{"id":30972,"date":"1979-10-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1979-10-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-enforcement-vs-k-o-krishnaswamy-on-26-october-1979"},"modified":"2015-09-24T05:26:42","modified_gmt":"2015-09-23T23:56:42","slug":"director-enforcement-vs-k-o-krishnaswamy-on-26-october-1979","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-enforcement-vs-k-o-krishnaswamy-on-26-october-1979","title":{"rendered":"Director, Enforcement … vs K. O. Krishnaswamy on 26 October, 1979"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Director, Enforcement … vs K. O. Krishnaswamy on 26 October, 1979<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1979 AIR 1969, \t\t 1980 SCR (1)1092<\/div>\n
Author: A Koshal<\/div>\n
Bench: Koshal, A.D.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nDIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE ANDAN\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nK. O. KRISHNASWAMY\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT26\/10\/1979\n\nBENCH:\nKOSHAL, A.D.\nBENCH:\nKOSHAL, A.D.\nUNTWALIA, N.L.\nBHAGWATI, P.N.\n\nCITATION:\n 1979 AIR 1969\t\t  1980 SCR  (1)1092\n 1980 SCC  (1) 280\n\n\nACT:\n     Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947-Section 12(2)(b)-\nScope  of-Exporter   over  invoicing   for  the\t purpose  of\nobtaining import licence-If violative of section 12(2)(b)\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     An exporter  exporting goods  outside India is required\nto furnish  a declaration under section 12(1) of the Foreign\nExchange Regulation Act, 1947 affirming that the full export\nvalue of  the goods  had  been\tor  would  be  paid  in\t the\nprescribed manner.  Sub-section (2) of this section provides\nthat no\t person entitled  to sell the said goods shall do so\nor refrain  from doing\tanything which\thas  the  effect  of\nsecuring that  .... (b)\t \"payment  for\tthe  goods  is\tmade\notherwise  than\t  in  the  prescribed  manner  or  does\t not\nrepresent the  full amount  payable by\tthe foreign buyer in\nrespect of the goods.\"\n     An\t Export\t Promotion  Scheme  for\t textile  goods\t and\nhandicrafts promulgated by the Government of India envisaged\nthe issuance  of import\t licences to the exporters solely on\nthe basis  of the  declared value  of the exported goods. On\nreceiving the  import licences\tthe exporters  were able  to\nsell them  at a\t profit ranging\t from 200 to 300 per cent of\ntheir face  value. This\t encouraged the exporters to prepare\ninvoices  showing   the\t value\t far  above  the  market  or\ncontractual price  for obtaining  import  licences  for\t the\ninflated amounts.\n     Against the  invoice value\t of Rs.\t 21.97 lakhs, one of\nthe appellants\treceived only  Rs. 1.01 lakhs, while against\nthe invoice  value of  Rs. 17.06  lakhs in the case of goods\nexported by  the other\tappellant the amount repatriated was\nRs. 38,000  odd. Both  the appellants  pleaded guilty to the\ncharge levelled against them.\n     Finding them  guilty under section 12(2) of the Foreign\nExchange Regulation  Act, the  Director imposed a penalty of\nRs. 3 lakhs on each of them.\n     In a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the\nHigh Court quashed the order on the view that there would be\ncontravention of  section 12(2)(b)  only  when\tthe  foreign\nbuyer was  under an obligation to pay a certain sum of money\nand there  was non-payment of that amount or part thereof in\nconsequence of\tsomething done\tby the\texporter and that if\nthe contractual\t value of the goods had been realised by the\nexporter, he  could not\t be held guilty of any contravention\nmerely by reason of fact that he had shown an inflated price\nin the\tinvoice and  thus received undeserved benefit in the\nform of import licence.\n1093\n     Dismissing the appeal,\n^\n     HELD :  The expression  \"full  amount  payable  by\t the\nforeign buyer  in respect  of the goods\" occurring in clause\n(b) would mean merely the total amount which is due from the\nforeign buyer in respect of the goods actually exported, and\nwhat would  be due from a foreign buyer has to be merely the\nprice which  he has  agreed to pay and not any fanciful, un-\nreal or\t inflated price\t which the  exporter may  choose  to\nfalsely\t incorporate   in  the\tinvoice\t with  any  ulterior\nmotives. The  foreign buyer  cannot be\theld to be liable to\npay any\t amount over  and  above  the  price  which  he\t has\npromised to  pay for  the goods\t received  by  him  and\t any\ndifference between  that price\tand the\t price given  in the\ninvoice can,  therefore, not  have the\tattribute of  having\nbecome payable\tby him.\t If the\t price agreed  upon had been\npaid  to  the  exporter,  clause  (b)  does  not  come\tinto\noperation. [1096 F-G]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION :  Civil Appeal Nos. 2595
\nand 2596 of 1969.\n<\/p>\n
     From the  Judgment and  Order  dated  4-6-1969  of\t the
\nMysore High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 441 and 443\/66.\n<\/p>\n
     M. K.  Banerjee. Additional  Sol. Genl, R. B. Datar and
\nGirish Chandra for the Appellants.\n<\/p>\n
     Shyamala Pappu,  Vineet Kumar  and A. K. Srivastava for
\nthe Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     KOSHAL, J.\t By this  Judgment we shall dispose of Civil
\nAppeals Nos.  2595 and 2596 of 1969 in each one of which the
\nDirector,  Enforcement\tDirectorate,  Ministry\tof  Finance,
\nDepartment of  Revenue,\t Government  of\t India\t(hereinafter
\nreferred to  as the  ‘Director’) challenges  an order of the
\nMysore High  Court dated the 4th of June, 1969, allowing two
\npetitions preferred  by the  respondents for the issuance of
\nwrits under article 226 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
     2. The  facts giving  rise to  the two  appeals may  be
\nbriefly stated.\t The  Government  of  India  promulgated  an
\nExport Promotion  Scheme under\twhich exporters\t of  textile
\ngoods and handicrafts were issued licences for import of raw
\nmaterials on  the basis\t of their  export  performance.\t The
\nScheme envisaged  the issuance\tof import licences solely on
\nthe basis of the declared value of the exported goods. Since
\nexporters were\table to\t earn a\t handsome profit (ranging in
\nsome cases  between 200\t and 300 per cent of the face value)
\nby sale\t of such  import licences,  the Scheme\tbrought into
\nexistence a mushroom growth of textile exporters and parties
\nacting benami  on behalf  of established  exporters. Most of
\nthe   exporters\t  had\tabroad\t their\t own   branches\t  or
\nrepresentatives\t who   acted  as  consignees  of  the  goods
\nexported from
\n1094<\/span>
\nIndia. The  easy-profit motive\tled  numerous  exporters  to
\nprepare invoices  showing the  value of\t exported goods\t far
\nabove the  market or  contractual price there of in order to
\nobtain import  licences for  the inflated  amounts.  Getting
\nscent of  the practice\tthe Enforcement\t Directorate carried
\nout a  surprise search of the premises of one of the leading
\ntextile exporters  of  Madras  State  in  March,  1965.\t The
\ndocuments seized  as a\tresult thereof\tand the statement of
\nthe exporter  confirmed the  information earlier received by
\nthe Directorate.  In  consequence  notices  were  issued  to
\nalmost all  the textile\t and handicrafts  exporters  in\t the
\nState of Madras calling upon them to explain the reasons for
\nnot realising  the  entire  amount  shown  in  the  invoices
\nsubmitted by  them as  the price  of the  goods exported  to
\nvarious parties\t outside India.\t Two of\t such exporters were
\nM\/s. K.\t O. Krishnaswamy  the respondent in Civil Appeal No.
\n2595 of 1969) and M\/s. Nagaraja Overseas Traders (respondent
\nin Civil  Appeal No.  2596 of 1969) and the proceedings held
\nagainst them  under section  19(2) of  the Foreign  Exchange
\nRegulation Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’)
\nby the\tDirector revealed  that in  between  them  they\t had
\nexported 53 consignments of textile goods and handicrafts to
\nSingapore and other places as per details given below :\n<\/p>\n
————————————————————\n<\/p>\n
Name\t      Value of export No. of Amount\t Amount\n\t      as shown in     ship-  repatriated outstanding\n\t      the GR. 1.forms ments\n<\/pre>\n
————————————————————\n<\/p>\n
1. M\/s. K.O.  21,97,046.62    31    1,01,165.70 20,95,880.92
\n   Krishnaswami\n<\/p>\n
2. M\/s. Naga- 17,06,159.00    22      38,510.25 16,67,648.75
\n   Overseas
\n   Traders\n<\/p>\n
————————————————————
\nThe Director arrived at the finding :\n<\/p>\n
\t  “From the  above statement, it will be clear that,
\n     as regards\t that the  first two  firms, the  total\t sum
\n     shown as  outstanding (which is non-existent) and hence
\n     non-repatriable, due  to deliberate  over-invoicing, is
\n     Rs 37,63,529.67”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
He added that in their confessional statements dated the 7th
\nof April,  1965 (made  in reply\t to the\t show cause  notices
\nserved on  them) and  in their pleas at the hearing, the two
\nfirms had  pleaded guilty  to “the  charges  framed  against
\nthem”. Finding\tboth of\t them guilty  under section 12(2) of
\nthe Act,  the Director,\t by his\t order dated  the 27th\tMay,
\n1965, imposed  on each\tof them a penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs and
\nit was\tthat order  which each\tof the\ttwo convicted  firms
\nchallenged as illegal in a petition under article 226 of the
\nConstitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
1095<\/span><\/p>\n
     The Division  Bench of  the High Court accepted the two
\npetitions through  the impugned\t order holding\tthat on\t the
\nfacts as found by the Director, no offence under sub-section
\n(2) of\tsection 12  of the  Act was  made out.\tThe relevant
\nportion of that section is reproduced below:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “12(1) The Central Government may, by notification
\n     in the Official Gazette, prohibit the taking or sending
\n     out by  land, sea\tor air\t(hereinafter in this section
\n     referred to  as export) of all goods or of any goods or
\n     class of goods specified in the notification from India
\n     directly or indirectly to any place so specified unless
\n     the exporter  furnishes to\t the prescribed\t authority a
\n     declaration in  the prescribed  form supported  by such
\n     evidence as  may be prescribed or so specified and true
\n     in all  material particulars which, among others. shall
\n     include the amount representing-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (i) the full export value of the goods; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (ii) if  the full export value of the goods is not
\n\t       ascertainable at the time of export the value
\n\t       which the  exporter,  having  regard  to\t the
\n\t       prevailing  market   conditions,\t expects  to
\n\t       receive on  the sale  of\t the  goods  in\t the
\n\t       course of international trade;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     and affirms  in the  said\tdeclaration  that  the\tfull
\n     export value of the goods (whether ascertainable at the
\n     time of  export or\t not) has  been, or  will within the
\n     prescribed period be, paid in the prescribed manner.
\n\t  (2) Where  any export\t of goods  has been  made to
\n     which a  notification under sub-section (1) applies, no
\n     person entitled  to sell,\tor procure  the sale of, the
\n     said goods\t shall, except\twith the  permission of\t the
\n     Reserve Bank, do or refrain from doing anything or take
\n     or refrain\t from taking any action which has the effect
\n     of securing that-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (a)  the sale of the goods is delayed to an extent
\n\t       which is\t unreasonable having  regard to\t the
\n\t       ordinary course of trade, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (b)\tpayment for the goods is made otherwise than
\n\t       in  the\t prescribed  manner   or  does\t not
\n\t       represent the  full  amount  payable  by\t the
\n\t       foreign\tbuyer\tin  respect  of\t the  goods,
\n\t       subject to such deductions, if any, as may be
\n1096<\/span>
\n\t       allowed by the Reserve Bank, or is delayed to
\n\t       such extent as aforesaid:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Provided that\t no proceedings\t in respect  of\t any
\n     contravention of  this sub-section\t shall be instituted
\n     unless the\t prescribed period  has expired\t and payment
\n     for the goods representing the full amount as aforesaid
\n     has not been made in the prescribed manner.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The argument  raised on  behalf of\t the Director before
\nthe High  Court was  that the two firms, by “over-invoicing”
\nthe price  of the  goods exported  had been guilty of taking
\naction which had the effect of securing that payment for the
\nexported goods\tdid not represent the full amount payable by
\nthe foreign buyer in respect thereof and that therefore they
\nhad contravened\t clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 12
\nof the\tAct. The  argument was\trepelled by  the High  Court
\nafter a\t full discussion  of the  findings arrived at by the
\nDirector in  his order\tdated the 27th of May, 1965, and all
\nthe ingredients\t of sub-section (2) of section 12. It was of
\nthe opinion  that the  said clause  (b) would be contravened
\nonly when the foreign buyer was under an obligation to pay a
\ncertain sum  of money  and there was non-payment of that sum
\nor a  part thereof  in consequence  of something done by the
\nexporter and  that if the contractual value of the goods had
\nbeen realized by the exporter he could not be held guilty of
\nany such  contravention merely by reason of the fact that he
\nhad shown an inflated price in the invoice and thus received
\nundeserved benefits in the form of an import licence for the
\ninvoiced amount.  The High Court, therefore, while accepting
\nboth the  petitions, quashed the order of the Director dated
\nthe 27th May, 1965.\n<\/p>\n
     3. The  argument advanced\ton behalf  of  the  Director
\nbefore the  High Court has been reiterated before us, and we
\nare clearly  of the  opinion, after  hearing learned counsel
\nfor both  the parties,\tthat the  interpretation placed upon
\nsub-section  (2)   of  section\t12  by\tthe  High  Court  is
\nunexceptionable. The  expression “the full amount payable by
\nthe foreign  buyer in  respect of  the goods”  occurring  in
\nclause (b)  would mean\tmerely the total amount which is due
\nfrom the  foreign buyer\t in respect  of the  goods  actually
\nexported; and  what would be due from a foreign buyer has to
\nbe merely  the price  which he has agreed to pay and not any
\nfanciful, unreal  or inflated  price which  the exporter may
\nchoose to  falsely  incorporate\t in  the  invoice  with\t any
\nulterior motives.  The foreign\tbuyer cannot, by any stretch
\nof imagination,\t be held to be liable to pay any amount over
\nand above  the price  which he\thas promised  to pay for the
\ngoods received\tby him and any difference between that price
\nand the price given in the invoice can.\n<\/p>\n
1097<\/span><\/p>\n
therefore not  have the attribute of having become ‘payable’
\nby him. And if that be so and the price actually agreed upon
\nhas been paid to the exporter, clause (b) does not come into
\noperation in the case of the latter.\n<\/p>\n
     4. Sub-section  (1) of  section 12\t no doubt  makes  it
\nimperative for\tthe exporter  to specify  in his declaration
\nthe full  (and true)  export value  of the  goods but then a
\nbreach of  this mandate is not covered by the contraventions
\nembraced by  sub-section (2).  It  may\tbe  that  the  false
\ndeclarations made  by the  respondent-firms in\tthe invoices
\nsubmitted by them in respect of the goods exported make them
\nliable under some provision (other than section 12(2) of the
\nAct) of\t the penal law of the country, but that is an aspect
\nof the case with which we are not here concerned.\n<\/p>\n
     5. In the result the appeals fail and are dismissed but
\nwith no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
P.B.R.\t\t\t\t\t  Appeals dismissed.\n1098<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Director, Enforcement … vs K. O. Krishnaswamy on 26 October, 1979 Equivalent citations: 1979 AIR 1969, 1980 SCR (1)1092 Author: A Koshal Bench: Koshal, A.D. PETITIONER: DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE ANDAN Vs. RESPONDENT: K. O. KRISHNASWAMY DATE OF JUDGMENT26\/10\/1979 BENCH: KOSHAL, A.D. BENCH: KOSHAL, A.D. UNTWALIA, N.L. BHAGWATI, P.N. […]<\/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-30972","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nDirector, Enforcement ... vs K. O. Krishnaswamy on 26 October, 1979 - 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\/director-enforcement-vs-k-o-krishnaswamy-on-26-october-1979\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Director, Enforcement ... vs K. O. Krishnaswamy on 26 October, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-enforcement-vs-k-o-krishnaswamy-on-26-october-1979\" \/>\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=\"1979-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-23T23:56:42+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/director-enforcement-vs-k-o-krishnaswamy-on-26-october-1979#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/director-enforcement-vs-k-o-krishnaswamy-on-26-october-1979\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Director, Enforcement … vs K. O. Krishnaswamy on 26 October, 1979\",\"datePublished\":\"1979-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-23T23:56:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/director-enforcement-vs-k-o-krishnaswamy-on-26-october-1979\"},\"wordCount\":1618,\"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\\\/director-enforcement-vs-k-o-krishnaswamy-on-26-october-1979#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/director-enforcement-vs-k-o-krishnaswamy-on-26-october-1979\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/director-enforcement-vs-k-o-krishnaswamy-on-26-october-1979\",\"name\":\"Director, Enforcement ... vs K. O. Krishnaswamy on 26 October, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1979-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-23T23:56:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/director-enforcement-vs-k-o-krishnaswamy-on-26-october-1979#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/director-enforcement-vs-k-o-krishnaswamy-on-26-october-1979\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/director-enforcement-vs-k-o-krishnaswamy-on-26-october-1979#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Director, Enforcement … vs K. O. Krishnaswamy on 26 October, 1979\"}]},{\"@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":"Director, Enforcement ... vs K. O. Krishnaswamy on 26 October, 1979 - 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\/director-enforcement-vs-k-o-krishnaswamy-on-26-october-1979","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Director, Enforcement ... vs K. O. Krishnaswamy on 26 October, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-enforcement-vs-k-o-krishnaswamy-on-26-october-1979","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1979-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-23T23:56:42+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-enforcement-vs-k-o-krishnaswamy-on-26-october-1979#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-enforcement-vs-k-o-krishnaswamy-on-26-october-1979"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Director, Enforcement … vs K. O. Krishnaswamy on 26 October, 1979","datePublished":"1979-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-23T23:56:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-enforcement-vs-k-o-krishnaswamy-on-26-october-1979"},"wordCount":1618,"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\/director-enforcement-vs-k-o-krishnaswamy-on-26-october-1979#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-enforcement-vs-k-o-krishnaswamy-on-26-october-1979","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-enforcement-vs-k-o-krishnaswamy-on-26-october-1979","name":"Director, Enforcement ... vs K. O. Krishnaswamy on 26 October, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1979-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-23T23:56:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-enforcement-vs-k-o-krishnaswamy-on-26-october-1979#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-enforcement-vs-k-o-krishnaswamy-on-26-october-1979"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-enforcement-vs-k-o-krishnaswamy-on-26-october-1979#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Director, Enforcement … vs K. O. Krishnaswamy on 26 October, 1979"}]},{"@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\/30972","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=30972"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30972\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=30972"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=30972"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=30972"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}