{"id":48043,"date":"2005-11-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-11-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sri-shanmuga-bleaching-works-vs-the-registrar-on-8-november-2005"},"modified":"2018-01-11T15:18:40","modified_gmt":"2018-01-11T09:48:40","slug":"ms-sri-shanmuga-bleaching-works-vs-the-registrar-on-8-november-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sri-shanmuga-bleaching-works-vs-the-registrar-on-8-november-2005","title":{"rendered":"M\/S. Sri Shanmuga Bleaching Works vs The Registrar on 8 November, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S. Sri Shanmuga Bleaching Works vs The Registrar on 8 November, 2005<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n In the High Court of Judicature at Madras\n\nDated: 08\/11\/2005 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN     \nand \nThe Hon'ble Mr. JUSTICE T.V.MASILAMANI    \n\nCMA.(NPD) No.3465 of 2005   \nand \nC.M.P.No.17638 of 2005  \n\nM\/s. Sri Shanmuga Bleaching Works   \nAnanthan Kadu, Thanner Pandalpalayam   \nP.N.Pudur (PO) , Erode  5.              ....  Appellant\n\n-Vs-\n\n1.  The Registrar,\n     Customs Excise & Service Tax\n        Appellate Tribunal\n     West Block No.2, R.K.Puram, \n     New Delhi  110 066.\n\n2.  The Registrar,\n     Customs Excise and Gold (Control)\n        Appellate Tribunal\n     South Zonal Bench\n     Shastri Bhavan Annexe,\n     1st Floor, 26, Haddows Road,\n     Chennai  600 034.\n\n3.  Commissioner of Central Excise,\n     6\/7 A.T.D. Street,\n     Race Course Road,\n     Coimbatore  641 018.                               ....  Respondents\n\n        Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 35-G of Central  Excise\nAct,  1944  against  the  final  order No.E\/ROA\/52\/03-MAS dated 27.12.20 04 in\nE\/Appeal No.1426\/96-MAS on the file of the 1st respondent.\n\n!For Appellant :  Mr.  K.R.Natarajan\n\n^For Respondent :  ---\n\n:J U D G M E N T \n<\/pre>\n
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.D.DINAKARAN,J)  <\/p>\n
        The above appeal is  directed  against  the  order  No.E\/ROA\/52\/03-MAS
\ndated 27.12.2004 in E\/Appeal No.1426\/96-MAS of the first respondent.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  The appellant is engaged in the work of processing cotton fabrics.
\nThe Central Excise Officers attached to the Preventive Group of Erode Division
\nsearched  the  appellant  company on 07.06.1995 and found that some process of
\nmercerising was going on manufacturing excisable goods.  The enquiry  revealed
\nthat  there  was  neither  a  Central  Excise Registration Certificate nor any
\nrecords maintained for the fabrics which were mercerised and cleared.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  A show cause notice was issued  on  18.10.1995  to  the  appellant
\ncompany calling upon the appellant to explain as to why payment of duty on the
\nclearances  made  should not be demanded and as to why the goods seized should
\nnot be confiscated and penalty imposed under Rules 9(2), 52A, 173Q and 226  of
\nCentral Excise  Rules,1944.    The appellant company submitted its explanation
\nindicating that the process which it was indulged in was neither coming  under
\nmercerisation  nor under any process mentioned under the heading 5206 and that
\nthe product is rightly classifiable under the heading  5205.    Not  satisfied
\nwith  the  explanation,  the  Adjudicating  Officer, namely, the Commissioner,
\nCentral Excise, Coimbatore confirmed the demand of Rs.32,284\/-  under  Rule  9
\n(2)  of  Central  Excise Rule 1944, read with Section 11A(1) of Central Excise
\nand Salt Act 1944 being the duty involved in cotton  fabrics  mercerised  with
\nthe aid of power and cleared and also imposed penalty of Rs.3,000\/- under Rule
\n9(2),  52A,  173Q  and  226  of  Central  Excise  Rule 1944 by his order dated
\n19.7.1996.\n<\/p>\n
        4.  Aggrieved against the order dated 19.7.1996, the appellant company
\nfiled an  appeal  before  the  Customs,  Excise  and  Gold  Control  Appellate
\nTribunal, second respondent herein.\n<\/p>\n
        5.  On 9.2.2001, the second respondent dismissed the appeal along with
\nother  two  appeals by a common order holding that there are enormous evidence
\nin the form of documents and oral admissions available on record including the
\nstatements from persons who had supplied the grey  fabrics  stating  that  the
\nsaid fabrics were supplied for mercerising work.\n<\/p>\n
        6.   Against  the order of the second respondent dated 09.02.2001, the
\nappellant filed a  rectification  petition  before  the  Customs,  Excise  and
\nService Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai to recall the order
\nof  the second respondent contending that the process adopted by the appellant
\nherein and the appellants in other cases was not one  and  the  same  and  the
\nplant and machinery installed were also different.  It was also contended that
\nthe  said rectification petition was filed within the time limit of four years
\nfrom the date of order as per Section 35C(2) of Central Excise  Act  1944  and
\nthough  this  Section has been amended restricting the time limit of filing of
\nmiscellaneous  petition,  the  pre-existing  right  of  appeal  could  not  be
\ndestroyed by amendment unless the amendment was retrospective in operation and
\nthe right of appeal is a substantive right which could not be disturbed except
\nby express enactment.\n<\/p>\n
        7.   However,  the second respondent found that the said rectification
\npetition is time barred.  Since the decision rendered by the West Zonal  Bench
\nin  the  case  of  Shree  Warana  Sahakari  Dudh  Utpadak  Pradriya Sangh Ltd.
\nreported in 2003 (155) ELT 465 is contrary  to  the  findings  of  the  second
\nrespondent,  the  said  miscellaneous petition was referred to a larger bench.
\nSubsequently, the petition was transferred to the Customs Excise & Service Tax
\nAppellate Tribunal, New Delhi, the first respondent  herein.    The  appellant
\ncompany filed their written submissions before the Customs, Excise and Service
\nTax  Appellate  Tribunal,  New  Delhi  stating  that  the  right of filing the
\nmiscellaneous petition is a substantive right which  could  not  be  disturbed
\nexcept  by  an  enactment  with specific mentioning and in the amended section
\nthere is nothing about the retrospective operation of the said amendment.\n<\/p>\n
        8.  A Larger Bench of the  first  respondent,  after  considering  the
\nsubmissions  of  both sides and after analysing the materials placed, rejected
\nthe miscellaneous petition by an order dated 27.12.2004 following the decision
\nof Supreme Court in the case of Osram Surya (P) Ltd.  V.  CCE, Indore<\/a> reported
\nin 2002(142) ELT 5 and holding that though the final order was passed  by  the
\nTribunal  on  9.2.2001, the petition for rectification of mistake was filed on
\n19.8.2003 and by the time the application was filed, the provisions of Section
\n35C(2) had been amended by Section 140 of the Finance Act,  2002  with  effect
\nfrom  11.5.20  02,  by  which  time, the period of four years was reduced to 6
\nmonths.\n<\/p>\n
        9.  Against the order of the Appellate Tribunal dated 27.12.2004,  the
\nappellant  has  filed  the  present  Civil  Miscellaneous  Appeal  raising the
\nfollowing substantial questions of law:\n<\/p>\n
        i) Whether the Hon’ble CESTAT, Chennai Bench is right in  hearing  the
\nabove  three  appeals  when  the  facts were not the same and passing a common
\norder in those appeals?\n<\/p>\n
        (ii) Whether the Hon’ble Larger Bench of  the  Tribunal  is  right  in
\nholding  that  it  is  not  open  to the applicants to file an application for
\nrectification of mistake with reference to final order dated 9.2.20 01 at  any
\ntime within 4 years after the amendment of the provisions of Section 35C(2) of
\nthe Central Excise Act, 1944?\n<\/p>\n
        10.    Heard  Mr.K.R.Natarajan,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the
\nappellant arguing for admission.\n<\/p>\n
        11.  Mr.K.R.Natarajan, learned counsel  appearing  for  the  appellant
\nafter taking us through the order of the second respondent dated 9.2.2 001 and
\nthe  order  of  the  first  respondent  dated 27.12.2004 would submit that the
\nsecond respondent by an order dated 9.2.2001 disposed of three  appeals,  even
\nthough the  facts  of  each  case  were  different.   He also submits that the
\nprovisions of Section  140  of  the  Finance  Act,  2002  are  prospective  in
\noperation  and  the said amendment does not take away the substantive right to
\nfile an application for rectification of mistake.   The  only  effect  of  the
\namendment  is  to reduce the time limit within which the application has to be
\npreferred by the applicant.  He has also cited a decision reported in AIR 1957
\nS.C.  540 ( Garikapati V.  Subbiah Choudhry)<\/p>\n
        12.  It is apt to refer Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise  Act,  as
\namended by Section 140 of Finance Act 2002, which reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        “Section 35C- Orders of Appellate Tribunal-<\/p>\n
        (1)*****
\n        (1A)******
\n        (2) The Appellate Tribunal may, at any time within six months from the
\ndate  of  the  order,  with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the
\nrecord, amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1) and shall make such
\namendments if the mistake is brought to the  notice  by  the  Commissioner  of
\nCentral Excise or the other party to the appeal:\n<\/p>\n
        Provided  that  an  amendment  which  has  the  effect of enhancing an
\nassessment or reducing a refund or otherwise increasing the liability  of  the
\nother  party,  shall  not be made under this sub-section, unless the Appellate
\nTribunal has given notice to him of its intention to do so and has allowed him
\na reasonable opportunity of being heard.\n<\/p>\n
        ***** ”\n<\/p>\n
        In the above Section, the period of six months  was  substituted  with
\neffect from 11.5.2002 by Section 140 of the Finance Act 2002.\n<\/p>\n
        13.1.   Concededly,  the second respondent passed the final order on 0
\n9.02.2001 and the appellant filed the  rectification  petition  on  19.8.2003.
\nBut  the  amendment  of  Section  35C(2)  was  implemented  with  effect  from
\n11.5.2002.  Hence, the rectification petition filed was well beyond  the  time
\nof six months.\n<\/p>\n
        13.2.  We are also of the considered opinion that the first respondent
\nrightly  followed  the  Supreme  Court  decision  reported in 2002 (142) ELT 5
\n(Osram Surya (P) Ltd.  Vs.  CCE, Indore), wherein the Supreme  Court  held  as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
        “…..   we  think  that  by  introducing  the  limitation in the said
\nproviso to the rule, the statute has not taken away any of the  vested  rights
\nwhich had  accrued  to  the  manufacturers  under  the Scheme of Modvat.  That
\nvested right continues to be in existence and what is restricted is  the  time
\nwithin which  the  manufacturer  has  to  enforce that right.  The appellants,
\nhowever, contended that imposition of a limitation is as good as  taking  away
\nthe vested  right.  In support of their argument, they have placed reliance on
\na judgment of this Court in Eicher Motors Ltd.  V.  Union of India<\/a> (1999 (106)
\nE.L.T.  3 (S.C.)} wherein this Court had held  that  a  right  accrued  to  an
\nassessee  on  the date when it paid the tax on the raw-materials or the inputs
\nwould continue until the facility available thereto gets worked out  or  until
\nthose goods  existed.   In that background, this Court held that by Section 37
\nof the Act, the authorities concerned cannot make a rule which could take away
\nthe said right on goods manufactured  prior  to  the  date  specified  in  the
\nconcerned rule.    In  the facts of Eicher’s case ( supra), it is seen that by
\nintroduction of Rule 57F(4A) to the Rules, a credit which was lying unutilized
\non 16.3.1995 with the manufacturer was held to have lapsed.   Therefore,  that
\nwas  a  case  wherein  by  introduction  of the rule a credit which was in the
\naccount of the manufacturer was held not to be available on  the  coming  into
\nforce of that rule, by that the right to credit itself was taken away, whereas
\nin the instant case by the introduction of the second proviso to Rule 57G, the
\ncredit in the account of a manufacturer was not taken away but only the manner
\nand  the  time  within which the said credit was to be taken or utilized alone
\nwas stipulated.  It is to be noted at this juncture that the substantive right
\nhas not been taken away by the introduction of the  proviso  to  the  rule  in
\nquestion,  but  a procedural restriction was introduced which, in our opinion,
\nis permissible in law.”\n<\/p>\n
                                                (Emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
        14.1.  In the decision cited by the learned counsel for the  appellant
\nin Garikapati V.  Subbiah Choudhry (AIR 1957 SC 540) it has been held that the
\nright of appeal is a vested right and such a right to enter the superior court
\naccrues  to  the litigant and exists as on and from the date the lis commences
\nand although it may  be  actually  exercised  when  the  adverse  judgment  is
\npronounced  such  right is to be governed by the law prevailing at the date of
\nthe institution of the suit or proceeding and not by the law that prevails  at
\nthe date  of  its  decision  or at the date of the filing of the appeal.  This
\nvested right of appeal can be taken away only by a subsequent enactment, if it
\nso provides expressly or by necessary intendment and not otherwise.\n<\/p>\n
        14.2.  In our considered opinion, the decision reported in AIR 1957 SC
\n540 (Garikapati V.  Subbiah Choudhry) is  not  applicable  to  the  facts  and
\ncircumstances  of the case for the simple reason, in Garikapati case, referred
\nsupra deals with a right of appeal  to  the  superior  Court  accrued  to  the
\nlitigant on the date of the lis commenced, but not with reference to the right
\nto  seek  rectification  of  any  mistake  apparent on the record in the order
\nalready passed by the authority and seek  an  amendment  on  bringing  to  the
\nnotice  of  the  mistake  to the authorities concerned as in the instant case.
\nThe amendment proposed to Section 35 C(2) of the Central Excise Act as brought
\nin by Section 14 0 of the Finance Act 2002 is intended  to  introduce  certain
\nprocedural  restrictions  but  not to take away any substantial right, such as
\nfiling of the appeal vested on the litigant.\n<\/p>\n
        15.  Hence, finding no merits, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal  stands
\ndismissed.  Consequently, C.M.P.No.17638 of 2005 is also dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Index :Yes
\nInternet:Yes<\/p>\n
sl<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.  The Registrar,
\nCustoms Excise & Service Tax
\n        Appellate Tribunal
\nWest Block No.2, R.K.Puram,
\nNew Delhi 110 066.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The Registrar,
\nCustoms Excise and Gold (Control)
\n        Appellate Tribunal
\nSouth Zonal Bench
\nShastri Bhavan Annexe,
\n1st Floor, 26, Haddows Road,
\nChennai 600 034.\n<\/p>\n
3.  Commissioner of Central Excise,
\n6\/7 A.T.D.  Street,
\nRace Course Road,
\nCoimbatore 641 018.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court M\/S. Sri Shanmuga Bleaching Works vs The Registrar on 8 November, 2005 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated: 08\/11\/2005 Coram The Hon’ble Mr. JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN and The Hon’ble Mr. JUSTICE T.V.MASILAMANI CMA.(NPD) No.3465 of 2005 and C.M.P.No.17638 of 2005 M\/s. Sri Shanmuga Bleaching Works Ananthan Kadu, Thanner Pandalpalayam P.N.Pudur […]<\/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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-48043","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S. Sri Shanmuga Bleaching Works vs The Registrar on 8 November, 2005 - 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\/ms-sri-shanmuga-bleaching-works-vs-the-registrar-on-8-november-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S. Sri Shanmuga Bleaching Works vs The Registrar on 8 November, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sri-shanmuga-bleaching-works-vs-the-registrar-on-8-november-2005\" \/>\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=\"2005-11-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-11T09:48:40+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\\\/ms-sri-shanmuga-bleaching-works-vs-the-registrar-on-8-november-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sri-shanmuga-bleaching-works-vs-the-registrar-on-8-november-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S. Sri Shanmuga Bleaching Works vs The Registrar on 8 November, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-11-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-11T09:48:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sri-shanmuga-bleaching-works-vs-the-registrar-on-8-november-2005\"},\"wordCount\":1961,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sri-shanmuga-bleaching-works-vs-the-registrar-on-8-november-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sri-shanmuga-bleaching-works-vs-the-registrar-on-8-november-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sri-shanmuga-bleaching-works-vs-the-registrar-on-8-november-2005\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Sri Shanmuga Bleaching Works vs The Registrar on 8 November, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-11-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-11T09:48:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sri-shanmuga-bleaching-works-vs-the-registrar-on-8-november-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sri-shanmuga-bleaching-works-vs-the-registrar-on-8-november-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sri-shanmuga-bleaching-works-vs-the-registrar-on-8-november-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Sri Shanmuga Bleaching Works vs The Registrar on 8 November, 2005\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M\/S. Sri Shanmuga Bleaching Works vs The Registrar on 8 November, 2005 - 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\/ms-sri-shanmuga-bleaching-works-vs-the-registrar-on-8-november-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S. Sri Shanmuga Bleaching Works vs The Registrar on 8 November, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sri-shanmuga-bleaching-works-vs-the-registrar-on-8-november-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-11-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-11T09:48:40+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\/ms-sri-shanmuga-bleaching-works-vs-the-registrar-on-8-november-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sri-shanmuga-bleaching-works-vs-the-registrar-on-8-november-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S. Sri Shanmuga Bleaching Works vs The Registrar on 8 November, 2005","datePublished":"2005-11-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-11T09:48:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sri-shanmuga-bleaching-works-vs-the-registrar-on-8-november-2005"},"wordCount":1961,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sri-shanmuga-bleaching-works-vs-the-registrar-on-8-november-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sri-shanmuga-bleaching-works-vs-the-registrar-on-8-november-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sri-shanmuga-bleaching-works-vs-the-registrar-on-8-november-2005","name":"M\/S. Sri Shanmuga Bleaching Works vs The Registrar on 8 November, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-11-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-11T09:48:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sri-shanmuga-bleaching-works-vs-the-registrar-on-8-november-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sri-shanmuga-bleaching-works-vs-the-registrar-on-8-november-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sri-shanmuga-bleaching-works-vs-the-registrar-on-8-november-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S. Sri Shanmuga Bleaching Works vs The Registrar on 8 November, 2005"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48043","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=48043"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48043\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=48043"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=48043"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=48043"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}