{"id":269857,"date":"2005-12-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-12-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-assistant-commissioner-of-vs-ms-diamond-engineering-on-23-december-2005"},"modified":"2017-04-19T19:36:39","modified_gmt":"2017-04-19T14:06:39","slug":"the-assistant-commissioner-of-vs-ms-diamond-engineering-on-23-december-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-assistant-commissioner-of-vs-ms-diamond-engineering-on-23-december-2005","title":{"rendered":"The Assistant Commissioner Of vs M\/S. Diamond Engineering … on 23 December, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
The Assistant Commissioner Of vs M\/S. Diamond Engineering … on 23 December, 2005<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDated: 23\/12\/2005 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM   \n\nCRP No. 4113 of 2002  \nand CRP Nos., 4128, 4138 of 2001 and 57 of 2002 \nand C.M.P.No. 516 of 2002. \n\n\nC.R.P.No. 4113\/2001  \n\n1. The Assistant Commissioner of \n   Central Excise, Commissionerate III,\n   Incharge of Kancheepuram District.\n\n2. The Commissioner of Central Excise,\n   121, Mahatma Gandhi Road,  \n   Nungambakkam, Chennai-34. .. Petitioners\/Respondents\/Defendants.  <\/pre>\n
-Vs-\n<\/p>\n
M\/s. Diamond Engineering (Chennai)
\nPrivate Limited,
\nrepresented by its Managing Director,
\nP. Mohanraj, 179, Old Mahalipuram Road,
\nSholinganallur, Chennai-119. .. Respondent\/Petitioner\/Plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
C.R.P.No.4128\/2001  <\/p>\n
The Additional Director General,
\nDirectorate General of Central Excise
\nIntelligence, C-3, C-Wing, II Floor,
\nRajaji Bhawan, Chennai-90.\n<\/p>\n
                   .. Petitioner\/Respondent.\n<\/p>\n
                    Vs.\n<\/p>\n
1. M\/s. Kiran Machines,
\n   represented by its Managing Partner
\n   Mohanraj. P, S.F.No. 602, Old Mahalipuram
\n   Road, Sholinganallur, Chennai-119.\n<\/p>\n
2. M\/s. Denesh Metal Corporation,
\n    Linghy Chetty Street,
\n    Chennai-1.\n<\/p>\n
3. Dinesh R. Shah,
\n   Partner, M\/s. Dinesh Metal Corporation,
\n   Linghi Chetty Street, Chennai-1.\n<\/p>\n
4. M\/s. Salem Stainless Steel Suppliers,
\n   No.8, Ekambareswarar Agraharam,
\n   Park Town, Chennai-3.\n<\/p>\n
5. M\/s. Mahendra Metal Corporation,
\n5,Ravanier Street, Chennai-3.\n<\/p>\n
6. M\/s. S.C. Shah Enterprises,
\n   315, Mint Street, Chennai-3.\n<\/p>\n
7. M\/s. Salem Steel Suppliers,
\n   No.12\/1, Mooker Nallamuthu Street,
\n   Chennai-1.\n<\/p>\n
8. M\/s. Bhandari Foils Pvt. Ltd.,
\n   27\/B, Mooker Nallamuthu Street,
\n   Chennai-1.\n<\/p>\n
9. M\/s. Bhandari Foils Pvt., Ltd.,
\n   52\/52A, Nanubai Desai Road,
\n   Shop No.13, Islampuram Street,
\n   Mumbai-4.\n<\/p>\n
10. M\/s. Sidhi Foils Pvt. Ltd.,
\n    16\/10, Ekambareswarar Agraharam,
\n    Vittal Market, Chennai-3.\n<\/p>\n
11. M\/s Bhawarlal Metals,
\n    No.27, Edapalayam Road, Chennai-3.\n<\/p>\n
12. M\/s. Ganapathy Agencies,
\n    4, Nattu Pillaiyar Koil Street,
\n    Chennai-1.\n<\/p>\n
13. M\/s. Team Trading Corporation,
\n    29\/1, Ekambareswarar Agraharam,
\n    Park Town, Chennai-3.\n<\/p>\n
14. M\/s. Bhansali Steels,
\n    48, Ponnappa Chetty Street, Chennai-3.\n<\/p>\n
                       .. Respondents\/Petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
C.R.P.No. 4138\/2001  <\/p>\n
The Additional Director General,
\nDirectorate General of Central Excise
\nIntelligence, C-3, C-Wing, II Floor,
\nRajaji Bhawan, Chennai-90.\n<\/p>\n
                        .. Petitioner\/Respondent.\n<\/p>\n
                         Vs.\n<\/p>\n
M\/s. Diamond Engineering (Chennai)
\nPvt. Ltd., represented by its
\nManaging Director Mohanraj. P,
\n159, Old Mahabalipuram Road,
\nSholinganallur, Chennai-119.\n<\/p>\n
                         .. Respondent\/Petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
C.R.P.No. 57\/2002.\n<\/p>\n
1. Union of India,
\n   represented by its Secretary to
\n   Government, Ministry of Finance,
\n   New Delhi.\n<\/p>\n
2. The Commissioner of Central Excise
\n   (Chennai III), Chennai-600 034.\n<\/p>\n
                          .. Petitioners\/Defendants.\n<\/p>\n
                          Vs.\n<\/p>\n
M\/s. Diamond Engineering
\n(Chennai) Pvt. Ltd.,
\nSholinganallur,
\nrepresented by its Managing Director.\n<\/p>\n
                          .. Respondent\/Plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
        Civil Revision Petitions have been filed  under  Article  227<\/a>  of  the
\nConstitution of India, against (i) orders passed on 25-9-2001 in I.A.No.  1182
\nof 2001  in  O.S.No.   317 of 2001 by the Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee; (ii)
\norder passed on 9-8-2001 in I.A.No.  11797\/2001 in O.S.No.  4177  of  2001  by
\nthe  XV  Assistant  Judge,  City  Civil  Court, Chennai; (iii) order passed on
\n9-8-2001 in I.A.No.  12061\/2001 in O.S.  No.  4259\/2001 by  the  XV  Assistant
\nJudge,  City Civil Court, Chennai; and (iv) to call for the records pertaining
\nto O.S.No.  129 of 2001 and I.A.No.  477 of 2001 on the file of Principal  Sub
\nJudge,  Chengalpattu  filed  by  the respondent herein\/plaintiff and to strike
\ndown the plaint filed by the plaintiff\/respondent herein respectively.\n<\/p>\n
!Mr.  K.  Kumar, Senior Advocate for Mr.  M.Dhandapani,
\nAddl.  Central Govt., Standing counsel for petitioners
\nin C.R.P.No.4128, 4138\/2001.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.  R.  Santhanam, Senior Central Govt., Standing
\ncounsel for petitioner in C.R.P.Nos.4113\/2001 and
\n57\/2002.\n<\/p>\n
^Mr.  R.  Muthukumarasamy, Senior counsel for Mr.
\nJ.  Pothiraj in C.R.P.Nos.  4129 and 4138\/2001, and
\nfor Mr.  C.  Kasirajan in C.R.P.No.  4113\/2001, 57\/2002.\n<\/p>\n
:COMMON ORDER      <\/p>\n
In all the Civil Revision Petitions, the  petitioners  are  Secretary  to  the
\nGovernment,  Ministry  of  Finance, Union of India and Commissioner of Central
\nExcise, Chennai.  The issue raised in all these petitions is common, they  are
\nbeing disposed of by the following common Order.\n<\/p>\n
2.  C.R.P.No.    4113\/2001  is  filed  against  order  dated  25-9-2001 of the
\nSubordinate judge, Poonamallee made in I.A.No.  1182\/2001  in  O.S.No.317\/2001
\nin  and  by  which  the learned Judge allowed the said application and granted
\ninjunction restraining the respondents\/ defendants therein from proceeding  in
\nterms of show cause notice No.SCN 31 \/95 dated 31-8-95 and amended by addendum
\ndated 15-9-95 pending disposal of the suit.\n<\/p>\n
3.  C.R.P.No.    4128\/2001 is against order dated 9-8-2001 of the XV Assistant
\nJudge, City Civil Court, Chennai made in  I.A.No.    1  1797\/2001  in  O.S.No.
\n4177\/2001 in and by which the learned Judge after setting the first respondent
\ntherein-Department  ex  parte,  allowed  the  application  granting injunction
\nrestraining  the  first  respondentDepartment  from  initiating  any   further
\nproceedings pursuant to the show cause notice dated 28-5-2001.\n<\/p>\n
4.  C.R.P.No.    4138 of 2001 is against order of the XV Assistant Judge, City
\nCivil Court, Madras dated 9-8-2001, made in I.A.No.  12061 of 2001 in  O.S.No.
\n4259  of  2001  in  and  by  which  the  learned Judge after setting the first
\nrespondent therein-Department ex parte, allowed the  application  and  granted
\ninjunction from proceeding pursuant to the show cause notice dated 1-3-2001.\n<\/p>\n
5.  In  C.R.P.No.   57 of 2002, the petitioners seek to call for the plaint in
\nO.S.No.  129 of 2001 and I.A.No.  477 of 2001  pending  on  the  file  of  the
\nPrincipal Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu and strike down the plaint.\n<\/p>\n
6.  Heard Messrs.   K.    Kumar  and  R.    Santhaman,  learned Senior Central
\nGovernment Standing  counsel  for   petitioners-Department   and   Mr.      R.
\nMuthukumarasamy, learned Senior counsel for the contesting respondents.\n<\/p>\n
7.   It  is  seen from the materials placed the contesting respondents namely,
\nDiamond Engineering (Chennai) Private Limited and Kiran Machines, aggrieved by
\nthe show cause notices dated 31-8-95, 1 5-9-95 and  28-5-2001  issued  by  the
\nCentral  Excise  Department, approached the Civil Courts by filing Civil Suits
\nnamely, O.S.No.  317\/2001 on  the  file  of  Subordinate  Judge,  Poonamallee,
\nO.S.No.4177 and  O.S.No.    4259\/2001  on the file of XV Assistant Judge, City
\nCivil Court,  Chennai  and  O.S.No.    129\/2001  on  the  file  of   Principal
\nSubordinate Judge,  Chengalpattu.  In the plaint, the respective plaintiff has
\nraised several contentions questioning the issuance of the show cause  notices
\non the grounds of limitation as well as their validity by pointing out various
\ninfirmities.  In  the first case namely, O.S.No.  317\/2001, the plaintiff also
\nfiled I.A.No.  1182\/2001 under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C.  praying for  an
\norder  of  injunction restraining the defendants-department and their men from
\nproceeding in te rms of show cause notice dated 31-8-95 and 15-9-95.  The said
\napplication was resisted by the  department  by  filing  counter.    The  main
\ncontention  of  the  department urged before the Court below is that the suits
\nare not maintainable, since they are barred under Section 40<\/a>  of  the  Central
\nExcise Act, 1 944.  The other objection was the plaintiff can very well submit
\nhis  objections  to  the  show cause notices and depending on the order of the
\noriginal authority, they can  avail  the  opportunity  of  filing  appeal  and
\nrevision before  the  appellate  and  revisional  authorities.  By order dated
\n25-9-2001, the learned Subordinate  Judge,  Poonamallee,  after  finding  that
\nthere  is  prima  facie  in  their  case, accepted the claim of the plaintiff,
\nallowed the application and granted injunction restraining the department from
\nproceeding with the show cause notice dated 31-8-95 and 15-9-95, against which
\nthe Department has filed C.R.P.  No.  4113\/2001.\n<\/p>\n
8.  Coming to the other C.R.Ps., namely, C.R.P.Nos.  4128 and  4138  of  2001,
\nquestioning  the  show  cause  notices  dated  28-5-2001  and  1-3-2001, Kiran
\nMachines have filed O.S.No.4177\/2001 and 4259\/2001 on the file of XV Assistant
\nJudge, City Civil Court, Chennai.  They also filed  I.A.No.    11797\/2001  and
\n12061\/2001  praying for an order of injunction restraining the Department from
\nproceeding  with  the  show  cause  notice  dated   28-5-2001   and   1-3-2001
\nrespectively.   The  plaintiff\/petitioner  has  raised similar contention like
\nthat raised by  Diamond  Engineering  Private  Limited  in  the  former  C.R.P
\n(C.R.P.No.  4113\/2001  ).  Since the Department did not appear and contest the
\nsaid injunction application by filing counter, after setting them ex parte, by
\nseparate order  dated  9-8-2001,  the  learned  Assistant  Judge  allowed  the
\napplications  and  granted  injunction  from  proceeding  with  the show cause
\nnotices dated 28-5-2001 and 1-3-2001.\n<\/p>\n
9.  In the last Revision, namely, C.R.P.No.  57 of 2002, the Department  seeks
\nto strike  of  the plaint in O.S.No.  129 of 2001 filed by Diamond Engineering
\nPrivate Limited.    Here  again,  the  Department  has  urged  the  very  same
\ncontentions as  stated  in  other  C.R.Ps., particularly C.R.P.No.  4113\/2001,
\nnamely, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction and the  plaintiff  has  effective
\nremedy by way of departmental appeal and revision.\n<\/p>\n
10.  Now I shall first consider the main issue namely,\n<\/p>\n
i)  Whether  the  plaintiffs  are  justified  in  approaching the Civil Courts
\nquestioning the issuance of show cause notices?  and<\/p>\n
ii)  Whether  the  Courts  below  are  right  in  allowing  the  Interlocutory
\nApplications and granting injunction in favour of the plaintiffs?.\n<\/p>\n
11.  At the foremost Mr.  K.  Kumar, learned senior counsel for the Department
\nby  drawing  my attention to Section 40<\/a> of the Central Excise Act, 1944, would
\nsubmit that the suits as framed in all these cases are  not  maintainable  and
\nthe Courts  below  ought  to  have  rejected  the  plaints.  Section 40<\/a> of the
\nCentral Excise Act, 1944 reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
“40.  Protection of action taken under the Act.-(1) No  suit,  prosecution  or
\nother legal proceeding shall lie against the Central Government or any officer
\nof the Central Government or a State Government for anything which is done, or
\nintended  to be done, in good faith, in pursuance of this Act or any rule made
\nthereunder.\n<\/p>\n
(2) No proceeding, other than a suit, shall be commenced against  the  Central
\nGovernment  or any officer of the Central Government or a State Government for
\nanything done or purported to have been done in pursuance of this Act  or  any
\nrule  made thereunder, without giving the Central Government or such officer a
\nmonth’s previous notice in writing of the intended proceeding and of the cause
\nthereof or after the expiration of three  months  from  the  accrual  of  such
\ncause.”\n<\/p>\n
As rightly pointed out by Mr.  R.  Muthukumarasamy, learned senior counsel for
\nthe  contesting respondents, a reading of the above provision shows that there
\nis  no  specific  bar  in  proceeding  against  the  orders  of  the   Customs
\nofficers\/authorities in  a  Civil  Court.    As  rightly  contended,  the said
\nprovision is a protection  against  the  officers  at  the  Central  or  State
\nGovernment from implementing the provisions of the Central Excise Act<\/a>.  Though
\nMr.  K.  Kumar  as well as Mr.  R.  Muthukumarasamy cited several decisions of
\nthis Court and the Apex Court in support of their respective claim,  the  fact
\nremains  that  the  Department  i.e.,  petitioners\/defendants  have  not filed
\nseparate petition under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of C.P.C.  for rejection of plaint
\non the ground that the suit is not maintainable in view of various  provisions
\nof the Central Excise Act<\/a>.  It is also not in dispute that if a specific issue
\nregarding jurisdiction is framed, the Court is bound to decide the issue first
\nbefore going  into other issues while pronouncing its Judgment.  This is clear
\nfrom Order 14, Rule 2 (2) of Code of Civil Procedure.  It is also  brought  to
\nmy notice by  Mr.    R.    Muthukumarasamy,  learned  senior  counsel  for the
\ncontesting respondents, that Section 9 C.P.C.  enables the Courts to  try  all
\nsuits  of  a  Civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either
\nexpressly or impliedly barred.  According to him, in the absence  of  specific
\nbar  in  the  Act  (Central Excise Act<\/a>) questioning the show cause notice, the
\nsuits as laid are maintainable and the concerned Civil Courts have  to  decide
\nthe issue on merits.\n<\/p>\n
12.   As  said  earlier,  on behalf of both sides, several decisions have been
\ncited, including a leading judgement of the Supreme  Court  on  the  point  of
\njurisdiction in Dhulabhai v.  State of Madhya Pradesh<\/a>, reported in AIR 1969 SC
\n78 in  support  of  their  respective  claim.  In the light of the order to be
\npassed hereunder, I am of the view that it is unnecessary to refer the same in
\nthis common order for the present.  As far as O.S.No.  317\/2001 pending on the
\nfile of Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee is concerned, though the plaintiff  has
\nprayed for  an injunction in I.A.No.  1182\/2001 and the Department has filed a
\ncounter opposing the same, the learned Subordinate Judge has  not  framed  any
\nspecific issue regarding the jurisdiction before considering prima facie case.\n<\/p>\n
13.  In  so  far as the suits in O.S.Nos.  4177\/2001 and 4259 \/2001 pending on
\nthe file of XV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai  are  concerned,  in
\nthe applications  for  injunction, namely, I.A.Nos.  11797\/2001 and 12061\/2001
\nrespectively, admittedly,  the  Department  did  not  file  counter  affidavit
\nconveying their  stand and they were set ex parte.  Unfortunately, the learned
\ntrial Judge without giving any  reason  much  less  giving  attention  to  the
\njurisdictional  aspect, particularly taking note of the failure on the part of
\nthe Department in filing counter, passed a non-speaking order and  granted  ex
\nparte injunction.    Inasmuch as the respondents\/defendants are none-else than
\nthe Central Government Department, I am of the view that the trial Court ought
\nto have granted one more opportunity before setting them  ex  parte  and  thus
\ncommitted  an error in granting ex parte order of injunction without assigning
\nany reason.  In other words, I am satisfied that the order of the XV Assistant
\nJudge does not disclose any reason, particularly whether it has  focussed  its
\nattention  on the point of jurisdiction and whether a prima facie case is made
\nout and balance of convenience is found in granting injunction  in  favour  of
\nthe petitioner\/plaintiff.  Courts have repeatedly held that merely because the<\/p>\n
respondent\/defendant  is  absent,  interim  order  cannot  be  granted without
\nconsidering and satisfying itself with regard to the plaint  averments.    The
\nrecourse adopted by XV Assistant Judge cannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
14.  Coming  to  the  last case i.e., O.S.No.  129 of 2001 on the file of Prl.
\nSubordinate Judge, Chengalpattu, the plaintiff has furnished necessary details
\nhow the suit is maintainable irrespective of remedy by way of filing objection
\nto the show cause notice and further remedies by way of appeal  and  revision.
\nAs said earlier, the Department has not filed separate application under Order
\n7 Rule  11 ( d) of C.P.C.  questioning maintainability of the suit and without
\ndoing so, they straight away filed Revision, viz., C.R.P.No.  57 of  2002  for
\nstriking down the plaint under Article 227<\/a> of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
15.  On  going  through the averments made in the plaint in O.S.No.  317\/2001,
\nthe order passed by the Sub Court, Poonamallee in  I.A.No.    1182\/2001  dated
\n25-9-2001,  the ex party non-speaking order of the learned XV Assistant Judge,
\nCity Civil Court,  Chennai  in  I.A.Nos.    11797\/2001  and  12061\/2001  dated
\n9-8-2001 as  well  as  the plaint averments in O.S.No.  129\/2001 of Sub Court,
\nChengalpattu, I am of the view that it is not desirable for this Court  to  go
\ninto the  jurisdictional  issue  in  these  Revision  Petitions.  It is not in
\ndispute that only in  C.R.P.No.    57\/2002,  the  Department  has  prayed  for
\nstriking down the  plaint in O.S.No.  129\/2001 of Sub Court, Chengalpattu.  In
\nother Revision Petitions, the Department mainly challenges the order passed in
\nthe Interlocutory Applications.  In such  circumstances,  particularly  taking
\nnote  of  the rival contentions raised relating to jurisdiction with reference
\nto the provisions of the Act as well as judicial pronouncements of this  Court
\nand  the  Apex  Court,  it  is  but  proper for the respective Courts to frame
\nspecific issue relating to jurisdiction  and  try  the  same  after  affording
\nopportunity to  both  parties.    Though the Court is expected to consider all
\nissues both of law and of fact, in view of the serious  objections  raised  by
\nthe  Department,  I am of the view that while framing issues pertaining to the
\nclaim made in the suit, the respective Courts are directed to frame a specific
\nissue relating to jurisdiction of the Court\/to the suit as a first  issue  and
\nafter  deciding  the  said  issue (relating to jurisdiction), depending on the
\noutcome of the said issue, they will be permitted to proceed further to decide
\nother issues on merits.  As said  earlier,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the
\nrelevant  issue  relating  to  jurisdiction  is  to  be specifically tried and
\ndecided by the Courts below, I am not referring to any of the decisions  cited
\non  either  side,  however,  both  parties  are free to place all the relevant
\nmaterials, evidence both oral and documentary, in support of their  respective
\nclaim.   It  is  needless  to  mention that the Courts below are duty bound to
\nconsider  the  same  and  pass  a  full-fledged\/reasoned  order  supported  by
\ndecisions that may be placed before them.  Considering the fact that the suits
\nare  of  the  year  2001, the Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee, the XV Assistant
\nJudge, City Civil Court, Chennai, and the Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu  are
\ndirected  to  give priority to these suits and pass orders one way or other in
\naccordance with law on or  before  28th  April,  2006,  after  affording  full
\nopportunity to  both  parties.    Till  such  final decision being taken, both
\nparties are directed to maintain status-quo prevailing  as  on  date.    Civil
\nRevision Petitions  are  disposed  of  on  the  above  directions.   No costs.
\nConsequently, connected C.M.P., is closed.\n<\/p>\n
23-12-2005.\n<\/p>\n
Index:- Yes.\n<\/p>\n
Internet:- Yes.\n<\/p>\n
R.B.\n<\/p>\n
To:-\n<\/p>\n
1) The Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee.\n<\/p>\n
2) The XV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai-104.\n<\/p>\n
3) The Prl.  Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu.\n<\/p>\n
\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court The Assistant Commissioner Of vs M\/S. Diamond Engineering … on 23 December, 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 23\/12\/2005 Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM CRP No. 4113 of 2002 and CRP Nos., 4128, 4138 of 2001 and 57 of 2002 and C.M.P.No. 516 of 2002. C.R.P.No. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-269857","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Assistant Commissioner Of vs M\/S. Diamond Engineering ... on 23 December, 2005 - 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-assistant-commissioner-of-vs-ms-diamond-engineering-on-23-december-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Assistant Commissioner Of vs M\/S. Diamond Engineering ... on 23 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-assistant-commissioner-of-vs-ms-diamond-engineering-on-23-december-2005\" \/>\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=\"2005-12-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-19T14:06:39+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=\"14 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-assistant-commissioner-of-vs-ms-diamond-engineering-on-23-december-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-assistant-commissioner-of-vs-ms-diamond-engineering-on-23-december-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Assistant Commissioner Of vs M\\\/S. Diamond Engineering … on 23 December, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-12-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-19T14:06:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-assistant-commissioner-of-vs-ms-diamond-engineering-on-23-december-2005\"},\"wordCount\":2818,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-assistant-commissioner-of-vs-ms-diamond-engineering-on-23-december-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-assistant-commissioner-of-vs-ms-diamond-engineering-on-23-december-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-assistant-commissioner-of-vs-ms-diamond-engineering-on-23-december-2005\",\"name\":\"The Assistant Commissioner Of vs M\\\/S. Diamond Engineering ... on 23 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-12-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-19T14:06:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-assistant-commissioner-of-vs-ms-diamond-engineering-on-23-december-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-assistant-commissioner-of-vs-ms-diamond-engineering-on-23-december-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-assistant-commissioner-of-vs-ms-diamond-engineering-on-23-december-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Assistant Commissioner Of vs M\\\/S. Diamond Engineering … on 23 December, 2005\"}]},{\"@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 Assistant Commissioner Of vs M\/S. Diamond Engineering ... on 23 December, 2005 - 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-assistant-commissioner-of-vs-ms-diamond-engineering-on-23-december-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Assistant Commissioner Of vs M\/S. Diamond Engineering ... on 23 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-assistant-commissioner-of-vs-ms-diamond-engineering-on-23-december-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-12-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-19T14:06:39+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-assistant-commissioner-of-vs-ms-diamond-engineering-on-23-december-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-assistant-commissioner-of-vs-ms-diamond-engineering-on-23-december-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Assistant Commissioner Of vs M\/S. Diamond Engineering … on 23 December, 2005","datePublished":"2005-12-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-19T14:06:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-assistant-commissioner-of-vs-ms-diamond-engineering-on-23-december-2005"},"wordCount":2818,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-assistant-commissioner-of-vs-ms-diamond-engineering-on-23-december-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-assistant-commissioner-of-vs-ms-diamond-engineering-on-23-december-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-assistant-commissioner-of-vs-ms-diamond-engineering-on-23-december-2005","name":"The Assistant Commissioner Of vs M\/S. Diamond Engineering ... on 23 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-12-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-19T14:06:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-assistant-commissioner-of-vs-ms-diamond-engineering-on-23-december-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-assistant-commissioner-of-vs-ms-diamond-engineering-on-23-december-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-assistant-commissioner-of-vs-ms-diamond-engineering-on-23-december-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Assistant Commissioner Of vs M\/S. Diamond Engineering … on 23 December, 2005"}]},{"@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\/269857","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=269857"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/269857\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=269857"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=269857"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=269857"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}