{"id":4033,"date":"1955-10-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1955-10-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madras-vs-gurviah-naidu-co-ltd-on-28-october-1955"},"modified":"2018-10-13T08:04:04","modified_gmt":"2018-10-13T02:34:04","slug":"state-of-madras-vs-gurviah-naidu-co-ltd-on-28-october-1955","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madras-vs-gurviah-naidu-co-ltd-on-28-october-1955","title":{"rendered":"State Of Madras vs Gurviah Naidu &amp; Co. Ltd on 28 October, 1955"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State Of Madras vs Gurviah Naidu &amp; Co. Ltd on 28 October, 1955<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S.R. Das, V. Bose, B. Jagannadhadas, S.J. Imam, N.C. Aiyar<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  107-110 of 1954\n\nPETITIONER:\nSTATE OF MADRAS \n\nRESPONDENT:\nGURVIAH NAIDU &amp; CO. LTD. \n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 28\/10\/1955\n\nBENCH:\nS.R. DAS &amp; V. BOSE &amp; B. JAGANNADHADAS  &amp; S.J. IMAM &amp; N.C. AIYAR\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p> AIR 1956 SC 158<\/p>\n<p>The Judgment was delivered by S. R. DAS, ACTG. C.J<\/p>\n<p>Per S. R. Das, Actg. C.J. This judgment will dispose of the four Criminal<br \/>\nAppeals Nos. 107 to 110 of 1954.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. These appeals have been filed by the State of Madras under certificates<br \/>\ngranted under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution by the High Court of<br \/>\nMadras which, by its judgment in revision dated the 12th February, 1954,<br \/>\nreversed the order dated the 29th December, 1952 passed by the Additional<br \/>\nFirst Class Magistrate II, Salem, and acquitted the accused.\n<\/p>\n<p>3. The respondents are merchants dealing in hides and skins in Salem. Their<br \/>\nbusiness consists mainly in the purchase of hides and skins and exporting<br \/>\nthe same to foreign countries. The respondents were assessed to sales tax<br \/>\nin different amount on their respective turnovers of purchases of skins<br \/>\nmade by them in pursuance of orders placed with them by foreign buyers for<br \/>\nthe supply of the same. The respondents having failed to pay the entirety<br \/>\nof the amounts of sales tax so assessed, complaints were laid against them<br \/>\nunder Section 15(b) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>4. Before the Magistrate it was contended on behalf of the respondents that<br \/>\nthe purchases of skins sought to be taxed having taken place in the course<br \/>\nof their export out of the territory of India, no sales tax could be levied<br \/>\nthereon by reason of Article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution and that, as<br \/>\nsuch, the assessments were illegal and, therefore the non-payment of such<br \/>\nillegal impositions was no offence at all. The answer of the prosecution<br \/>\nwas that the purchases of skins for the purpose of implementing the order<br \/>\nof the foreign buyers were not purchases in the course of export within the<br \/>\nmeaning of Article 286(1)(b) and that, in any event, under Section 16A of<br \/>\nthe Madras General Sales Tax Act the validity of the assessment could not<br \/>\nbe questioned in any criminal court in any prosecution or other proceeding<br \/>\nwhether under the Act or otherwise.\n<\/p>\n<p>5. After noting the contention of the prosecution that the purchases in<br \/>\nquestion were not in the course of export within the meaning of Article<br \/>\n286(1)(b) but without deciding the same, the learned Magistrate went on to<br \/>\ndiscuss the second contention of the prosecution, namely, that under<br \/>\nSection 16A it was not open to the respondents to question the validity of<br \/>\nthe assessment. Relying on two decisions of the Madras High Court, the<br \/>\nlearned Magistrate upheld the contention of the prosecution on the second<br \/>\npoint.\n<\/p>\n<p>The fact of assessment and non-payment of the assessed tax having been<br \/>\nproved, the learned Magistrate convicted the respondents under Section<br \/>\n15(b) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act and sentenced them to varying<br \/>\nfines with provision for simple imprisonment for 15 days in default of<br \/>\npayment and also directed that the amount of sales tax remaining due from<br \/>\nthe respective respondents should be recovered as if the same were a fine.\n<\/p>\n<p>6. Against their convictions, the respondents separately went up before the<br \/>\nHigh Court in revision. The main controversy in the High Court centered<br \/>\nround the validity or otherwise of Section 16A of the Madras General Sales<br \/>\nTax. After dealing at considerable length and in great detail with the<br \/>\nrespective contentions urged from different aspects, the High Court came to<br \/>\nthe conclusion that Section 16A of the Madras General Sales Tax Act was<br \/>\n&#8216;ultra vires&#8217; the Constitution and the provisions of the Criminal Procedure<br \/>\nCode and the fundamental principles of criminal justice.\n<\/p>\n<p>The High Court did not go into the question of the validity or otherwise of<br \/>\nthe assessments in the light of Article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution. The<br \/>\nlearned Judges pointed out that the Magistrate, who had heard the evidence,<br \/>\nhad not recorded any finding as to whether the transactions in respect of<br \/>\nwhich the sales tax was assessed and demanded by the taxing authorities<br \/>\ncame within the scope of that article.The High Court did not consider the<br \/>\nrespective contentions of the parties regarding the effect of Article<br \/>\n286(1)(b) on the assessments but stated that in the absence of any proper<br \/>\nenquiry into the question in the absence of any discussion of the evidence<br \/>\non this point and of a finding by the trial Court, it was difficult for the<br \/>\nHigh Court to come to any definite conclusion.\n<\/p>\n<p>The High Court seems to have thought that the respondents had not been<br \/>\npermitted to raise the question of the validity of assessment in the light<br \/>\nof the relevant article and plead the same in defence. In the result, the<br \/>\nHigh Court reversed the decision of the Magistrate but without remanding<br \/>\nthe case for retrial on the first point based on Article 286(1)(b) set<br \/>\naside the conviction and sentences passed by him. Being aggrieved by this<br \/>\norder of acquittal the State of Madras has preferred these appeals with a<br \/>\ncertificate granted by the High Court under Article 134(1)(c) of the<br \/>\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n<p>7. In the view we have taken about the validity of the assessments on which<br \/>\nthe prosecutions were founded, we do not considered it necessary on this<br \/>\noccasion to expect any opinion on any of the question raised about the<br \/>\nvalidity or otherwise of Section 16A of the Madras General Sales Tax Act.<br \/>\nWe have gone through the record carefully and we have come to the<br \/>\nconclusion, for reason to be presently stated, that the grievance made by<br \/>\nthe respondents before the High Court was not well founded.\n<\/p>\n<p>8. The prosecution was for non-payment of the assessed tax. The prosecution<br \/>\nexamined K. M. Narayan (P.W. 1), the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Salem<br \/>\ntown, in each of these cases. In his examination-in-chief he deposed to the<br \/>\nfact of the respective assessment and to the fact of the non-pay-ment of<br \/>\nthe assessed tax by the respondents. In cross-examination it was quite<br \/>\nclearly put to this witness that the respondents purchased the skins for<br \/>\nexporting them to London. This was put to the witness once by the opening<br \/>\nquestion in cross examination and twice again about the middle of it.The<br \/>\nservice of notice was proved by the prosecution by examining Kandaswami<br \/>\n(P.W. 2), who was a peon in the office in the Assistant Commercial Tax<br \/>\nOfficer. The trend of the cross-examination quite clearly suggests that the<br \/>\ndefence was that the skins were purchased for the purpose of export and<br \/>\nobviously the purpose of the cross-examination was to make out a case on<br \/>\nArticle 286(1)(b) for exemption from sales tax. The matter did not rest<br \/>\nthere. The respondents adduced substantive evidence in their defence. In<br \/>\neach of the cases the respondents examined their respective shipping agent<br \/>\nand also a clerk in their respectlive business.\n<\/p>\n<p>The evidence of the shipping agent shows that he acted as an intermediary<br \/>\nbetween the respondents and the London buyers as also as the shipping and<br \/>\nforwarding agent to the respondents, that whenever he got orders from the<br \/>\nLondon buyers for skins, of any of the respondents he used to contact the<br \/>\nparticular respondent, that after the price was settled and the order was<br \/>\naccepted the respondent concerned used to send the skins to the<br \/>\nintermediary who was also the shipping agent at Madras, that the latter,<br \/>\nafter assorting them according to the size and range and rejecting those<br \/>\nwhich were unfit for export, used to send them to the London buyers.\n<\/p>\n<p>The evidence of the respective clerks quite clearly indicates that upon the<br \/>\nshipping agent and the intermediary intimating that skins of certain types<br \/>\nwere required by the London buyers and after the price was settled with the<br \/>\nintermediaries, the respondents would purchase the goods and forward the<br \/>\nsame to the intermediary and shipping agent for the purpose of exporting<br \/>\nthem to the London buyers.\n<\/p>\n<p>9. There can be no doubt, on the evidence on record, that the object of the<br \/>\nrespondents was to avail themselves of the exemption from sales tax<br \/>\nprovided for in Article 286(1)(b) and to question the legality of the<br \/>\nassessments on which the proseutions were based. It is, therefore, not<br \/>\ncorrect to say that the respondents were in any way prevented from adducing<br \/>\nevidence or that there was no sufficient enquiry into this aspect of the<br \/>\nmatter.The evidence adduced by the respondents will, therefore, have to be<br \/>\nread and considered and it will have to be decided whether the defence is<br \/>\nmade out on that evidence. Unfortunately for the respondents, the evidence<br \/>\non record amounts only to this, namely, that after securing orders for<br \/>\nsupply of skins to the London buyers the respondents used to go about<br \/>\npurchasing the requisite kind and quantity of skins to implement such<br \/>\norders.\n<\/p>\n<p>Such purchases were, it is true, for the purpose of export, but such<br \/>\npurchases did not themselves occasion the export and consequently did not<br \/>\nfall within the exemption of Article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution as held<br \/>\nby this Court in the State of Travancore-Cochin v. Bombay Co. Ltd., Alleply\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8211; 1952 AIR(SC) 366. Nor did such purchases in the State by the exporter for<br \/>\nthe purpose of export come within the ambit of Article 286(1)(b) as held by<br \/>\nthe decision of the majority of a Constitution Bench of this Court in the<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/204111\/\">State of Travancore-Cochin v. Shanmugha Vilas Cashew Nut Factory<\/a> &#8211; 1953<br \/>\nAIR(SC) 333.\n<\/p>\n<p>In this view of the matter, there can be no question that these purchases<br \/>\nwere liable to be included in the turnover and assessed to sale tax. Even<br \/>\nif, therefore, we concede, without deciding it, that Section 16A did not<br \/>\nprevent the respondents from questioning the validity of the assessment, it<br \/>\nwas quite impossible for the respondents, on the evidence adduced by them,<br \/>\nto contend, in view of the majority decision referred to above, that the<br \/>\npurchases were exempt from sales tax by virtue of Article 286(1)(b), that<br \/>\nthe assessments were illegal and that consequently the non-payment thereof<br \/>\nwas not an offence.\n<\/p>\n<p>In our view, the High Court erred in holding that the prosecution had<br \/>\nfailed to establish their case and in acquitting the accused.\n<\/p>\n<p>10. Our attention was drawn by the learned Advocate for the respondents to<br \/>\nthe decision of this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/288147\/\">State Govt. Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkrishna<br \/>\nGanpatrao Limsey<\/a> &#8211; 1954 AIR(SC) 20 and it was contended that these appeals<br \/>\nare not maintainable as the High Court had no jurisdiction to grant<br \/>\ncertificates of fitness for appeal against acquittal under Article 134 of<br \/>\nthe Constitution, for there was no provision in the Constitution<br \/>\ncorresponding to Section 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code which gave a<br \/>\nright of appeal to the State against an order of acquittal passed by the<br \/>\nHigh Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>That was a decision of a Bench of three Judges and not that of a<br \/>\nConstitution Bench. There, the appeal was by special leave granted by this<br \/>\nCourt. The observation that there was no provision in the Constitution<br \/>\ncorresponding to Section 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code was obviously<br \/>\nmade to emphasise that this Court should not, in an appeal by special<br \/>\nleave, interfere with an order of acquittal passed by the High Court merely<br \/>\nfor correcting errors of facts or law.\n<\/p>\n<p>Without hearing further arguments on the scope of Article 134(1)(c), we<br \/>\nwould prefer not to express any opinion as a Constitution Bench as to the<br \/>\nvalidity of the certificates given by the High Court in this case, for<br \/>\nassuming, without deciding, that the certificate were wrongly given, we<br \/>\nwould, in view of the clear majority decision of this Court on Article<br \/>\n286(1)(b) which is not questioned before us and the equally clear and<br \/>\nconvincing evidence on record in these cases, be willing, if it were<br \/>\nnecessary, to regularise these appeals by giving special leave to appeal<br \/>\nhere and now.\n<\/p>\n<p>11. For reasons stated above, we accept these appeals, reverse the order of<br \/>\nacquittal passed by the High Court and restore and confirm the order of<br \/>\nconviction, sentences and directions made and passed by the trial Court,<br \/>\nalthough on different grounds.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India State Of Madras vs Gurviah Naidu &amp; Co. Ltd on 28 October, 1955 Bench: S.R. Das, V. Bose, B. Jagannadhadas, S.J. Imam, N.C. Aiyar CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 107-110 of 1954 PETITIONER: STATE OF MADRAS RESPONDENT: GURVIAH NAIDU &amp; CO. LTD. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28\/10\/1955 BENCH: S.R. DAS &amp; V. BOSE [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4033","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>State Of Madras vs Gurviah Naidu &amp; Co. Ltd on 28 October, 1955 - 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\/state-of-madras-vs-gurviah-naidu-co-ltd-on-28-october-1955\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Madras vs Gurviah Naidu &amp; Co. Ltd on 28 October, 1955 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madras-vs-gurviah-naidu-co-ltd-on-28-october-1955\" \/>\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=\"1955-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-13T02:34:04+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madras-vs-gurviah-naidu-co-ltd-on-28-october-1955#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madras-vs-gurviah-naidu-co-ltd-on-28-october-1955\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Madras vs Gurviah Naidu &amp; Co. Ltd on 28 October, 1955\",\"datePublished\":\"1955-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-13T02:34:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madras-vs-gurviah-naidu-co-ltd-on-28-october-1955\"},\"wordCount\":2013,\"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\\\/state-of-madras-vs-gurviah-naidu-co-ltd-on-28-october-1955#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madras-vs-gurviah-naidu-co-ltd-on-28-october-1955\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madras-vs-gurviah-naidu-co-ltd-on-28-october-1955\",\"name\":\"State Of Madras vs Gurviah Naidu &amp; Co. Ltd on 28 October, 1955 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1955-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-13T02:34:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madras-vs-gurviah-naidu-co-ltd-on-28-october-1955#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madras-vs-gurviah-naidu-co-ltd-on-28-october-1955\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madras-vs-gurviah-naidu-co-ltd-on-28-october-1955#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Madras vs Gurviah Naidu &amp; Co. Ltd on 28 October, 1955\"}]},{\"@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":"State Of Madras vs Gurviah Naidu &amp; Co. Ltd on 28 October, 1955 - 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\/state-of-madras-vs-gurviah-naidu-co-ltd-on-28-october-1955","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Madras vs Gurviah Naidu &amp; Co. Ltd on 28 October, 1955 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madras-vs-gurviah-naidu-co-ltd-on-28-october-1955","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1955-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-13T02:34:04+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madras-vs-gurviah-naidu-co-ltd-on-28-october-1955#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madras-vs-gurviah-naidu-co-ltd-on-28-october-1955"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Madras vs Gurviah Naidu &amp; Co. Ltd on 28 October, 1955","datePublished":"1955-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-13T02:34:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madras-vs-gurviah-naidu-co-ltd-on-28-october-1955"},"wordCount":2013,"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\/state-of-madras-vs-gurviah-naidu-co-ltd-on-28-october-1955#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madras-vs-gurviah-naidu-co-ltd-on-28-october-1955","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madras-vs-gurviah-naidu-co-ltd-on-28-october-1955","name":"State Of Madras vs Gurviah Naidu &amp; Co. Ltd on 28 October, 1955 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1955-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-13T02:34:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madras-vs-gurviah-naidu-co-ltd-on-28-october-1955#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madras-vs-gurviah-naidu-co-ltd-on-28-october-1955"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madras-vs-gurviah-naidu-co-ltd-on-28-october-1955#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Madras vs Gurviah Naidu &amp; Co. Ltd on 28 October, 1955"}]},{"@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\/4033","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=4033"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4033\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4033"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4033"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4033"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}