{"id":3671,"date":"2007-09-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-09-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ici-india-ltd-anr-vs-state-of-orissa-ors-on-28-september-2007"},"modified":"2015-02-17T00:34:31","modified_gmt":"2015-02-16T19:04:31","slug":"ici-india-ltd-anr-vs-state-of-orissa-ors-on-28-september-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ici-india-ltd-anr-vs-state-of-orissa-ors-on-28-september-2007","title":{"rendered":"Ici India Ltd. & Anr vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 28 September, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ici India Ltd. & Anr vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 28 September, 2007<\/div>\n
Author: . A Pasayat<\/div>\n
Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, Tarun Chatterjee<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  1193-1194 of 2002\n\nPETITIONER:\nICI India Ltd. & Anr\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of Orissa & Ors\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 28\/09\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nDr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & TARUN CHATTERJEE\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
CIVIL APPEAL NOs.1193-1194 OF 2002<\/p>\n
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.\tThese two appeals assail correctness of the judgment
\nrendered by a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court
\ndismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants.  The two
\nwrit petitions i.e. OJC 16928 of 1998 and 1500 of 2000 were
\nfiled questioning correctness of the views expressed by the
\nSales Tax Authorities that the appellants had contravened the
\ndeclaration given in Form IV to avail concessional rate as
\nprovided in the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (in short the ‘Act’)
\nand the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947 (in short the ‘Rules’).  In
\nthe first writ petition challenge was to the appellate order
\npassed by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax confirming
\nthe assessment made by the assessing officer for the
\nassessment year 1997-98, whereas in the second writ petition
\nchallenge was to the assessment order passed by the Sales
\nTax Officer for the assessment year 1998-99.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tBackground facts sans unnecessary details are as
\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n
\tThe ICI India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ”the
\nassessee”) is a company incorporated under the Companies
\nAct, 1956 having its registered office at ICI House, 34,
\nChowranghee Road, Calcutta.  It is engaged, inter-alia, in the
\nbusiness of manufacture and sale of “Bulk Explosives”.  For
\nthe purpose of carrying on business at Rourkela in the State of
\nOrissa, the appellant has set up an industry on Plot No. 77,
\nIndustrial Estate, Kalunga, and is registered as a dealer with
\nthe Sales Tax officer, Rourkela II Circle, Panposh (Respondent
\nNo.3).  The certificate of registration granted under Section 9
\nof the Act indicates that the appellant requires, amongst
\nothers, “Ammonium Nitrate” to be used for
\nmanufacture\/processing of “Bulk Premix” for sale.  The
\nappellant had set up and commissioned its third bulk
\nemulsion premix manufacture unit at Rourkela in April, 1997.
\nThe principal raw material for manufacture of “Bulk Premix” is
\n“Ammonium Nitrate Liquor”.  The principal supplier of the said
\nraw material is the Rourkela Steel Plant of the Steel Authority
\nof India (in short the ‘SAIL’) from whom the appellant
\npurchases the same. The other raw materials are either
\npurchased locally or purchased centrally at Gomia in Bihar
\nand the stock is transferred to its Rourkela Plant.  At the
\nRourkela Plant, all the raw materials are utilized for
\nmanufacture of Emulsion Premix or Bulk Premix, which is an
\nexcisable product. For purchase of raw material from the
\nRourkela Steel Plant, the appellant gives declaration in Form
\nNo.IV to avail the concessional rate of tax @ 4%.  It is an
\nadmitted case of the parties that the “Bulk Premix” so
\nmanufactured at Rourkela is not sold as such because it is an
\nintermediary product which is used for manufacture of “Bulk
\nExplosive”.  This “Bulk Explosive” is not manufactured in the
\nRourkela plant of the appellant.  So the “Bulk Premix” is sent
\nto its other branches at Angul (Talcher) and Belpahar in the
\nState of Orissa, for which the appellant has obtained Sales Tax
\nRegistration, wherein the raw material has been mentioned as
\n“Bulk Premix”, while the finished product is mentioned as
\n“Bulk Explosive”.  Apart from sending the “Bulk Premix” to its
\ndifferent branches in the State of Orissa, the appellant also
\ntransfers\/sells the goods outside the State.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tFor manufacture of “Bulk Explosive”, the “Bulk Premix”
\nis carried in special tankers dedicated for such purpose to the
\nactual blasting site from the onsite support plants where the
\ningredient i.e. “Bulk Premix” and other chemicals are mixed in
\nproportion commensurate with the character of the rock
\nand\/or other substances to be blasted.  Such mixing in right
\nproportion takes places at the site of blasting and the
\nresultant manufacture being explosive is discharged into the
\nbore holes at the mine bench. It is at this stage that the “Bulk
\nPremix” when mixed with the other chemicals and discharged
\ninto bore holes becomes explosives and at that stage the sale
\nof explosives takes place and the sales tax and excise duty are
\npaid on such sale of “Bulk Explosive”.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tIn the assessment order for the year 1998-99, the
\nassessing officer did not find any violation of the declaration
\ngiven by the appellant while purchasing “Ammonium Nitrate”,
\nthough the “Bulk Premix” has been transferred from Rourkela
\nplant to Talcher and Belpahar, i.e., inside the State of Orissa,
\nand did not make any addition for the same.   But, for goods
\nsent outside the State of Orissa, the assessing officer was of
\nthe view that the appellant had contravened the provisions of
\nthe 5th proviso to Section 5(1) of the Act by furnishing wrong
\ndeclaration as the goods manufactured were not sold.  For the
\nyear 1997-98, however, all transfers of “Bulk Premix”, whether
\ninside or outside the State of Orissa, were disallowed and it
\nwas held that the appellant has contravened the declaration
\ngiven in Form IV while purchasing the raw material.  This
\norder was confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales
\nTax.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tConsidering the rival stands taken before it, the High
\nCourt noted that the only question that arose for consideration
\nwas whether the appellant who purchased raw materials for
\nmanufacture\/processing of “Bulk Premix” for sale on the
\nstrength of declaration can be said to have violated the
\ndeclaration when the “Bulk Premix” was transferred to its
\ndifferent branches for manufacture of “Bulk Explosive”. The
\nHigh Court held that the Sales Tax Authorities were justified
\nin demanding differential tax as provided in the 5th Proviso to
\nSection 5(1) of the Act on the raw material (Ammonium
\nNitrate) purchased by furnishing declaration in Form IV by
\npaying concessional tax at the rate of 4%.  The writ
\napplications were accordingly dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tIn support of the appeals it is stated by Dr. D.P. Pal,
\nlearned Senior Advocate that the only question that arises for
\nconsideration is whether the raw material i.e. “Ammonium
\nNitrate Liquor” was used for the purpose of manufacturing
\n“Bulk Premix” in the Rourkela factory?  Such “Bulk Premix” is
\nundisputedly the raw material for manufacturing used in the
\nmanufacture of “Bulk explosive”.  Such products were for sale
\nand were actually sold. Even if the “Bulk Premix” gets
\ntransferred outside the State of Orissa for being further used
\nin the manufacture of a final product i.e. “Bulk Explosive”,
\nthere is no contravention of the 5th proviso to Section 5(1) of
\nthe Act.  Raw materials purchased at concessional rate of tax
\nwould be liable to tax at the full rate prevailing on the
\nfollowing conditions satisfied :\n<\/p>\n
(1)\tThe dealer must be a registered dealer.
\n(2)\tThe goods or class of goods must be specified in its
\ncertificate of registration as being intended for use
\nwithin the State of Orissa by him in the
\nmanufacture\/processing of goods for sale.
\n(3)\tThe goods so manufactured must be sold.
\n(4)\tThe purchasing dealer must furnish a declaration in
\nForm IV.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tIn case the goods so purchased are used for
\nany other purpose or utilized outside the State of
\nOrissa, the dealer shall pay the differential tax on
\nthe goods.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tIt was pointed out that there is no dispute or controversy
\nthat the raw material i.e. “Ammonium Nitrate Liquor” has been
\nused within the State of Orissa by the appellant in the
\nmanufacture of goods namely “Bulk Premix”.  But the “Bulk
\nPremix” so manufactured gets further processed for the
\nmanufacture of the final product i.e. “Bulk Explosives” which
\nundisputedly was for  sale and is actually sold.  It is submitted
\nthat law does not require that the final products which are for
\nsale should to be sold within the State of Orissa. Reliance is
\nplaced on Paragraphs 11 and 18 of M\/s. Polestar  Electronic
\n(Pvt.) Ltd.  v. Additional Commissioner, Sales Tax and Another<\/a>
\n(1978(1) SCC 636) to support the argument.  Reference is also
\nmade to J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v.
\nS.T.O., Kanpur, and<\/a> another (1965 (16) STC 563) which
\nrelated to meaning of expression “in  manufacture of goods”
\nappearing in Section 8(3) (b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
\n(in short the ‘Central Act’)  which, according to appellant is in
\npari materia with the 5th proviso to Section 5 (1) of the Act.
\nReference is also made to decision of the Orissa High Court in
\nIndian Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. S.T.O.  (1993) 90 STC 410) for
\nthis purpose. It is, therefore, submitted that so long as the
\ngoods, that is, the intermediary products are manufactured
\nwithin the State of Orissa but are used in the manufacture of
\nfinal product either in the State of Orissa or outside, the raw
\nmaterials have been used for manufacture of goods for sale,
\nand there is no contravention of the 5th proviso to Section 5 (1)
\nof the Act.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tPer contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State and
\nits functionaries submitted that the factual position as noticed
\nby the Authorities and the High Court clearly shows that the
\n5th proviso to Section 5(1) is clearly attracted. The said
\nprovision pertains to tax concession. When the claim
\nconcessions are under consideration, these provisions have to
\nbe construed strictly. The appellant is in the business of
\nmanufacture and sale of “Bulk Explosive”, which has several
\nuses in Orissa. “Bulk Premix” is used as raw material for
\nmanufacture and sale of “Bulk Explosive” as per the Certificate
\nof Registration. However, so far as the Rourkela unit is
\nconcerned, the company has different Certificate of
\nRegistration and it is admitted that the appellant
\nmanufactures only “Bulk Premix” in this unit. In the
\nCertificate of Registration it is mentioned that raw materials
\npurchased would be used in the manufacture of “Bulk
\nPremix”. Though certificate also mentioned about “machineries
\nfor explosives” before the High Court it was conceded that it is
\na mistake and assessee does not manufacture “Bulk
\nExplosives” in the Rourkela Unit. Thus the appellant
\npurchases raw materials mainly from SAIL in Orissa and other
\nraw materials in Bihar and had manufactured “Bulk Premix”
\nin their Rourkela Unit.  Undisputedly, appellant gave
\ndeclaration in Form IV for concessional rate of tax i.e. 4%.
\nAdmittedly, the appellant did not sell “Bulk Premix”
\nmanufactured by it and the same is used after stock transfer
\nfor manufacture of “Bulk Explosive” in other units in Orissa
\nand places outside the State.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tIt is submitted by the revenue that the stress is on use of
\nthe goods purchased in the manufacture\/process of “goods for
\nsale”.  By not selling “Bulk Premix” and instead effecting stock
\ntransfer for manufacturing of “Bulk Explosives” for sale, there
\nis clear violation of the first limb of the 5th proviso to Section
\n5(1) and therefore second limb of the proviso is attracted
\nmaking the assessee liable to pay the differential tax on goods.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tThe First proviso to Section 5(1) is conceptually different
\nfrom Section 8(3) of the Central Act. While the Act used the
\nexpression “within the State of Orissa” the Central Act does
\nnot have any such restriction.  This is inevitable because in
\nrespect of the Central Act, the sale has to be outside the State.
\nThe use of the expression “within the State of Orissa” in 5th
\nproviso makes the position clear that the raw materials
\npurchased must be used for manufacture of goods in the State
\nof Orissa for sale.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tEntry serial No. 48 of List C, is quoted below :-\n<\/p>\n
“Goods of the class or classes specified in
\nthe certificates of registration of the registered
\ndealer purchasing the goods as being intended
\nfor use by him in the manufacture or
\nprocessing or packing of goods for sale or in
\nmining or in the generation or distribution of
\nelectricity or any other form of power subject
\nto the production of true declaration by the
\npurchasing registered dealer or his authorized
\nagent in Form IV.”\n<\/p>\n
12.\tThe 5th proviso to section 5(1) of the Act reads as under :-\n<\/p>\n
“5. Rate of tax  (1) The tax payable by a
\ndealer under this Act shall be levied on his
\ntaxable turnover at such rate, not exceeding
\ntwenty five percent, and subject to such
\nconditions as the State Government may, from
\ntime to time, by notification specify:\n<\/p>\n
xx\t\txx\t\t\t\t\txx
\nProvided further that where a registered
\ndealer purchases goods of the class or classes
\nspecified in his Certificate of  Registration as
\nbeing intended for use within the State of
\nOrissa by him in the manufacture or
\nprocessing of goods for sale or in mining or in
\ngeneration or distribution of electricity or any
\nother form of power at concessional rate of tax
\nor free of tax after furnishing a declaration in
\nthe prescribed form, but utilizes the same for
\nany other purpose or outside the State of
\nOrissa, he shall pay the difference in tax or the
\ntax, as the case may be, payable had he not
\nfurnished the declaration.”\n<\/p>\n
13.\tForm IV, which is appended to the list of taxable goods,
\nis in the following language :-\n<\/p>\n
“I\/wehereby declare that the goods
\npurchased by me\/us in ash Memo\/Bill Nodated
\nthe fromshall be used in the
\nmanufacture\/processing or packing of goods for sale in
\nmining\/generation or distribution of electricity or any
\nother form of power.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\tDealer\/Auhorised Agent.”\n<\/p>\n
14.\tThe 5th proviso to Section 5(1) indicates the purpose for
\nwhich the goods are intended to be used i.e. for
\nmanufacture\/processing of goods for sale.  In the instant case
\nthe raw material purchased for manufacture of “Bulk Premix”,
\nhas not been used for any other purpose.  But the
\nmanufactured product i.e. “Bulk Premix” has not been sold
\nbut has been transferred to other branches of the appellant
\nsituated inside as well as outside the State of Orissa.\n<\/p>\n
15.\tAs noted above the Certificate of Registration indicates
\nthat the raw materials purchased would be utilized in the
\nmanufacture of “Bulk Premix”.  There is also a mention about
\n“machinery for explosive”. Though it was contended by the
\nappellant that the same is the mistake of fact and the only
\nthing which is intended to be produced at Rourkela is “Bulk
\nPremix”, it is conceded that the “Bulk Premix” manufactured
\nhad not been sold but has been sent to different places for
\nmanufacture of other goods i.e. “Bulk Explosive”.  The position
\nis factually different from that under consideration in Indian
\nAluminum’s case (supra) as the appellants instead of selling
\nthe manufactured goods transferred it to other places for
\nfurther manufacture of “Bulk Explosive”. The transfer clearly
\nfalls within the expression “any other purpose” mentioned in
\nthe 5th proviso to Section 5(1) of the Act. As the goods
\nmanufactured have not been sold but have been transferred,
\nthere is a violation of the terms of the declaration and the
\nassessee has been rightly held to be liable for payment of the
\ndifferential tax payable on the  raw materials purchased at
\nconcessional rate of tax by 4% paid by furnishing Form IV.
\nHigh Court’s impugned judgment, therefore, does not warrant
\nany interference. It may be noted that the High Court made
\nsome observation about what would have been the
\nconsequence had there been mention of final product in the
\nCertificate of Registration of the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
16.\tLearned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that
\nthe observations of High Court are erroneous. Though learned
\ncounsel for the appellants also referred to the observation to
\nsupport their stand, we make it clear, that we have not
\nexpressed any opinion about the correctness of the said view
\nas that does not really fall for determination in the present
\ncase.\n<\/p>\n
17.\tThe appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ici India Ltd. & Anr vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 28 September, 2007 Author: . A Pasayat Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, Tarun Chatterjee CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1193-1194 of 2002 PETITIONER: ICI India Ltd. & Anr RESPONDENT: State of Orissa & Ors DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28\/09\/2007 BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT […]<\/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-3671","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nIci India Ltd. & Anr vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 28 September, 2007 - 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\/ici-india-ltd-anr-vs-state-of-orissa-ors-on-28-september-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ici India Ltd. & Anr vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 28 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ici-india-ltd-anr-vs-state-of-orissa-ors-on-28-september-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-09-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-02-16T19:04:31+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ici-india-ltd-anr-vs-state-of-orissa-ors-on-28-september-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ici-india-ltd-anr-vs-state-of-orissa-ors-on-28-september-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ici India Ltd. & Anr vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 28 September, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-16T19:04:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ici-india-ltd-anr-vs-state-of-orissa-ors-on-28-september-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2583,\"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\\\/ici-india-ltd-anr-vs-state-of-orissa-ors-on-28-september-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ici-india-ltd-anr-vs-state-of-orissa-ors-on-28-september-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ici-india-ltd-anr-vs-state-of-orissa-ors-on-28-september-2007\",\"name\":\"Ici India Ltd. & Anr vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 28 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-16T19:04:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ici-india-ltd-anr-vs-state-of-orissa-ors-on-28-september-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ici-india-ltd-anr-vs-state-of-orissa-ors-on-28-september-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ici-india-ltd-anr-vs-state-of-orissa-ors-on-28-september-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ici India Ltd. & Anr vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 28 September, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Ici India Ltd. & Anr vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 28 September, 2007 - 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\/ici-india-ltd-anr-vs-state-of-orissa-ors-on-28-september-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ici India Ltd. & Anr vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 28 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ici-india-ltd-anr-vs-state-of-orissa-ors-on-28-september-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-09-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-02-16T19:04:31+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ici-india-ltd-anr-vs-state-of-orissa-ors-on-28-september-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ici-india-ltd-anr-vs-state-of-orissa-ors-on-28-september-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ici India Ltd. & Anr vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 28 September, 2007","datePublished":"2007-09-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-16T19:04:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ici-india-ltd-anr-vs-state-of-orissa-ors-on-28-september-2007"},"wordCount":2583,"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\/ici-india-ltd-anr-vs-state-of-orissa-ors-on-28-september-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ici-india-ltd-anr-vs-state-of-orissa-ors-on-28-september-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ici-india-ltd-anr-vs-state-of-orissa-ors-on-28-september-2007","name":"Ici India Ltd. & Anr vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 28 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-09-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-16T19:04:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ici-india-ltd-anr-vs-state-of-orissa-ors-on-28-september-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ici-india-ltd-anr-vs-state-of-orissa-ors-on-28-september-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ici-india-ltd-anr-vs-state-of-orissa-ors-on-28-september-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ici India Ltd. & Anr vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 28 September, 2007"}]},{"@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\/3671","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=3671"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3671\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3671"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3671"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3671"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}