{"id":44485,"date":"1980-03-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1980-03-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/himalayan-tiles-marbles-p-ltd-vs-francis-victor-coutinho-dead-by-on-28-march-1980"},"modified":"2018-02-21T08:56:39","modified_gmt":"2018-02-21T03:26:39","slug":"himalayan-tiles-marbles-p-ltd-vs-francis-victor-coutinho-dead-by-on-28-march-1980","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/himalayan-tiles-marbles-p-ltd-vs-francis-victor-coutinho-dead-by-on-28-march-1980","title":{"rendered":"Himalayan Tiles & Marbles (P) Ltd vs Francis Victor Coutinho (Dead) By … on 28 March, 1980"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Himalayan Tiles & Marbles (P) Ltd vs Francis Victor Coutinho (Dead) By … on 28 March, 1980<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1980 AIR 1118, \t\t 1980 SCR (3) 235<\/div>\n
Author: S M Fazalali<\/div>\n
Bench: Fazalali, Syed Murtaza<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nHIMALAYAN TILES & MARBLES (P) LTD.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nFRANCIS VICTOR COUTINHO (DEAD) BY LRS & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT28\/03\/1980\n\nBENCH:\nFAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA\nBENCH:\nFAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA\nKOSHAL, A.D.\n\nCITATION:\n 1980 AIR 1118\t\t  1980 SCR  (3) 235\n 1980 SCC  (3) 223\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1980 SC1316\t (7)\n D\t    1988 SC2139\t (3)\n RF\t    1990 SC1321\t (3)\n\n\nACT:\n     Land Acquisition  Act 1894\t (1 of 1894) Section 18(1) &\nLand Acquisition (Amendment) Act 1962 (31 of 19623 Section 7\nScope of.\n     Land acquisition proceeding 'person interested' who is\n     Acquisition for company before July 20, 1962-Possession\nnot  vesting\t in   government-acquisition  not  complete-\nInvalidity not cured by Section 7 of amending Act.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The appellant  a private  company was  carrying on\t the\nbusiness of  manufacture and  sale of artificial marbles and\ntiles. In or about 1957 the company moved the Government for\nacquiring additional  land for\tpurposes of  the company and\nthe Government\ton January  7, 1958  issued  a\tnotification\nunder section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which was\nfollowed by  a\tseparate  notice  by  the  Land\t Acquisition\nofficer acquiring  the land in dispute. This was followed by\nanother notification  under section  6 of  the Act which was\nserved on the respondent on January 25, 1960. The purpose of\nthe  acquisition  was  mentioned  in  the  notification,  as\n\"public purposes  for which the land is needed for Himalayan\nTiles and  Marble (Pvt)\t Ltd.\" The  acquisition\t proceedings\nculminated in  an award\t made under section 12 of the Act on\nApril 11, 1961, which was published  in the State Gazette on\nApril 18, 1961. On December 11, 1961 a letter was written on\nbehalf of the Government informing the owner of the acquired\nland that  possession would be taken on or about the 12th of\nJanuary, 1962.\n     The first\trespondent in  his writ petition to the High\nCourt, contended  that the  Government was  not competent to\nacquire the  land for  purposes of  a private  company which\ncould not  be said to be a public purpose under section 4 of\nthe  Act   and\tprayed\tthat  the  entire  land\t acquisition\nproceedings should  be quashed.\t A Single  Judge of the High\nCourt accepted\tthe plea,  allowed  the\t writ  petition\t and\nquashed the  land acquisition  proceedings  along  with\t the\nnotifications.\n     The appellant filed an appeal before the Letters Patent\nBench which  confirmed the  view of  the  Single  Judge\t and\ndismissed the appeal on the ground that the appellant had no\nlocus standi  to file  the appeal,  as it  was not 'a person\ninterested' within the meaning of section 18(1) of the Act.\n     In the  appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf\nof the\tappellant: (1)\tthe Letters Patent Bench of the High\nCourt was  wrong in  holding that  the appellant  was not 'a\nperson interested' and therefore had no locus standi to file\nan appeal,  and (2) in view of the various amendments in the\nLand Acquisition  Act, 1894  particularly in sections 40 and\n41 it could not be said that the acquisition under section 4\nwas ultra vires of the Act.\n236\n     Dismissing the appeal,\n^\n     HELD: 1(i)\t The appellant\twas  undoubtedly  'a  person\ninterested' as contemplated by section 18(1) of the Act. The\nHigh Court  committed an error in throwing out the appeal of\nthe appellant  on the  ground that it had no locus standi to\nfile an appeal before the Bench. [243F]\n     (ii) The  'definition of 'a person interested' given in\nSection 18  is an inclusive definition and must be liberally\nconstrued so  as to  embrace all persons who may be directly\nor indirectly  interested either in the title to the land or\nin the quantum of compensation. [240D]\n     In the  instant case,  the lands were actually acquired\nfor the\t purpose of  the Company and once the land vested in\nthe Government,\t after acquisition,  it stood transferred to\nthe Company  under the\tagreement entered  into between\t the\nCompany and  the Government. Thus it cannot be said that the\nCompany had  no claim or title to the land at all. Secondly,\nsince under  the  agreement  the  Company  had\tto  pay\t the\ncompensation, it  was most  certainly interested  in  seeing\nthat a\tproper quantum of compensation was fixed so that the\nCompany may  not have  to pay  a very heavy amount of money.\nFor this  purpose, the\tCompany could undoubtedly appear and\nadduce\tevidence   on  the   question  of   the\t quantum  of\ncompensation. [240E-F]\n     (iii) The\tpreponderance of  judicial opinion  seems to\nfavour the  view that  the definition  of person  interested\nmust be\t liberally construed  so as to include a body, local\nauthority, or  a company  for  whose  benefit  the  land  is\nacquired and  who is  bound under  an agreement\t to pay\t the\ncompensation. This  view  accords  with\t the  principles  of\nequity, justice and good conscience. [243 B]\n     (iv) The view taken by the Orissa High Court or even by\nthe Calcutta High Court that a company, Local authority or a\nperson for  whose benefit  the land  is acquired  is not  an\ninterested person  is not  correct. Such a person is vitally\ninterested both\t in the title to the property as also in the\ncompensation to\t be paid  thereof because both these factors\nconcern its  future course  of action and if decided against\nhim seriously prejudice his rights. [243E]\n     Sunder Lal v. Paramsukhdas<\/a> [1968] 1 S.C.R. 362 referred\nto;  The   Hindustan   Sanitryware   and   Industries\tLtd.\nBahadurgarh &  Anr. v.\tThe State  of Haryana  & Ors  A.I.R.\n[1972] Punjab  & Haryana  59, M.  Kurpuswami v.\t The Special\nTahsildar (L.A.)  II Industrial Estate Ambathur at Saidapet,\nMadras {1967] 1 M.L.J. 329 approved; Comilla Electric Supply\nLtd. v.\t East Bengal  Bank Ltd. Comilla & ors. A.I.R. [1939]\nCalcutta 669;  State of\t orissa through the Land Acquisition\nCollector, Sambalpur v. Amarandra Pratap Singh & Anr. A.I.R.<\/a>\n[1967] orissa, 180 over-ruled.\n     2(i) The properties not having vested in the Government\nthe acquisition\t was not  complete and\tits invalidity could\nnot be cured by section 7 of the amendment Act. [246 G]\n     (ii) The  basis of the decision in R. L. Arora v. State\nof U.  P.<\/a> [1962]  Supp. 2  SCR 149  was removed\t by the Land\nAcquisition (Amendment)\t Act 1962. By virtue of Section 7 of\nthe amending  Act, retrospective  effect was  given  to\t the\namendment superseding  any judgment,  decree or order passed\nbefore July  20, 1962.\tThe validity of the amending Act was\nupheld in  R. L.  Arora v.  State of  Uttar Pradesh<\/a> [1964] 6\nS.C.R. 784. [239 A, E]\n     (iii) Even\t under section\t7 of  the amending  Act,  an\nacquisition made  by a\tcompany prior  to July 20, 1962 must\nfulfil the following conditions: (a) that\n237\nthe land  has been acquired and is vested in Government, (b)\nthat the acquisition has been made under Clauses (a) and (b)\nor section  41, (c)  that every\t such  acquisition  and\t any\nproceeding, order etc. shall be deemed always as valid as if\nthe provisions\tof sections 40 and 41 of the Act, as amended\nby the\tamending Act,  were in\tforce at all material times;\nand (d)\t that  by  virtue  of  section\t7  validity  to\t the\nacquisition is\tgiven to  all actions  taken  in  connection\nthere with  in spite of any judgment, decree or order of any\ncourt to the contrary. [244F-H]\n     In the instant case the first condition that there must\nbe a  complete acquisition  before section  7 could validate\nthe same has not been fulfilled at all. [245A]\n     (iv) Until\t the possession\t of the entire land acquired\nwas taken  by the Government, the acquisition could not be a\ncomplete acquisition  so as  to\t attract  the  operation  of\nsection 7 of the amending Act. [246H-247A]\n     In the instant case the appellant did not appear before\nthe  Single  Judge  in\tthe  writ  petition  filed  by\tthe.\nrespondents and\t the petition  was  contested  only  by\t the\nState. Perhaps\tthe appellant  may have\t thought that as his\ninterests were\tfully safeguarded lay the Government, it was\nnot necessary for it at that stage to appear before the High\nCourt. The  pleas of both the parties taken together clearly\nshow that the entire possession of the property did not pass\nto  the\t  Government  and  thus\t no  title  vested,  in\t the\nGovernment despite  the\t notification  acquiring  the  land.\n[246F-G]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1098 of
\n1971 .\n<\/p>\n
     Appeal by\tSpecial Leave  from the\t Judgment and  order
\ndated 23-7-1970 of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 13 of
\n1965. Y. S. Chitale, P. G. Gokhale and B. R. Agarwal for the
\nAppellant.\n<\/p>\n
     V. S.  Desai, Mrs. Urmila Sirur far the Respondent Nos.
\n2 & 3. Ex-parte for the RR 4 and 5.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was Delivered by
\n     FAZALALI, J.:- This appeal by special leave is directed
\nagainst a judgment dated November 3, 1970 of the Bombay High
\nCourt dismissing  the Letters  Patent Appeal  filed  by\t the
\nappellant Against  a decision  of a  Single Judge allowing a
\nwrit petition filed by the first respondent.\n<\/p>\n
     The facts\tof the\tcase lie within a narrow Compass and
\nmay briefly summarized as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     The appellant  was a private company which was carrying
\non the\tbusiness  of  manufacture  and\tsale  of  artificial
\nmarbles and  tiles and\tother accessories  at village  Majas
\nMogra, Jogeshwari,  East Bombay. The Company Was spread over
\nabout 10 acres of land. Sometime in 1957 or 1958 the company
\nmoved the  Government  for  acquiring  additional  land\t for
\npurposes of  the Company.  Accordingly, on  the 7th January,
\n1958, the  Government issued  a notification under section 4
\nof the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to
\n238<\/span>
\nas the ‘Act’) which was followed by a separate notice by the
\nLand Acquisition officer acquiring the land in dispute. This
\nwas followed  by another  notification under s. 6 of the Act
\nwhich was  served on  the respondent  on the  25th  January,
\n1960. In  pursuance of\tthese notifications  the acquisition
\nproceedings went  on which culminated in an award made under
\ns. 12  of the  Act on April 11, 1961, which was published in
\nthe State Gazette on April 18, 1961. On December 11, 1961, a
\nletter was written on behalf of the Government informing the
\nowner of the acquired land that possession would be taken on
\nor about  the 12th  of January\t1962.  The  purpose  of\t the
\nacquisition, as\t mentioned in  the notification, was ‘public
\npurposes for  which the land is needed for Himalayan Tiles &
\nMarbles (Pvt.)\tLtd’.  The  first  respondent  in  the\twrit
\npetition filed\tin the\tHigh Court  before  a  Single  Judge
\nprayed that  the entire\t land acquisition proceedings should
\nbe quashed  because the land was not acquired for any public
\npurpose as contemplated by s. 4 of the Act. It was contended
\nbefore\tthe   Single  Judge  that  the\tGovernment  was\t not
\ncompetent to  acquire the  land for  purposes of  a  private
\ncompany which could not be said to be a public purpose under
\ns. 4  of the  Act. The\tplea taken  by the  first respondent
\nfound favour  with the\tSingle Judge  who allowed  the\twrit
\npetition  and\tquashed\t the  land  acquisition\t proceedings
\nalongwith the notifications mentioned above.\n<\/p>\n
     Thereafter, the  appellant filed  an appeal  before the
\nLetters Patent\tBench which  confirmed the view taken by the
\nSingle Judge  and dismissed  the appeal mainly on the ground
\nthat the  appellant had\t no locus  standi to file the appeal
\nbefore the  Bench inasmuch as it was not a person interested
\nwithin the meaning of s. 18(1) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
     In support\t of this appeal, the learned counsel for the
\nappellant, Dr.\tChitale, has argued two points before us. In
\nthe first place, it was submitted that the Division Bench of
\nthe High  Court was  wrong in holding that the appellant was
\nnot a  person interested  and therefore had no locus to file
\nan appeal  before the Letters Patent Bench. Secondly, it was
\nargued that  in view  of the  various amendments in the Act,
\nparticularly in ss. 40 and 41, it could not be said that the
\nacquisition under  s. 4 was ultra vires of the Act. We might
\nmention here that in the case of R.L. Arora v. State of U.P.<\/a>
\nmajority of  the Judges\t of this  Court took the view that a
\nmere acquisition  for the  benefit of  a company  was not  a
\npublic purpose\tand therefore  the notification made in that
\ncase was  struck down.\tSarkar, J., however, took a contrary
\nview. In  view of  the decision\t Parliament amended  certain
\nprovisions of  the Act particularly ss. 40, 41, 44A, 44B and
\nadded a new sub-\n<\/p>\n
239<\/span><\/p>\n
section 5A after section 5. In other words, by virtue of the
\namendments, the\t basis of  the decision of the Supreme Court
\nin the\tfirst Arora  case was  removed. By virtue of s. 7 of
\nthe amending  Act, retrospective  effect was  given  to\t the
\namendment superseding  any judgment,  decree or order passed
\nbefore July  20, 1962.\tSection 7 of the amending Act may be
\nextracted thus:\n<\/p>\n
     Validation of certain acquisitions
\n\t  “7. Notwithstanding  any judgment, decree or older
\n     of any  Court, every  acquisition of land for a Company
\n     made or  purporting to have been made under Part VII of
\n     the principal  Act before\tthe 20th  day of  July 1962,
\n     shall, in\tso far as such acquisition is not for any of
\n     the purposes  mentioned in\t clause (a) or clause (b) of
\n     sub-section (I)  of section 40 of the principal Act, be
\n     deemed to\thave been  made for the purpose mentioned in
\n     clause (a)\t of the\t said sub-section,  and\t accordingly
\n     every such\t acquisition shall  be, and  shall be deemed
\n     always to\thave been,  as valid as if the provisions of
\n     sections 40  and 41 of the principal Act, as amended by
\n     this Act, were in force at all material times when such
\n     acquisition was  made or  proceeding was  held or order
\n     was made  or agreement was entered into or action I was
\n     taken….”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     This amending  Act was  also challenged  in the case of
\nR.L. Arora   v.\t State of  Uttar Pradesh & ors.<\/a>, ‘where this
\nCourt upheld  its constitutional validity subject to certain
\ncorrosions. ‘The  Appellant contended before us that in view
\nof the\tlater decision\tof the\tSupreme Court  the  previous
\ndecision  of  this  Court  stood  superseded  and  the\tland
\nacquisition proceedings\t taken even  before  the  amendments
\nwere validated.\t In support  of this  argument, Dr.  Chitale
\ndrew our attention to various provisions of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
     Before, however, deciding the question as to whether or
\nnot the\t proceedings taken  under s.  4 were  cured  by\t the
\namending Act, we would first deal with the contention of Dr.
\nChitale that  the High\tCourt w IS wrong in holding that the
\ncompany had  no locus  standi to  file an  appeal before the
\nLetters Patent\tBench. Learned\tcounsel submitted  that\t the
\ndefinition of ‘a person interested’ in s. 18 is an inclusive
\none and\t is wide  enough to  include the appellant for whose
\nbenefit the  land was acquired and who had to pay the entire
\ncompensation in\t accordance with  the agreement entered into
\nby the\tGovernment with\t the appellant.\t He argued  that  it
\ncould not  be said  that the appellant was not interested in
\ndefending the acquisition or in the
\n240<\/span>
\nquantum of compensation which was to be awarded by the Court
\non a  Reference made by the Collector. The High Court was of
\nthe view  that as  the land  was acquired by the Government,
\nthe company  had no interest in the same and was, therefore,
\nnot entitled  either to\t appear or to defend the proceedings
\nbefore the court. In order to decide this question it may be
\nnecessary to  extract the  relevant part  of s.\t 18(1) which
\nruns thus:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “18(1). Any person interested who has not accepted
\n     the award may, by written application to the Collector,
\n     require that  the matter  be referred  by the Collector
\n     for  the\tdetermination  of  the\tCourt,\twhether\t his
\n     objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount
\n     of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable,
\n     or the  apportionment of  the  compensation  among\t the
\n     persons interested.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It seems  to  us  that  the  definition  of  ‘a  person
\ninterested’ given  in s.  18 is\t an inclusive definition and
\nmust be liberally construed so as to embrace all persons who
\nmay be directly or indirectly interested either in the title
\nto the\tland or\t in the\t quantum  of  compensation.  In\t the
\ninstant case,  it  is  not  disputed  that  the\t lands\twere
\nactually acquired  for the  purpose of\tthe company and once
\nthe land  vested in  the Government,  after acquisition,  it
\nstood transferred  the company\tunder the  agreement entered
\ninto between the company and the Government. Thus, it cannot
\nbe said\t that the  company had no claim or title to the land
\nat all.\t Secondly, since under the agreement the company had
\nto pay the compensation, it was most certainly interested in
\nseeing that  a proper  quantum of  compensation was fixed so
\nthat the  company may not have to pay a very heavy amount of
\nmoney. For  this  purpose,  the\t company  could\t undoubtedly
\nappear and adduce IF evidence on the question of the quantum
\nof compensation.\n<\/p>\n
     So far  as this  aspect of\t matter is  concerned, there
\nappears to  be a  general consensus of judicial opinion that
\neven though  the company  may not  have\t any  title  to\t the
\nproperty yet  it certainly  has a  right to  appear and\t put
\nforward its  case in  the matter  of  determination  of\t the
\nquantum of  compensation. In  the  case\t of  Sunder  Lal  v.
\nParamsukh das(l) this Court observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “It will  be\tnoticed\t that  it  is  an  inclusive
\n     definition. It  is not  necessary that in order to fall
\n     within the definition a person should claim an interest
\n     in land,  which has  been acquired.  A person becomes a
\n     person  interested\t  if  he   claims  an\tinterest  in
\n     compensation to be awarded. It seems
\n241<\/span>
\n     to us that Paramsukhdas is a “person interested” within
\n     s. 3(b)  of the  Act because  he claims  an interest in
\n     compensation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     …..     ……\t ……\t   ……    ….\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  It seems  to us  that Paramsukhdas  was clearly  a
\n     person interested\tin the objections which were pending
\n     before the\t Court in the references made to it and that
\n     he was  also a  person whose interest would be affected
\n     by the  objections, within\t s.2l.\tHe  was\t accordingly
\n     entitled to be made a party.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In\t the   case  of\t  The  Hindustan   Sanitaryware\t and
\nIndustries Ltd.\t Bhadurgarh & Anr. v. The State of Haryana &
\nOrs Pandit J. observed as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “From the  facts stated above, it is apparent that
\n     the compensation  amount has  to be  paid\tby  the\t two
\n     companies. If  the said  amount  is  increased  by\t the
\n     learned Additional\t District Judge on a reference under
\n     section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, it would be the
\n     two companies who would be prejudiced …. No authority
\n     even was  cited by him that under similar circumstances
\n     any Court\thad ever  held\tthat  the  persons  who\t had
\n     actually to  pay the compensation, could not be allowed
\n     to lead  evidence and  say that the compensation amount
\n     be not enhanced.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In the  case of  Comilla Electric\tSupple Ltd.  v. East
\nBengal Bank Ltd., Comila & Ors while the High Court took the
\nview that  the\tcompany\t for  whose  benefit  the  land\t was
\nacquired may not strictly be an interested person yet it had
\nundoubtedly a  right to\t appear and  adduce evidence  on the
\nquantum of  compensation. In  this connection, Mukherjea, J.
\nObserved thus:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Section 50,\tcl.  (2)  purports  to\tremedy\tthis
\n     disability and it lays down that in any proceeding held
\n     before a  Collector or  Court in  such cases  the local
\n     authority or  company concerned  may appear  and adduce
\n     evidence for  the purpose\tof determining the amount of
\n     compensation. The reason is plain. It is the company or
\n     the local\tauthority who  has got\tto pay\tthe money in
\n     such cases\t and it\t would be  unjust to  deny them\t the
\n     right to appear and adduce
\n242<\/span>
\n     evidence which  would have\t a bearing  on the amount of
\n     the compensation money.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Roxburgh, J. made the following observations:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Thus the  first question  for decision is clearly
\n     settled by the above decision and there can be no doubt
\n     that in  the circumstances\t at present being considered
\n     the company  is a\tperson interested, as defined in the
\n     Act, and is entitled to require a reference under s. 18
\n     unless that  right is  restricted by  the terms  of the
\n     proviso to s. 50(2).”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In the  case of  M. Kuppuswami v. The Special Tahsildar
\n(L.A.) II  Industrial Estate,  Anzbathur at Saidapet, Madras
\nVenkatadri, J.\tinterpreting the  definition of\t ‘interested
\nperson’ observed as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The only  question for consideration therefore is
\n     whether the  petitioner  is  a  person  interested,  as
\n     defined in section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act.
\n\t  The definition  section says\tthat the  expression
\n     ‘person interested’  includes all\tpersons claiming  an
\n     interest in  compensation to  be made on account of the
\n     acquisition of  land  under  the  Act.  The  expression
\n     ‘person interested’  is Every comprehensive and it does
\n     not profess  to  give  an\texhaustive  definition.\t The
\n     expression ‘person\t interested’ has been interpreted by
\n     various Courts,  and the  trend of the opinion seems to
\n     be that I should give a liberal interpretation …
\n\t  On a\treview of  the case-law\t on the\t subject, it
\n     seems to  me that\tthe expression\t‘person\t interested’
\n     does not  require that  a person  must really  have  an
\n     interest in  the land  sought to  be  acquired.  It  is
\n     enough if\the claims  an interest\tin compensation,  as
\n     distinguished from\t an interest  in the property sought
\n     to be  acquired. As  long as a person claims a interest
\n     in the  compensation, he  is a person interested within
\n     the meaning of the definition of that expression.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The only  case which  appears to  have taken a contrary
\nview is\t a Division  Bench decision of the Orissa High Court
\nin the\tcase of State of Orissa through the Land Acquisition
\nCollector, Sambalpur  v. Amarandra  Pratap Singh & Anr., (2)
\nwhere the High Court held that
\n243<\/span>
\nthe expression\t‘person interested’  did not include a local
\nauthority or  a company\t on whose behalf acquisition is made
\nby the\tState. At the same time, it was clearly held that it
\nwas open  to  the  company  in\tany  proceeding\t before\t the
\nCollector or  court to\tappear and  adduce evidence  for the
\npurpose of determining the amount of compensation.\n<\/p>\n
     Thus, the\tpreponderance of  judicial opinion  seems to
\nfavour the  view that  the definition of ‘person interested’
\nmust be\t liberally construed so as to’ include a body, local
\nauthority, or  a company  for  whose  benefit  the  land  is
\nacquired and  who is  bound under  an agreement\t to pay\t the
\ncompensation. In  our opinion,\tthis view  accords with\t the
\nprinciples of  equity, justice\tand good conscience. How can
\nit be  said that  a person  for whose  benefit the  land  is
\nacquired and  who is to pay the compensation is not a person
\ninterested even\t though its  stake may\tbe extremely vital ?
\nFor instance,  the land\t acquisition proceedings may be held
\nto be  invalid and  thus a  person concerned  is  completely
\ndeprived of  the benefit  which is  proposed to\t be given to
\nhim. Similarly\tif  such  a  person  is\t not  heard  by\t the
\nCollector or  a court,\the may\thave to\t pay  a\t very  heavy
\ncompensation which, in case he is allowed to appear before a
\ncourt, he  could have satisfied it that the compensation was
\nfar too\t heavy having regard to the nature and extent of the
\nland. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the view taken
\nby the\tOrissa High Court or even by the Calcutta High Court
\nthat a company, local authority or a person or whose benefit
\nthe land  is acquired  is not  an interested  person. We are
\nsatisfied that\tsuch a\tperson is vitally interested both in
\nthe title  to the property as also in the compensation to be
\npaid therefor  because both these factors concern its future
\ncourse of  action and  if  decided  against  him,  seriously
\nprejudice his  rights. Moreover,  in view of the decision of
\nthis Court referred to above, we hold that the appellant was
\nundoubtedly a  person interested as contemplated by s. 18(1)
\nof the Act. The High Court, therefore, committed an error in
\nthrowing out  the appeal of the appellant on the ground that
\nit had no locus to file an appeal before the Bench.\n<\/p>\n
     The next  point that  was argued  before us  was as  to
\nwhether the  land acquisition  proceedings are cured by s. 7
\nof the\tamending Act  referred to  above.  Mr.\tV.S.  Desai,
\nappearing for  the respondents, submitted that in the second
\nArora  case   (supra)  while  upholding\t the  constitutional
\nvalidity of  s. 4 and other amendments, this Court laid down
\ncertain\t conditions   which  had   to  be  fulfilled  if  an
\nacquisition made  prior to  July 20,  1962 was\theld  to  be
\nvalid. In this connection, 11 reliance was placed by learned
\ncounsel for  the respondents  on the  following passage from
\nR.L. Arrora’s case (supra):\n<\/p>\n
244<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  “Therefore before s. 7 can validate an acquisition
\n     made before  July 20, 1962, it must first be shown that
\n     the acquisition  is complete  and the land acquired has
\n     vested in Government. This means that the land acquired
\n     has vested in Government either under s. 16 or s. 17(1)
\n     of the  Act. Thus\ts. 7  of the Amendment Act validates
\n     such  acquisitions\t  in  which   property\thas   vested
\n     absolutely in  Government either  under  s.  16  or  s.
\n     17(1). Secondly s. 7 of the Amendment Act provides that
\n     where acquisition\thas been  made for  a company before
\n     July 20,  1962 or\tpurported to  have been\t made  under
\n     cl.(a) or\tcl. (b) of s. 40(1) and those clauses do not
\n     apply in view of the interpretation put thereon in R.L.
\n     Arora’s case  [1962 (2)  Supp. S.C.R. 149], it shall be
\n     deemed  that   the\t acquisition  was  for\tthe  purpose
\n     mentioned in cl. (aa) as inserted in s.40(1) of the Act
\n     by the Amendment Act. Thirdly s. 7 of the Amendment Act
\n     provides  that   every   such   acquisition   and\t any
\n     proceeding, order,\t agreement, or\taction in connection
\n     with such\tacquisition shall  be, and  shall be  deemed
\n     always to\thave been,  as valid as if the provisions of
\n     ss. 40  and 41  of the  Act as amended by the Amendment
\n     Act were in force at all material times when any action
\n     was taken\tfor such acquisition. Finally, this validity
\n     is given  to such acquisitions and to all actions taken
\n     in connection therewith not with standing any judgment,
\n     decree or order of any court.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     A perusal of these observations would manifestly reveal
\nthat even  under s.  7 of  the amending\t Act, an acquisition
\nmade for  a company  prior to  July 20, 1962 must fulfil the
\nfollowing conditions:-\n<\/p>\n
     (a)  that the  land has  been acquired and is vested in
\n\t  Government :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b)  that the  acquisition has  been made under clauses\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (a) and (b) of s. 40(I)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (c)  that every  such acquisition\tand any\t proceeding,
\n\t  order, etc., shall be deemed always as valid as if
\n\t  the pro  visions of  ss. 40  and 41 of the Act, as
\n\t  amending by the amending Act, were in force at all
\n\t  material times; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (d)  that by virtue of s. 7 validity to the acquisition
\n\t  is  given  to\t all  actions  taken  in  connection
\n\t  therewith inspite of any judgment. decree or order
\n\t  of any court to the contrary.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
245<\/span><\/p>\n
     We are, however, satisfied that in the instant case the
\nfirst condition\t adumbrated by\tthis Court, viz., that there
\nmust be\t a complete  acquisition before\t s. 7 could validate
\nthe same, has not been fulfilled at all. In this view of the
\nmatter we need not go into the other conditions indicated by
\nthis Court.\n<\/p>\n
     It was  contended by  Mr. Desai  that according  to the
\nunchallenged pleadings\tof the\trespondents,  including\t the
\nGovernment, which  was a party before the District Court and
\nalso before  the Single\t Judge of  the High  Court, there is
\nnothing to  show that  after the  issue of  notification the
\nGovernment had taken possession of the land so that it could
\nbe said\t that the land had vested in the Government in which
\ncase alone  the\t acquisition  proceedings  would  have\tbeen
\ncompleted. In  this connection,\t our attention\twas drawn to
\npara 1\tof the\tpetition filed by the respondents before the
\nHigh Court, which runs thus:\n<\/p>\n
     “The petitioners  have. become  the owners\t of the said
\n     lands by  inheritance, and the present lands records in
\n     respect of\t the said  lands stand\tin the\tname of\t the
\n     petitioners.  There   is\tno   dispute   between\t the
\n     petitioners and  the respondents  that the\t petitioners
\n     are the  owners of\t the said  immovable  property.\t The
\n     petitioners  were\t at  all  times\t and  still  are  in
\n     possession of the said immovable properties.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     According to  this averment, it is clearly pleaded that
\ninspite of  the notifications,\tthe possession\thad not been
\ngiven to  the Government  and the  respondents\t(petitioners
\nbefore the  High Court)\t were still  in\t possession  of\t the
\nproperties in  question. A similar averment has been made in
\npara 15 of the petition which may be extracted thus:-\n<\/p>\n
     “The petitioners  say that they are still in possession
\n     of the  said lands and possession of the said lands has
\n     not been  taken away  from them  and the tenants of the
\n     petitioners  numbering  about  53\tat  present  are  in
\n     physical] occupation of the same.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It was  also alleged that the Government had threatened
\nthe petitioners\t in the\t High Court that possession would be
\ntaken through  police but  despite such threats given by the
\nGovernment, the\t petitioners were still in possession of the
\nsaid lands  and the  structures were  in possession  of\t the
\ntenants. The  Government in its reply-affidavit did not deny
\nthese averments.  On the other hand, they admitted the same.
\nPara 8 of the reply-affidavit may be extracted thus:\n<\/p>\n
     “with reference  to paragraph  1  of  the\tpetition,  I
\n     believe  the   contents  thereof  to  be  substantially
\n     correct though  as stated\tabove the petitioners’ names
\n     do not appear as
\n246<\/span>
\n     occupants or owners in the record of rights relating to
\n     the land in question.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Similarly, in  para 21 of the reply, the contents of para 15
\nof the\tpetition were  admitted and  further the  fact\tthat
\npossession was\twith the petitioners, was not denied but was
\nadmitted to  be correct. Para 21 of the reply-affidavit runs
\nthus:-\n<\/p>\n
     “21. With\treference to paragraph 15 of the petition, I
\n     believe  the   contents  thereof  to  be  substantially
\n     correct.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Learned counsel  for the  appellant, however,  drew our
\nattention to a letter sent by the respondents and went on to
\nshow that possession of only one acre of land has been taken
\nby the\tGovernment. Even  the High  Court clearly found that
\npossession had\tnot been  fully delivered  to the Government
\nafter the  notification. In  this connection,  the  Division
\nBench observed as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
     “on the  question of  possession being delivered to the
\n     Government the  petitioners specifically averred at the
\n     end of  paragraph 15  of the petition. “The Petitioners
\n     further say  that notwithstanding\tthe said  letter and
\n     the threat\t therein contained the petitioners are still
\n     in possession  of the  said lands and their tenants are
\n     occupying the  said  structures  standing\tthereon\t and
\n     possession\t thereof   has\tnot   been  taken   by\t the
\n     respondents”. They made similar averments at the end of
\n     paragraph l of the petition, that “the petitioners were
\n     at all  times and\tstill are  in possession of the said
\n     immovable properties”.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Admittedly, the  appellant did  not appear\t before\t the
\nSingle Judge  in the  writ petition filed by the respondents
\nand the\t petition was  con tested only by the State. Perhaps
\nthe appellant  may have\t thought that  as its interests were
\nfully safeguarded  by the  Government, it  was not necessary
\nfor it\tat that\t stage to appear before the High Court. Even
\nso, the\t pleas of  both the  parties taken  together clearly
\nshow that the entire possession of the property did not pass
\nto the Government and thus no title vested in the Government
\ndespite\t the  notification  acquiring  the  land.  In  these
\ncircumstances, therefore,  it is unmistakably clear that the
\nproperties  not\t  having  vested   in  the  Government,\t the
\nacquisition was not complete and its invalidity could not be
\ncured by  s. 7\tof the\tamendment Act as pointed out by this
\nCourt in  the case  referred to\t above. On this ground alone
\nthe appellant  must fail.  Dr. Chitale,\t however,  suggested
\nthat out  of 2.2 acres, possession of one acre may have been
\ntaken by  the Government.  Assuming that to be so, until the
\npossession of the entire land acquired was taken
\n247<\/span>
\nby the\tGovernment, the\t acquisition could not be a complete
\nacquisition so\tas to  attract the  operation of s. 7 of the
\namending Act.  In this\tview of the matter, we are satisfied
\nthat the  appellant has\t failed to  prove that\tone  of\t the
\nessential conditions for application of s. 7 of the amending
\nAct,  which  would  cure  the  infirmities  from  which\t the
\nacquisition proceedings\t suffer,  has  been  fulfilled.\t The
\ninescapable  conclusion,   therefore,  is   that  the\tland
\nacquisition proceedings\t were void and no benefit accrued to
\nthe appellant  from the amending Act. The result is that the
\nappeal fails  and is  dismissed but  in the circumstances of
\nthe case there will be no orders as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
N.V.K.\t\t\t\t\t   Appeal dismissed.\n248<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Himalayan Tiles & Marbles (P) Ltd vs Francis Victor Coutinho (Dead) By … on 28 March, 1980 Equivalent citations: 1980 AIR 1118, 1980 SCR (3) 235 Author: S M Fazalali Bench: Fazalali, Syed Murtaza PETITIONER: HIMALAYAN TILES & MARBLES (P) LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: FRANCIS VICTOR COUTINHO (DEAD) BY LRS & ORS. […]<\/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-44485","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nHimalayan Tiles & Marbles (P) Ltd vs Francis Victor Coutinho (Dead) By ... on 28 March, 1980 - 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\/himalayan-tiles-marbles-p-ltd-vs-francis-victor-coutinho-dead-by-on-28-march-1980\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Himalayan Tiles & Marbles (P) Ltd vs Francis Victor Coutinho (Dead) By ... on 28 March, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/himalayan-tiles-marbles-p-ltd-vs-francis-victor-coutinho-dead-by-on-28-march-1980\" \/>\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=\"1980-03-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-21T03:26:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"27 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/himalayan-tiles-marbles-p-ltd-vs-francis-victor-coutinho-dead-by-on-28-march-1980#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/himalayan-tiles-marbles-p-ltd-vs-francis-victor-coutinho-dead-by-on-28-march-1980\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Himalayan Tiles & Marbles (P) Ltd vs Francis Victor Coutinho (Dead) By … on 28 March, 1980\",\"datePublished\":\"1980-03-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-21T03:26:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/himalayan-tiles-marbles-p-ltd-vs-francis-victor-coutinho-dead-by-on-28-march-1980\"},\"wordCount\":4078,\"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\\\/himalayan-tiles-marbles-p-ltd-vs-francis-victor-coutinho-dead-by-on-28-march-1980#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/himalayan-tiles-marbles-p-ltd-vs-francis-victor-coutinho-dead-by-on-28-march-1980\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/himalayan-tiles-marbles-p-ltd-vs-francis-victor-coutinho-dead-by-on-28-march-1980\",\"name\":\"Himalayan Tiles & Marbles (P) Ltd vs Francis Victor Coutinho (Dead) By ... on 28 March, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1980-03-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-21T03:26:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/himalayan-tiles-marbles-p-ltd-vs-francis-victor-coutinho-dead-by-on-28-march-1980#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/himalayan-tiles-marbles-p-ltd-vs-francis-victor-coutinho-dead-by-on-28-march-1980\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/himalayan-tiles-marbles-p-ltd-vs-francis-victor-coutinho-dead-by-on-28-march-1980#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Himalayan Tiles & Marbles (P) Ltd vs Francis Victor Coutinho (Dead) By … on 28 March, 1980\"}]},{\"@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":"Himalayan Tiles & Marbles (P) Ltd vs Francis Victor Coutinho (Dead) By ... on 28 March, 1980 - 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\/himalayan-tiles-marbles-p-ltd-vs-francis-victor-coutinho-dead-by-on-28-march-1980","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Himalayan Tiles & Marbles (P) Ltd vs Francis Victor Coutinho (Dead) By ... on 28 March, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/himalayan-tiles-marbles-p-ltd-vs-francis-victor-coutinho-dead-by-on-28-march-1980","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1980-03-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-21T03:26:39+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"27 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/himalayan-tiles-marbles-p-ltd-vs-francis-victor-coutinho-dead-by-on-28-march-1980#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/himalayan-tiles-marbles-p-ltd-vs-francis-victor-coutinho-dead-by-on-28-march-1980"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Himalayan Tiles & Marbles (P) Ltd vs Francis Victor Coutinho (Dead) By … on 28 March, 1980","datePublished":"1980-03-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-21T03:26:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/himalayan-tiles-marbles-p-ltd-vs-francis-victor-coutinho-dead-by-on-28-march-1980"},"wordCount":4078,"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\/himalayan-tiles-marbles-p-ltd-vs-francis-victor-coutinho-dead-by-on-28-march-1980#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/himalayan-tiles-marbles-p-ltd-vs-francis-victor-coutinho-dead-by-on-28-march-1980","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/himalayan-tiles-marbles-p-ltd-vs-francis-victor-coutinho-dead-by-on-28-march-1980","name":"Himalayan Tiles & Marbles (P) Ltd vs Francis Victor Coutinho (Dead) By ... on 28 March, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1980-03-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-21T03:26:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/himalayan-tiles-marbles-p-ltd-vs-francis-victor-coutinho-dead-by-on-28-march-1980#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/himalayan-tiles-marbles-p-ltd-vs-francis-victor-coutinho-dead-by-on-28-march-1980"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/himalayan-tiles-marbles-p-ltd-vs-francis-victor-coutinho-dead-by-on-28-march-1980#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Himalayan Tiles & Marbles (P) Ltd vs Francis Victor Coutinho (Dead) By … on 28 March, 1980"}]},{"@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\/44485","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=44485"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44485\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=44485"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=44485"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=44485"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}