{"id":36655,"date":"2005-03-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-03-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navdeep-industries-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-others-on-29-march-2005"},"modified":"2016-03-07T03:47:12","modified_gmt":"2016-03-06T22:17:12","slug":"navdeep-industries-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-others-on-29-march-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navdeep-industries-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-others-on-29-march-2005","title":{"rendered":"Navdeep Industries vs State Of Chhattisgarh &amp; Others on 29 March, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Chattisgarh High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Navdeep Industries vs State Of Chhattisgarh &amp; Others on 29 March, 2005<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n    HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH - BILASPUR.           \n                   (Division Bench)\n\n   WRIT PETITION NO. 2098 OF 2002   \n\n   Navdeep Industries\n                               ...Petitioner\n                       - Versus-\n\n   State of Chhattisgarh &amp; others\n                               ...Respondent\n\n!  Present  Petitioner by Mr. V.G. Tamaskar, Advocate.\n\n^  Respondent No.1 \/ State by Mr. N.K.  Agrawal,\n   Dy.  Advocate General with Mr. Ashish Shukla,\n   Govt. Advocate.\n\n   Respondent No.2 by Mr. R.R. Sinha, Advocate.\n\n   CORAM         HON'BLE SHRI A.K. PATNAIK, C.J.   \n               &amp; HON'BLE SHRI V.K. SHRIVASTAVA,  \n\n   Dated:  29-03-2005\n\n:  O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n<p>   (29th March 2005)<\/p>\n<p>      The  following order of the Court was  passed  by<br \/>\nA.K. Patnaik, C.J.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The   petitioner   is  a  Small   Scale   Industry<br \/>\nregistered with Directorate of Industries, Punjab,  and<br \/>\nmanufactures engineering items including drill rods  in<br \/>\nthe  State of Punjab and has been supplying such  drill<br \/>\nrods  to  South Eastern Coalfields\/respondent  No.2  in<br \/>\nMadhya  Pradesh, now Chhattisgarh, since 1972.      The<br \/>\ncase of the petitioner in the writ petition is that  no<br \/>\nentry tax was payable on such entry of drill rods  into<br \/>\nthe   State  of  Chhattisgarh  under  the  Chhattisgarh<br \/>\nSthaniya  Kshetra Me Mal Ke Pravesh Par Kar  Adhiniyam,<br \/>\n1976  (  for  short  &#8220;the  Act,  1976&#8221;).  But  by   the<br \/>\nChhattisgarh Sthaniya Kshetra Me Mal Ke Pravesh Par Kar<br \/>\n(Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 2002, the Act 1976 was  amended<br \/>\nso as to include &#8220;drill rod&#8221; in Schedule III of the Act<br \/>\n1976.    As   a   consequence,  entry  of   drill   rod<br \/>\nmanufactured  outside  the State  of  Chhattisgarh  has<br \/>\nbecome  liable  to entry tax @ 10% on taxable  quantum.<br \/>\nThe  petitioner  has  prayed  for  declaring  the  said<br \/>\namendment  in  so  far as it includes  &#8220;drill  rod&#8221;  in<br \/>\nSchedule  III  of  the  Act 1976  as  ultra  vires  the<br \/>\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n<p>(2)    Mr.  V.G.  Tamaskar,  learned  counsel  for  the<br \/>\npetitioner submitted that while entry tax is payable on<br \/>\ndrill  rods manufactured by the petitioner outside  the<br \/>\nState  of Chhattisgarh and supplied to respondent  No.2<br \/>\nin  the  State  of Chhattisgarh, no such entry  tax  is<br \/>\npayable  on drill rods manufactured by a local industry<br \/>\nlocated  at  Korba  in  the State of  Chhattisgarh.  He<br \/>\nsubmitted  that  the impugned amendment is,  therefore,<br \/>\ndiscriminatory and violative of Article 304 (a) of  the<br \/>\nConstitution  of India which prohibits the  legislature<br \/>\nof  a  State to discriminate between the goods imported<br \/>\nand  goods manufactured inside the State while imposing<br \/>\ntaxes.  In  support of this contention,  he  cited  the<br \/>\ndecision  of  the Supreme Court in the  case  of  Shree<br \/>\nMahavir  Oil  Mills and Another Vs. State  of  Jammu  &amp;<br \/>\nKashmir and others, reported in (1996) 11 Supreme Court<br \/>\nCases-39  in  which  the Supreme Court  has  held  that<br \/>\nexemption  from  tax under the Jammu &amp; Kashmir  General<br \/>\nSales  Tax, 1962 on edible oil produced and sold within<br \/>\nthe  State  of  Jammu &amp; Kashmir when  such  edible  oil<br \/>\nproduced  outside the State of Jammu  and  Kashmir  was<br \/>\nliable to tax under the said Act was discriminatory and<br \/>\nviolative  of  Article 304 (a) of the  Constitution  of<br \/>\nIndia.\n<\/p>\n<p>(3)  Mr. N.K. Agrawal, learned Dy. Advocate General for<br \/>\nthe State of Chhattisgarh on the other hand relying  on<br \/>\nthe  averments  in paragraph 8 of the return  filed  by<br \/>\nrespondent, submitted that drill rods produced  by  the<br \/>\nlocal industry namely Mining Machine Tools in Korba may<br \/>\nnot  be  liable  for  entry tax  when  the  drill  rods<br \/>\nproduced by it are consumed and used in the local  area<br \/>\nof Korba;  but will be liable to entry tax if the drill<br \/>\nrods produced by it are consumed and used in local area<br \/>\nof  Bilaspur  to  South  Eastern  Coalfields  Ltd.   He<br \/>\nsubmitted  that the contention that the local  industry<br \/>\nat  Korba namely Mining Machine Tools is not liable for<br \/>\nentry  tax  on  drill rods supplied  to  South  Eastern<br \/>\nCoalfields   Ltd.   in  Chhattisgarh   is,   therefore,<br \/>\nfactually  not  correct.  In support of  the  aforesaid<br \/>\nsubmission,  he  relied on the provisions  of  the  Act<br \/>\n1976.\n<\/p>\n<p>(4)    Clauses   (d)  and  (e) of  Section  2  and  the<br \/>\nrelevant  portion  of Section 3 of  the  Act  1976  are<br \/>\nquoted hereunder:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;2.  Definitions.- (1) In this Act unless the<br \/>\n     context otherwise requires, &#8211;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     (d)  `local  area&#8217; means the  area  comprised<br \/>\n     within the limits of a local authority;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     (e)  `local  authority&#8217;  means  as  authority<br \/>\n     constituted  under  a law relating  to  local<br \/>\n     authority  but shall not include  a  Janapada<br \/>\n     Panchayat,   a  Zila  Panchayat,   a   Mandal<br \/>\n     Panchayat  or  such other local authority  as<br \/>\n     the   State   Government  may,  notification,<br \/>\n     specify;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     3.    Incidence of taxation.- (1) There shall<br \/>\n     be levied an entry tax, &#8211;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     (a)  on the entry in the course of business of a dealer<br \/>\n          of goods specified in Schedule II, into each local area<br \/>\n          for consumption, use or sale therein; and\n<\/p>\n<p>(b)  on the entry in the course of business of a dealer<br \/>\nof goods specified in Schedule III, into each local<br \/>\narea for consumption or use of such goods but not for<br \/>\nsale therein;\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     and  such  tax shall be paid by every  dealer<br \/>\n     liable   to   tax  under  the  Vanijyik   Kar<br \/>\n     Adhiniyam,  who has effected  entry  of  such<br \/>\n     goods;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>(5)   It  will be clear on plain reading of  Section  3<br \/>\n(1)(b)  of the Act 1976 that entry tax is to be  levied<br \/>\non  the entry in the course of business of a dealer  of<br \/>\ngoods specified in Schedule III, into each &#8220;local area&#8221;<br \/>\nfor  consumption or use of such goods but not for  sale<br \/>\ntherein.  The expression &#8220;local area&#8221; has been  defined<br \/>\nin  Section  2  (d) of the Act 1976 to  mean  the  area<br \/>\ncomprised  within the limits of a local  authority  and<br \/>\nthe expression  &#8220;local authority&#8221; has been defined   in<br \/>\nSection  2  (e)  of the Act 1976 to mean the  authority<br \/>\nconstituted  under a law relating to  local  authority.<br \/>\nThe  result  is  that on the entry  in  the  course  of<br \/>\nbusiness of a dealer of goods specified in Schedule III<br \/>\ninto  each  local area for consumption or use  of  such<br \/>\ngoods  but  not  for sale therein, such goods  will  be<br \/>\nliable to entry tax under Section 3 (1) (b) of the  Act<br \/>\n1976.  Hence,  the  contention of  Mr.  V.G.  Tamaskar,<br \/>\nlearned  counsel  for  the petitioner  that  the  goods<br \/>\nmanufactured in the State of Chhattisgarh would not  be<br \/>\nliable to entry tax under Section 3 (1) (b) of the Act,<br \/>\nis  not  correct.  The goods manufactured and  supplied<br \/>\nwithin the same local area for consumption or use,  are<br \/>\nnot  liable   for entry tax under Section 3 (1) (b)  of<br \/>\nthe  Act 1976,  but if such goods manufactured  in  one<br \/>\nlocal area, comes within another local area for use  or<br \/>\nconsumption therein, they would be liable for entry tax<br \/>\nunder  Section 3 (1) (b) of the Act 1976.   This  would<br \/>\nmean  that the goods manufactured in the local area  of<br \/>\nKorba  would be liable for entry tax if it enters  into<br \/>\nthe local area other than the local area of Korba. This<br \/>\nbeing  the  provision  of the Act  1976,  there  is  no<br \/>\ndiscrimination in including the drill rods in  Schedule<br \/>\nIII of the Act 1976 by the impugned amendment.\n<\/p>\n<p>(6)    Mr.  V.G.  Tamaskar,  learned  counsel  for  the<br \/>\npetitioner  next submitted that although several  items<br \/>\nof  goods  are supplied to the South Eastern Coalfields<br \/>\nLimited\/respondent   No.2   within   the    State    of<br \/>\nChhattisgarh,  only  drill rods have  been  picked  and<br \/>\nchosen  by  the  impugned amendment to be  included  in<br \/>\nSchedule  III  of the Act 1976 so as to make  the  same<br \/>\nliable  to  entry tax @ 10% of the taxable quantum  and<br \/>\ntherefore the impugned amendment is discriminatory  and<br \/>\nviolative of Article 14 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n<p>(7)   Mr. N.K. Agrawal, learned Deputy Advocate General<br \/>\nfor the State, on the other hand, submitted that before<br \/>\nthe  impugned amendment all goods other than the  goods<br \/>\nspecified  in  Schedule  I  and  II  were  included  in<br \/>\nSchedule  III  and  were taxable @ 1%  of  the  taxable<br \/>\nquantum  and,  therefore,  drill  rod,  which  was  not<br \/>\nincluded in Schedule I and II of the Act 1976, was also<br \/>\nliable to entry tax @ 1% of the taxable quantum, but by<br \/>\nthe  impugned amendment the drill rod along  with  Cane<br \/>\nBasket and P.V.C. Casing Pipe have been made liable  to<br \/>\nentry  tax   @  10%  of  the taxable  quantum  and  the<br \/>\nimpugned amendment was not violative of Article  14  of<br \/>\nthe Constitution.\n<\/p>\n<p>(8)   In  the case of M\/s. East India Tobacco  Co.  Vs.<br \/>\nState  of Andhra Pradesh and  another reported  in  AIR<br \/>\n1962 SC 1733, the Supreme Court has held:\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;It is not in dispute that taxation laws<br \/>\n  must also pass the test of Art. 14.  That  has<br \/>\n  been  laid  down  recently by  this  Court  in<br \/>\n  Kunnathat  Thatunni Moopil Nair Vs.  State  of<br \/>\n  Kerala,  AIR  1961 SC 552.   But  in  deciding<br \/>\n  whether  a  taxation law is discriminatory  or<br \/>\n  not  it is necessary to bear in mind that  the<br \/>\n  State  has a wide discretion in selecting  the<br \/>\n  persons  or  objects it will tax, and  that  a<br \/>\n  statute  is  not open to attack on the  ground<br \/>\n  that it taxes some persons on objects and  not<br \/>\n  others.   It is only when within the range  of<br \/>\n  its  selection, the law operates unequally and<br \/>\n  that  cannot be justified on the basis of  any<br \/>\n  valid  classification, that it would violative<br \/>\n  of Art.14.  The following statement of the law<br \/>\n  in  Willis  on &#8220;Constitutional Law&#8221; page  587,<br \/>\n  would  correctly represent the  position  with<br \/>\n  reference   to  taxing  statutes   under   our<br \/>\n  Constitution:-\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;A State does not have to tax everything<br \/>\n  in  order to tax something.  It is allowed  to<br \/>\n  pick  and  choose districts, objects, persons,<br \/>\n  methods and even rates for taxation if it does<br \/>\n  so reasonably &#8230;&#8230;The Supreme Court has been<br \/>\n  practical  and  has  permitted  a  very   wide<br \/>\n  latitude in classification for taxation&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>(9)  Hence, it was open to the State legislature of the<br \/>\nState of Chhattisgarh to choose Cane Basket, Drill Rod,<br \/>\nP.V.C. Casing Pipe for levying of higher rate of tax  @<br \/>\n10%  of  the  taxable quantum and  the  fact  that  the<br \/>\nlegislature has not subjected the other goods  supplied<br \/>\nto  the  South  Eastern Coalfields Limited  within  the<br \/>\nState  of  Chhattisgarh to entry  tax   @  10%  on  the<br \/>\ntaxable  quantum is no ground to hold that the impugned<br \/>\namendment is discriminatory or violative of Article  14<br \/>\nof  the Constitution of India.  The drill rod has  been<br \/>\ntreated as a class of goods for levying entry tax @ 10%<br \/>\nof  the taxable quantum.  Hence, entry of drill rods by<br \/>\nwhomsoever into the local area is liable to tax  @  10%<br \/>\non the taxable quantum without any discrimination.  The<br \/>\nimpugned amendment cannot, therefore, be struck down as<br \/>\ndiscriminatory  and  violative of  Article  14  of  the<br \/>\nConstitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<p>(10)  No other contention having been raised before  us<br \/>\nby   Mr.   V.G.  Tamaskar,  learned  counsel  for   the<br \/>\npetitioner,  we  hold that this writ  petition  has  no<br \/>\nmerit and is liable to be dismissed and accordingly  we<br \/>\ndismiss  the same.  Considering, however, the facts  of<br \/>\nthe case, the parties shall bear their own costs.\n<\/p>\n<pre>     CHIEF JUSTICE                      J U D G E\n       29-03-2005                       29-03-2005\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Chattisgarh High Court Navdeep Industries vs State Of Chhattisgarh &amp; Others on 29 March, 2005 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH &#8211; BILASPUR. (Division Bench) WRIT PETITION NO. 2098 OF 2002 Navdeep Industries &#8230;Petitioner &#8211; Versus- State of Chhattisgarh &amp; others &#8230;Respondent ! Present Petitioner by Mr. V.G. Tamaskar, Advocate. ^ Respondent No.1 \/ State by [&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":[12,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-36655","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chattisgarh-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Navdeep Industries vs State Of Chhattisgarh &amp; Others on 29 March, 2005 - 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\/navdeep-industries-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-others-on-29-march-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Navdeep Industries vs State Of Chhattisgarh &amp; Others on 29 March, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navdeep-industries-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-others-on-29-march-2005\" \/>\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=\"2005-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-06T22:17:12+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/navdeep-industries-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-others-on-29-march-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/navdeep-industries-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-others-on-29-march-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Navdeep Industries vs State Of Chhattisgarh &amp; Others on 29 March, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-06T22:17:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/navdeep-industries-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-others-on-29-march-2005\"},\"wordCount\":1663,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Chattisgarh High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/navdeep-industries-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-others-on-29-march-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/navdeep-industries-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-others-on-29-march-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/navdeep-industries-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-others-on-29-march-2005\",\"name\":\"Navdeep Industries vs State Of Chhattisgarh &amp; Others on 29 March, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-06T22:17:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/navdeep-industries-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-others-on-29-march-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/navdeep-industries-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-others-on-29-march-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/navdeep-industries-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-others-on-29-march-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Navdeep Industries vs State Of Chhattisgarh &amp; Others on 29 March, 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":"Navdeep Industries vs State Of Chhattisgarh &amp; Others on 29 March, 2005 - 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\/navdeep-industries-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-others-on-29-march-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Navdeep Industries vs State Of Chhattisgarh &amp; Others on 29 March, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navdeep-industries-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-others-on-29-march-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-06T22:17:12+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navdeep-industries-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-others-on-29-march-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navdeep-industries-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-others-on-29-march-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Navdeep Industries vs State Of Chhattisgarh &amp; Others on 29 March, 2005","datePublished":"2005-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-06T22:17:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navdeep-industries-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-others-on-29-march-2005"},"wordCount":1663,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Chattisgarh High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navdeep-industries-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-others-on-29-march-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navdeep-industries-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-others-on-29-march-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navdeep-industries-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-others-on-29-march-2005","name":"Navdeep Industries vs State Of Chhattisgarh &amp; Others on 29 March, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-06T22:17:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navdeep-industries-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-others-on-29-march-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navdeep-industries-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-others-on-29-march-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navdeep-industries-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-others-on-29-march-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Navdeep Industries vs State Of Chhattisgarh &amp; Others on 29 March, 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\/36655","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=36655"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36655\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=36655"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=36655"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=36655"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}