{"id":245350,"date":"2006-11-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-11-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whirlpool-of-india-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-22-november-2006"},"modified":"2017-04-15T18:21:41","modified_gmt":"2017-04-15T12:51:41","slug":"whirlpool-of-india-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-22-november-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whirlpool-of-india-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-22-november-2006","title":{"rendered":"Whirlpool Of India Ltd.. &#8230; vs The Deputy Commissioner Of &#8230; on 22 November, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Whirlpool Of India Ltd.. &#8230; vs The Deputy Commissioner Of &#8230; on 22 November, 2006<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: M Katju<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S. B. Sinha, Markandey Katju<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  5150 of 2006\n\nPETITIONER:\nWhirlpool of India Ltd.. Bangalore\n\nRESPONDENT:\nThe Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,Bangalore\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 22\/11\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nS. B. Sinha &amp; Markandey Katju\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U DG M E N T<br \/>\n(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 15138\/2004)<\/p>\n<p>MARKANDEY KATJU, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThis appeal has been file against the judgment of a Division Bench of<br \/>\nthe Karnataka High Court dated 20.1.2004 in STA No.70 of 2003, by which<br \/>\nthe appeal was dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tHeard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe appellant is a registered dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax<br \/>\nAct, 1957 (&#8220;KST Act&#8221; for short).  The appellant is the Licensee and<br \/>\nregistered user of the trade mark &#8220;Whirlpool&#8221; in terms of the Trade Mark &amp;<br \/>\nTrade Name Licence Agreement dated 24.2.1995 executed between M\/s.<br \/>\nWhirlpool Corporation, USA, which is stated to be the proprietor and owner<br \/>\nof the said trade mark and the Appellant.  The licence granted to the<br \/>\nappellant to use the trade mark is non-transferable.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tOn 4.2.2003, the appellant entered into an agreement with M\/s.<br \/>\nApplicomp India Limited (for short &#8220;Applicomp&#8221; or the &#8220;Manufacturer&#8221;)<br \/>\nunder which Applicomp agreed to manufacture and supply electronic<br \/>\nproducts and electrical appliances such as Refrigerators, Washing Machines,<br \/>\nAir Conditioner, etc., to the appellant on Original Equipment Manufacture<br \/>\nbasis, as per the specifications of the appellant.  Relevant portions of clauses<br \/>\n4, 5 and 6 of the agreement are extracted below :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The manufacturer is exempted from payment<br \/>\nof Sales Tax for the goods manufactured at its factory at<br \/>\nHosur Road, Attibele..\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tThe buyer hereby warrants that the Buyer is the<br \/>\nowner of all rights in the trade mark &#8220;Whirlpool&#8221; and has<br \/>\nthe exclusive right to use the said trade mark in India.<br \/>\nBuyer hereby authorizes the manufacturer to use and<br \/>\naffix the said trade mark to the products which are sold to<br \/>\nthe buyer in accordance with the specifications of the<br \/>\nBuyer.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tManufacturer acknowledges that this agreement<br \/>\ndoes not include any license of buyer&#8217;s trade marks.<br \/>\nManufacturer shall not affix trade mark to any products<br \/>\nmanufactured and\/or sold to any third party other than<br \/>\nthat to the party of the second part in respect of the<br \/>\nmanufactured products.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tBuyer has the right to inspect samples of the<br \/>\nproducts to verify that the use of the trade mark conforms<br \/>\nto buyer&#8217;s specifications and also inspect\/audit the<br \/>\nquality of the products manufactured&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Applicomp is neither a registered user nor a licensee in respect of the trade<br \/>\nmark &#8220;Whirlpool&#8221;.  The agreement just enables Applicomp to affix the trade<br \/>\nmark of the appellant to the products which are manufactured by it to the<br \/>\nspecifications of the appellant, and which are exclusively to be supplied to<br \/>\nthe appellant, and not to any other product of Applicomp.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe State Government, by notification dated 20.7.2000 issued in<br \/>\nexercise of power under Section 19C of the KST Act, exempted the tax<br \/>\npayable under the said Act by Applicomp on the sale of furnished goods<br \/>\nmanufactured by it, for a period of 10 years from the commencement of<br \/>\ncommercial production subject to the restrictions and conditions stated in the<br \/>\nsaid notification.  Hence the sales by Applicomp to appellant are exempt<br \/>\nfrom payment of any tax under the KST Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tSection 5(3)(a) of the KST Act provides that tax shall be levied under<br \/>\nthe Act &#8220;in the case of sale of any of the goods mentioned in column (2) of<br \/>\nthe Second Schedule, by the first or the earliest of successive dealers in the<br \/>\nState who is liable to tax under that Section, a tax at the rate specified in the<br \/>\ncorresponding entry of column (3) of the said Schedule, on the taxable turn<br \/>\nover of sales of such dealer in each year relating to such goods.&#8221;<br \/>\nRefrigerators fall under Entry (6) of Part-R of the Second Schedule, the rate<br \/>\nof tax being 20% from 1.4.2002, and washing machines as Electrical Goods,<br \/>\nfalls under Entry-2(V) of Part-E of the Second Schedule, the rate of tax<br \/>\nbeing 16% from 1.6.2003.  The third proviso and the sixth proviso to Section<br \/>\n5(3) as also Explanation III thereto, which are relevant to this case are<br \/>\nextracted below :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Third Proviso to Section 5(3)(a)  Provided further that<br \/>\nwhere any goods liable to tax under this Act are produced<br \/>\nor manufactured by a dealer with the brand name or trade<br \/>\nmark of any other dealer and which are not used by the<br \/>\nlatter as raw materials, component parts or packing<br \/>\nmaterials, as defined under the explanation to Section 5-<br \/>\nA, the sale of such goods by the dealer who has produced<br \/>\nor manufactured to the dealer who is the brand name or<br \/>\ntrade mark holder, shall not be deemed to be, but the<br \/>\nsubsequent sale of such goods by the dealer having the<br \/>\nright either as proprietor or otherwise to use the said<br \/>\nname or the trade mark, either directly or through<br \/>\nanother, on his own account or on account of others shall<br \/>\nbe deemed to be the sale by the first dealer liable to tax<br \/>\nunder this Section.\n<\/p>\n<p>Illustration &#8211; `A&#8217; has registered a trade mark for<br \/>\nmanufacture of certain goods.  He gets the said goods<br \/>\nmanufactured by `B&#8217; under the said trade mark.  The sale<br \/>\nby `B&#8217; to `A&#8217; of the said goods is not the first sale but the<br \/>\nsale by `A&#8217; or by any other person on his account is the<br \/>\nfirst sale.\n<\/p>\n<p>Sixth Proviso to Section 5(3)(a)  Provided also that<br \/>\nwhere goods are sold, under a brand name by the trade<br \/>\nmark holder or the brand name holder or any other dealer<br \/>\nhaving the right as proprietor or otherwise to use the said<br \/>\nname or trade mark either directly or through another on<br \/>\nhis own account or on account of others, exclusively to a<br \/>\nmarketing agent or distributor or wholeseller or any other<br \/>\ndealer, subsequent sale of such goods by the latter shall<br \/>\nalso be liable to tax under this Section and the tax so<br \/>\npayable shall be reduced by the amount of tax already<br \/>\npaid on the sale of such goods by the former.\n<\/p>\n<p>Explanation III  For the purpose of the sixth proviso to<br \/>\nclause (a), where goods are sold under a brand name by<br \/>\nthe trade mark holder or the brand name holder or any<br \/>\nother dealer having the right as proprietor or otherwise to<br \/>\nuse the said name or trade mark either directly or through<br \/>\nanother on his own account or on account of others, who<br \/>\nis exempt from tax by any notification issued under<br \/>\nSection 8-A or Section 19-C, the expression &#8220;tax already<br \/>\npaid&#8221; means the tax payable under this Section on such<br \/>\nsale if the sale had been effected by any other dealer.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt was submitted by Shri Harish Salve, learned senior counsel for the<br \/>\nappellant, that the transaction between the Applicomp and the appellant falls<br \/>\nunder the Sixth Proviso read with Explanation III to the Section 5(3)(a),<br \/>\nwhereas the learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the transaction is<br \/>\nsquarely covered by the Third Proviso.  In view of this difference in the<br \/>\nstands taken by the appellant and the respondent, the appellant filed an<br \/>\napplication for confirmation of its view before the Authority for<br \/>\nClarifications and Advance Rulings under Section 4 of the Act by posing the<br \/>\nfollowing question :\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;Whether the brand owner who is an exclusive<br \/>\npurchaser of goods manufactured, using its brand name,<br \/>\nby a manufacturer who is exempted under Section 8A or<br \/>\n19C is entitled to claim set off on the deemed tax paid on<br \/>\nthe purchases made from such manufacturer and is<br \/>\nrequired to pay tax under Section 5(3)(a), only on the<br \/>\nvalue addition thereof.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe Authority by its order dated 27.10.2003 has given its clarification<br \/>\nholding that the transactions between Applicomp and the appellant are<br \/>\ngoverned by the Third Proviso to Section 5(3)(a) and not by the Sixth<br \/>\nProviso and Explanation III to that Section.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal to the High Court, which was<br \/>\ndismissed and hence this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn our opinion, there is no merit in this appeal and we agree with the<br \/>\nview taken by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLearned counsel for the appellant submitted that by virtue of the Sixth<br \/>\nProviso read with Explanation III under Section 5(3)(a) of the Act, credit has<br \/>\nto be given to the appellant in respect of sales tax that would have been paid<br \/>\nby Applicomp in respect of the branded goods sold by it to the appellant.  It<br \/>\nis submitted that Applicomp as a matter of fact has not paid the sales tax as<br \/>\nit is exempt from such payment.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn our opinion this argument is clearly untenable.  In our opinion it is<br \/>\nthe Third Proviso and not the Sixth Proviso which applies in this case<br \/>\nbecause the goods are manufactured by the dealer (Applicomp) using the<br \/>\nbranded name of another dealer (appellant).  These goods are not used as<br \/>\nraw materials, components or packing materials.  Hence the sale by<br \/>\nApplicomp to the appellant cannot be deemed to be the sale by the first<br \/>\ndealer liable to tax under this Section, but it is the subsequent sale of such<br \/>\ngoods by the dealer having the right either as proprietor or otherwise<br \/>\n(appellant) which has to be deemed to be the first sale liable to tax under this<br \/>\nSection.  This submission is further supported by the illustration to the Sixth<br \/>\nProviso which states :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Illustration &#8211; `A&#8217; has registered a trade mark for<br \/>\nmanufacture of certain goods.  He gets the said goods<br \/>\nmanufactured by `B&#8217; under the said trade mark.  The sale<br \/>\nby `B&#8217; to `A&#8217; of the said goods is not the first sale but the<br \/>\nsale by `A&#8217; or by any other person on his account is the<br \/>\nfirst sale.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tApplying the above illustration to the facts of the present case, `A&#8217;<br \/>\nwould be the appellant and `B&#8217; would be Applicomp.  The incidence of tax<br \/>\non the first sale would be on the appellant and not on Applicomp.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tMoreover, a reading of clauses 4 and 5 of the agreement dated<br \/>\n4.2.2003 between the appellant and Applicomp makes it clear that<br \/>\nApplicomp is neither a registered user nor a licensee of the trade mark.  Thus<br \/>\nit is not selling the goods as either a trade mark holder or as one having any<br \/>\nrights as the proprietor of the trade mark or otherwise.  Hence the Sixth<br \/>\nProviso clearly does not apply and any sale by Applicomp to the appellant<br \/>\ndoes not give the benefit of any reduction in tax to the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn the present case, the appellant is the owner of the brand name<br \/>\n`Whirlpool&#8217; registered under the Trade and Merchandise Act, 1958.  Under<br \/>\nthe agreement between the parties, the refrigerators and other consumer<br \/>\ngoods are got manufactured by M\/s. Applicomp India Ltd. and as per the<br \/>\nagreement M\/s. Applicomp have to manufacture the products under the<br \/>\nbrand name `Whirlpool&#8217; and sell them exclusively to the appellant.  M\/s.<br \/>\nApplicomp is not the registered user of the brand name `Whirlpool&#8217;.<br \/>\nMoreover, the sales made by M\/s. Applicomp to the appellant, are not sales<br \/>\nto the exclusive marketing agent or distributor or wholeseller or any other<br \/>\ndealer but are only sales of manufactured branded goods to the brand owner.<br \/>\nHence in our opinion the Sixth Proviso and Explanation III to Section<br \/>\n5(3)(a) is clearly not applicable.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThus, there is no force in this appeal.  The appeal is accordingly<br \/>\ndismissed.  There shall be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Whirlpool Of India Ltd.. &#8230; vs The Deputy Commissioner Of &#8230; on 22 November, 2006 Author: M Katju Bench: S. B. Sinha, Markandey Katju CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5150 of 2006 PETITIONER: Whirlpool of India Ltd.. Bangalore RESPONDENT: The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,Bangalore DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22\/11\/2006 BENCH: S. B. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-245350","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Whirlpool Of India Ltd.. ... vs The Deputy Commissioner Of ... on 22 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whirlpool-of-india-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-22-november-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Whirlpool Of India Ltd.. ... vs The Deputy Commissioner Of ... on 22 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whirlpool-of-india-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-22-november-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-11-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-15T12:51:41+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\\\/whirlpool-of-india-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-22-november-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whirlpool-of-india-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-22-november-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Whirlpool Of India Ltd.. &#8230; vs The Deputy Commissioner Of &#8230; on 22 November, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-11-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-15T12:51:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whirlpool-of-india-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-22-november-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1892,\"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\\\/whirlpool-of-india-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-22-november-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whirlpool-of-india-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-22-november-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whirlpool-of-india-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-22-november-2006\",\"name\":\"Whirlpool Of India Ltd.. ... vs The Deputy Commissioner Of ... on 22 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-11-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-15T12:51:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whirlpool-of-india-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-22-november-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whirlpool-of-india-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-22-november-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whirlpool-of-india-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-22-november-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Whirlpool Of India Ltd.. &#8230; vs The Deputy Commissioner Of &#8230; on 22 November, 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":"Whirlpool Of India Ltd.. ... vs The Deputy Commissioner Of ... on 22 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whirlpool-of-india-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-22-november-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Whirlpool Of India Ltd.. ... vs The Deputy Commissioner Of ... on 22 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whirlpool-of-india-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-22-november-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-11-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-15T12:51:41+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\/whirlpool-of-india-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-22-november-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whirlpool-of-india-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-22-november-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Whirlpool Of India Ltd.. &#8230; vs The Deputy Commissioner Of &#8230; on 22 November, 2006","datePublished":"2006-11-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-15T12:51:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whirlpool-of-india-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-22-november-2006"},"wordCount":1892,"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\/whirlpool-of-india-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-22-november-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whirlpool-of-india-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-22-november-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whirlpool-of-india-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-22-november-2006","name":"Whirlpool Of India Ltd.. ... vs The Deputy Commissioner Of ... on 22 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-11-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-15T12:51:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whirlpool-of-india-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-22-november-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whirlpool-of-india-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-22-november-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whirlpool-of-india-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-22-november-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Whirlpool Of India Ltd.. &#8230; vs The Deputy Commissioner Of &#8230; on 22 November, 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\/245350","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=245350"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/245350\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=245350"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=245350"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=245350"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}