,of commercial crops in the notified area by persons not  so
\nregistered  and\t the fee to be levied  on  commercial  crops
\nbought and sold in the notified area.  Rule 28 lays down the
\nmaximum\t fee leviable on commercial crops under\t section  11
\n(I)  as\t also  the  maximum fee\t payable  for  licences\t and
\nregistration.  Rule 28-A provides that the fees referred  to
\nin sub-rule (1), that is, “fees” under section 11 (1), shall
\nnot  be\t levied\t more than once on a commercial\t crop  in  a
\nnotified area.\tThese provisions clearly show the policy  of
\nsafe_guarding\tthe  interests\tof  the\t producers  and\t  of
\nguaranteeing to them
\n979<\/span>
\nreasonable  return  for the crops they would bring  to\tsell
\nwithout being exploited.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Agarwala raised the following contentions: (1) that\t the
\nfee  charged  by the Market Committee under s.11(1)  was  on
\nsales effected by the appellants with their customers,\tsome
\nof  whom were admittedly outside the notified area  and\t the
\nrest  outside  the State; (2) that that was the\t footing  on
\nwhich the parties proceeded with the suits but that case was
\ngiven  up in the High Court and the High Court was in  error
\nin permitting the Committee to shift its case and argue that
\nthe fee was levied not on those sales but on transactions of
\npurchase  entered into by the appellants with the  producers
\nand other petty dealers.\n<\/p>\n
It  is\ttrue that in para 3 of their plaint  the  appellants
\naverred\t that their business activities consisted of  buying
\ncoconuts  and  copra in East Godavari District\tand  selling
\nthem  to  customers outside the notified area and  even\t the
\nState and that those sales were completed at the  respective
\nplaces\tof those customers.  The appellants’ case  therefore
\nwas  that in respect of these sales with customers  some  of
\nwhom were outside the notified area and the rest outside the
\nState, the levy of fee was in the former case beyond the ken
\nof s. II (1) and in the latter case repugnant to Art. 286 of
\nthe  Constitution.  The written statement of the  respondent
\ncommittee denied these allegations.  The Committee  asserted
\nthat both the purchases and sales took place in the notified
\narea  and that though the fee levied by it was on  sales  by
\nthe  appellants\t and  though  delivery\tof  the\t said  goods
\nthereunder took place outside the notified area the sales in
\nrespect\t thereof  were\tmade within the\t notified  area\t and
\ntherefore  the\tquestion of the levy under  section  11\t (1)
\nbeing  repugnant  to Art. 286 of the  Constitution  did\t not
\narise.\t Besides  these\t pleadings  Mr.\t Agarwala  drew\t our
\nattention to certain notices of demand and circulars  issued
\nby  the Committee in which it was stated that the  said\t fee
\nwas  being  levied on goods exported outside  East  Godavari
\nDistrict and that the traders were liable to pay it both  on
\ncoconuts exported to outsiders and also consumed internally.
\nThat presumably was stated because if the goods were “bought
\nand  sold”  within  the notified area,\teven  if  they\twere
\nsubsequently  exported outside, section 11(1)  would  apply.
\nThe  practice followed by the appellants and not  denied  by
\nthe Committee was that they used to despatch these goods  by
\nrail to their customers.  Railway receipts and hundies\twere
\nthen  sent to their bankers at the destination\tand  railway
\nreceipts were delivered to the customers on their  honouring
\nthe  hundies  Thus  the goods  were  delivered\toutside\t the
\nnotified  area and the sales effected by the  appellants  to
\ntheir  customers were also completed at places\toutside\t the
\nnotified area and in some cases outside the State.
\nOn these facts the District Munsif held that property in the
\ngoods having passed at destination, sales took place outside
\nthe
\n980<\/span>
\nnotified area and therefore the fee charged by the Committee
\nwas  illegal as section 11(1) permitted such a levy only  on
\ngoods  bought and sold within the notified area.  On  appeal
\nby  the Committee, the Subordinate Judge held that the\tsaid
\nfee  was  a  tax, that it was a tax  on\t sales\toutside\t the
\nnotified area and the State and was not therefore  warranted
\nunder  section\t11 (1) and was repugnant to  Art.  286.\t  It
\nseems that in both the courts, the real issue was lost sight
\nof,  viz.,  whether the goods in respect of  which  the\t fee
\nunder  s.  1 1 (I) was levied were goods “bought  and  sold”
\nwithin the notified area as envisaged by the section.
\nIn the High Court however the questions convassed were (1)  whethe
\nr
\nthe  fee provided in section 11 (1) was a fee or a  tax\t and
\n(2)  even  if  it was a fee whether the\t Committee  had\t the
\npower to levy it in respect of goods sold by the  appellants
\noutside\t the  notified area.  As already  stated  the  Trial
\nJudge and the Subordinate Judge had proceeded on the footing
\nthat  the said fee was levied on sales entered into  by\t the
\nappellants with their customers who undoubtedly were outside
\nthe notified area.  But the real question that ought to have
\nbeen  dealt  with by the Trial, Judge and on appeal  by\t the
\nSubordinate Judge was not whether the appellant’s sales were
\nto  customers  outside the notified area or  the  State\t but
\nwhether the fee which was levied was valid.  The question of
\nthe  validity of the levy entailed another  question,  viz.,
\nwhether\t the  levy  was\t on  transactions  effected  by\t the
\nappellants before they sold those goods to their  customers.
\nWere the appellants entitled to a refund of the fees  levied
\non them under s. II (1) ?, was the principal question in the
\nsuits.\t To  decide that question it was necessary  for\t the
\ncourt to go into the question whether the fee was charged on
\nthe  sales  by the appellants or on  the  transactions\tmade
\nbetween them and those from whom they purchased the goods in
\nquestion.  Since neither the Trial Court nor the Subordinate
\nJudge had gone into that question, it was necessary for\t the
\nHigh  Court  to\t go into it not only to do  justice  to\t the
\nparties but also because that was the real issue arising  in
\nthe  suits  and was the crux of the litigation.\t  There\t was
\ntherefore  no  question\t of  the  High\tCourt  allowing\t the
\nrespondent-Committee  to make out a new case.  The  question
\nfrom  the  very\t inception was\twhether\t the  Committee\t was
\ncompetent  to levy the fee in question under section  11(1).
\nTo answer that question the court necessarily had to enquire
\non  which  transactions could the said fee be  levied  under
\nsection 11(1) and whether it was rightly levied by the\tCom-
\nmittee.\t The High Court answered these questions by  holding
\nthat  it  was levied, on the transactions  effected  by\t the
\nappellants with those from whom they bought the said  goods,
\nthat section 11(1) dealt with those transactions and was not
\ntherefore  concerned with the subsequent sales entered\tinto
\nby the appellants with their customers outside the  notified
\narea.\t Since,\t  according  to\t the   High   Court,   those
\ntransactions were admittedly effected within the noti-\n<\/p>\n
981<\/span><\/p>\n
fied area the levy was valid and warranted under s. 1 1 (1).
\nIn  our view the High Court approached the question  from  a
\ncorrect\t angle\tand therefore there was no question  of\t its
\nhaving allowed the Committee to change its case or make\t out
\na new case.\n<\/p>\n
That  being the position, the next question is\twhether\t the
\nCommittee  could  levy\tfee  under section  II\t(1)  on\t the
\ntransactions  effected\tby the appellants before  they\tsold
\nthose  goods to their customers.  Mr. Agarwala’s  contention
\nwas that the fee levied under section 11(1) could only be in
\nrespect\t of  goods “bought and sold” and not in\t respect  of
\ntransactions where goods were only “bought” or only  “sold”.
\nAccording  to him it is only when a person bought goods\t and
\nsold those identical goods within the notified area that the
\nfee under section 11(1) could be levied.  According to\thim,
\nthe  transactions  effected by the appellants  consisted  in
\ntheir  purchasing the said goods; they stopped at the  stage
\nof  goods “bought”.  Therefore, the other ingredient  for  a
\nvalid  levy of the fee not being present the fee  levied  in
\nthe present case was not in accordance with the requirements
\nof  section  11 (1) and was  unwarranted.   This  contention
\nraises\tthe question as to the meaning of the words  “bought
\nand  sold”  in\tsection 11(1).\tAt first  sight\t they  would
\nappear\tto be susceptible of three meanings; viz., (1)\tthat
\nthey mean duality of transactions where the same person buys
\ngoods and sells those identical goods in the notified  area;
\n(2) that they mean “bought” or “sold” the conjunctive  “and”
\nmeaning\t in the context of the sub-section  the\t disjunctive
\n“or” and (3) that they apply to a transaction of purchase as
\nthe concept of purchase includes a corresponding sale.\tWhen
\na  person buys an article from another person,\tthat,  other
\nperson at the same time sells him that article and it is  in
\nthat  sense  that section 11(1) uses the words\t“bought\t and
\nsold.”\tThe incidence of the fee under section 11(1)  is  on
\nthe goods thus “bought and sold”.  This last  interpretation
\nwas favoured by the High Court of Madras in Louis Dreyfus  &
\nCo.  v. South Arcot Groundnut Market Committee(1) which\t has
\nbeen accepted by the High Court in the present case.
\nIf  the construction commended to us for acceptance  by\t Mr.
\nAgarwala  were\tto be correct, viz.,  that  the\t appellant’s
\ntransactions  stopped at the stage of goods  “bought”,\tthey
\nwould  not be transactions in respect of goods\t“bought\t and
\nsold”.\t If  the  fee was levied on sales  effected  by\t the
\nappellants with their customers its levy would not be  valid
\nunder  section 1 1 (1) and would also be repugnant to  Art.’
\n286 where goods were delivered outside the State.  But it is
\na  well settled rule of construction that the  court  should
\nendeavour as far as possible to construe a statute in such a
\nmanner that the construction results in validity rather than
\nits invalidity and gives effect to the
\n(1)  A.I.R. 1945 Mad. 383.\n<\/p>\n
982<\/span><\/p>\n
manifest intention of the legislature enacting that statute.
\nThe object in passing the Act was to prevent the mischief of
\nexploitation  of  producers  of\t commercial  crops  such  as
\ncoconuts and copra and to see that such producers got a fair
\nprice  for their goods.\t The mischief to prevent  which\t the
\nAct  was enacted was the exploitation of these producers  by
\nmiddlemen and those buying goods from them and therefore the
\nAct  provided  facilities such as market  place,  place\t for
\nstorage,  correct weighment etc., so that the producers\t and
\nhis  purchasers\t come  face  to\t face  in  a  regulated\t and
\ncontrolled market and a fair price was obtained by them.  If
\nthe  construction  suggested  by Mr.  Agarwala\twere  to  be
\naccepted  and  the  section were to be\tconstrued  as  being
\napplicable  to\tthose transactions only which  have  a\tdual
\naspect, that is, buying by a dealer from a producer and\t the
\ndealer\tselling\t those identical goods within  the  notified
\narea,  the  object of the Act would be defeated,  for  in  a
\nlarge  number  of cases the transactions would halt  at\t the
\nstage of buying and the Committee in those cases would\thave
\nno  power  to  levy the fee on them.  Why is a\tbuyer  or  a
\nseller\tor a buyer and seller required to be registered\t and
\nwhy  does  the\tAct prevent those who  have  not  registered
\nthemselves  from effecting transactions in commercial  crops
\nunless\tthe object was to regulate and control\ttransactions
\nin  those  commodities\tat  all\t stages\t and  in  a   manner
\npreventing   the   exploitation\t of  the  producer   ?\t The
\nlegislature  had thus principally the producer in  mind\t who
\nshould have a proper market where he can bring his goods for
\nsale  and where he can secure a fair deal and a fair  price.
\nThe  Act  thus aims at transactions which  such\t a  producer
\nwould  enter  into with those who buy from him.\t  The  words
\n“bought\t and  sold”  used  in section  11(1)  aim  at  those
\ntransactions  where under a dealer buys from a producer\t who
\nbrings\tto the market his goods for sale.  The\ttransactions
\naimed  at  must\t be  viewed  in\t the  sense  in\t which\t the
\nlegislature  intended  it  to be viewed,  that\tis,  as\t one
\ntransaction resulting in buying on the one hand and  selling
\non the other.  Such a construction is commendable because it
\nis  not\t only in consonance with the words used\t in  section
\n11(1)  but  is\tconsistent with the object  of\tthe  Act  as
\nexpressed through its various provisions.  The\tconstruction
\non  the other hand canvassed by the appellants is  defeative
\nof  the\t purpose  of  the Act  and  should,  unless  we\t are
\ncompelled to accept it, be avoided.  The construction  which
\nwe  are\t inclined to accept acquired some support  from\t the
\nfact that section II makes the purchaser and not the  seller
\nprimarily responsible for payment of the fee and it is\tonly
\nwhen  the purchaser cannot be identified that the seller  is
\nmade liable.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.  Agarwala at first also urged that the fee under  s.  11
\n(1)  amounted to a tax and that it was in fact a sales\ttax.
\nBut  at the last moment he stated that he- did not  wish  to
\npress  that contention and requested us not to\texpress\t any
\nopinion\t thereon.   Since the contention is not\t pressed  we
\nneed not express any opinion on that ques-\n<\/p>\n
983<\/span><\/p>\n
tion  and  confine  ourselves  to the  question\t as  to\t the
\ninterpretation\tof  the\t words “bought\tand  sold”  in\tthat
\nsection.\n<\/p>\n
In our view the construction placed by, the High Court on s.
\n11(1)\twas  a\tcorrect\t construction  and   therefore\t the
\nrespondent-committee had rightly charged the appellants with
\nsaid fee.\n<\/p>\n
The  appeals  therefore fail and are dismissed\twith  costs.
\nOne hearing fee.\n<\/p>\n
R.K.P.S.\t       Appeals dismissed...\n984<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Krishna Coconut Co. & Anr vs East Godavari Coconut & Tobacco … on 27 October, 1966 Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 973, 1967 SCR (1) 974 Author: Shelat Bench: Rao, K. Subba (Cj), Hidayatullah, M., Sikri, S.M., Bachawat, R.S., Shelat, J.M. PETITIONER: KRISHNA COCONUT CO. & ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: EAST GODAVARI COCONUT […]<\/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-234516","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nKrishna Coconut Co. & Anr vs East Godavari Coconut & Tobacco ... on 27 October, 1966 - 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\/krishna-coconut-co-anr-vs-east-godavari-coconut-tobacco-on-27-october-1966\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Krishna Coconut Co. & Anr vs East Godavari Coconut & Tobacco ... on 27 October, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishna-coconut-co-anr-vs-east-godavari-coconut-tobacco-on-27-october-1966\" \/>\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=\"1966-10-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-12T00:56:01+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=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishna-coconut-co-anr-vs-east-godavari-coconut-tobacco-on-27-october-1966#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishna-coconut-co-anr-vs-east-godavari-coconut-tobacco-on-27-october-1966\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Krishna Coconut Co. & Anr vs East Godavari Coconut & Tobacco … on 27 October, 1966\",\"datePublished\":\"1966-10-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-12T00:56:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishna-coconut-co-anr-vs-east-godavari-coconut-tobacco-on-27-october-1966\"},\"wordCount\":3887,\"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\\\/krishna-coconut-co-anr-vs-east-godavari-coconut-tobacco-on-27-october-1966#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishna-coconut-co-anr-vs-east-godavari-coconut-tobacco-on-27-october-1966\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishna-coconut-co-anr-vs-east-godavari-coconut-tobacco-on-27-october-1966\",\"name\":\"Krishna Coconut Co. & Anr vs East Godavari Coconut & Tobacco ... on 27 October, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1966-10-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-12T00:56:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishna-coconut-co-anr-vs-east-godavari-coconut-tobacco-on-27-october-1966#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishna-coconut-co-anr-vs-east-godavari-coconut-tobacco-on-27-october-1966\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishna-coconut-co-anr-vs-east-godavari-coconut-tobacco-on-27-october-1966#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Krishna Coconut Co. & Anr vs East Godavari Coconut & Tobacco … on 27 October, 1966\"}]},{\"@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":"Krishna Coconut Co. & Anr vs East Godavari Coconut & Tobacco ... on 27 October, 1966 - 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\/krishna-coconut-co-anr-vs-east-godavari-coconut-tobacco-on-27-october-1966","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Krishna Coconut Co. & Anr vs East Godavari Coconut & Tobacco ... on 27 October, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishna-coconut-co-anr-vs-east-godavari-coconut-tobacco-on-27-october-1966","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1966-10-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-12T00:56:01+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":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishna-coconut-co-anr-vs-east-godavari-coconut-tobacco-on-27-october-1966#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishna-coconut-co-anr-vs-east-godavari-coconut-tobacco-on-27-october-1966"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Krishna Coconut Co. & Anr vs East Godavari Coconut & Tobacco … on 27 October, 1966","datePublished":"1966-10-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-12T00:56:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishna-coconut-co-anr-vs-east-godavari-coconut-tobacco-on-27-october-1966"},"wordCount":3887,"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\/krishna-coconut-co-anr-vs-east-godavari-coconut-tobacco-on-27-october-1966#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishna-coconut-co-anr-vs-east-godavari-coconut-tobacco-on-27-october-1966","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishna-coconut-co-anr-vs-east-godavari-coconut-tobacco-on-27-october-1966","name":"Krishna Coconut Co. & Anr vs East Godavari Coconut & Tobacco ... on 27 October, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1966-10-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-12T00:56:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishna-coconut-co-anr-vs-east-godavari-coconut-tobacco-on-27-october-1966#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishna-coconut-co-anr-vs-east-godavari-coconut-tobacco-on-27-october-1966"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishna-coconut-co-anr-vs-east-godavari-coconut-tobacco-on-27-october-1966#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Krishna Coconut Co. & Anr vs East Godavari Coconut & Tobacco … on 27 October, 1966"}]},{"@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\/234516","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=234516"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/234516\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=234516"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=234516"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=234516"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}