{"id":53517,"date":"2000-05-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-05-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raiasthanstateelectricity-vs-associated-stone-industries-on-8-may-2000"},"modified":"2016-10-24T15:19:32","modified_gmt":"2016-10-24T09:49:32","slug":"raiasthanstateelectricity-vs-associated-stone-industries-on-8-may-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raiasthanstateelectricity-vs-associated-stone-industries-on-8-may-2000","title":{"rendered":"Raiasthanstateelectricity … vs Associated Stone Industries & … on 8 May, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Raiasthanstateelectricity … vs Associated Stone Industries & … on 8 May, 2000<\/div>\n
Bench: Syed Shah Quadri, Shivaraj V. Patil<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nRAIASTHANSTATEELECTRICITY BOARD\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nASSOCIATED STONE INDUSTRIES & ANR.  ...\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t08\/05\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nSyed Shah Mohammed Quadri, Shivaraj V.\tPatil\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
‘L…..I………T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T..J<\/p>\n
      SHIVARAJV.  PATIL.\n<\/p>\n
      In   the\t light\tof   the  contentions\traised\t and
\nsubmissions,  made before us.  the only question that arises
\nfor  consideration  and decision in this appeal\t is  whether
\npumping\t out  water from a mine comes within the meaning  of
\nmanufacture, production, processing or repair of goods so as
\nto  claim  exemption  from duty under  Notifications  issued
\nunder\tsub-section  3\tof  Section   3\t of  the   Rajasthan
\nElectricity (Duty) -Act.  1962 (for short the ‘Act’)?\n<\/p>\n
      2.   This appeal is by the Rajasthan State Electricity
\nBoard.\tJaipur, theDefendant in the.suit.  .   ^<\/p>\n
      3.   In  short  and  substance, the  facts  which\t are
\nconsidered  relevant  and  necessary for  disposal  of\tthis
\nappeal are the following.\n<\/p>\n
      4.  The Plamfl’ff-Respondent No”.\t I –is a registered
\n‘  public  Iimited  company.  It is  engaged  in  excavating
\nstones\tfrom  the collieries and thereafter converting\tthem
\ninto  slabs  by cutting and polishing.\tThe Rajasthan  State
\nGovernment  levied electricity duty under the provisions  of
\nthe  Act.  A Notification dated 26.3.1962 was issued by\t the
\nState  under Section 3(3) of the Act granting exemption from
\ntax  on the energy consumed by a consumer in any industry in
\nthe  manufacture, production, processing or repair of  goods
\nand  by\t or in respect of any mine as defined in the  Indian
\nMines.\tAct, 1923.\n<\/p>\n
      5.  Subsequently a notification was issued on 2.3.1963
\nsuperseding  the  aforesaid  Notification  dated  23.3.1962.
\nremitting  the\telectricity duty on the energy\tconsumed  in
\nelectro-chemical  industry  and\t in   electric\tfurnaces  of
\nelecro-thermo industries and-reducing such-duty<\/p>\n
      on   the\tenergy\tconsumed  in  other  industries\t  in
\nthemanufactnre.\t production:  processing or repair of goods,
\nfrom  3\t naya  paise  per unit to I  naya  paisc  per  unit.
\nFurther\t one  more  Notification  was  issued  on  1.11.1965
\nsuperseding  the  earlier two Notifications mentioned  above
\nand  fixing  duly at 5 paise per unit as the rate  at  which
\nelectricity duty shall be computed.  However, by clause ‘(c)
\nof the said nolification, the State of Rajasthan reduced the
\nduty  on the energy consumed in industries other than  those
\nmentioned  in  clause  (a)  of\t the  Notification  in\t the
\nmanufacture,  production, processing or repair of goods to I
\npaise per unit.\t The same was later on enhanced to 2.  paise
\nby Notification dated 5.3.1979.\n<\/p>\n
      6.    The\t Defendant  issued   three   notices   dated
\n30.6.1972,  2i.l2.i97^aiW 30.1 L1974 asking the Plaintiff to
\npay  electricity  duty\tat tile full rate of 0.05  per\tunit
\nholding\t that  the  Plaintiff was not  entitled\t either\t for
\nexemption  of  electricity  duly or to a reduced rate  of  –
\nduty.\tHence  the Plaintiff filed the suit  for  injunction
\n.restraining   the–.\t defendant    from   realising\t the
\nelectricity  duty  as  per  the demands\t made  in  the\tsaid
\nnotices.  The trial court dismissed the suit.  The Plaintiff
\nfiled  tile  appeal  in the court of the District  Judge  at
\nKota.  The learned<\/p>\n
      Distntct\tJudge  allowed\tthe   appeal  reversing\t the
\njudgment,  and\tdecree\tof the trial court  and\t passed\t the
\ndecree in favour of the Plaintiff.:  The Defendant filed the
\nsecond\tappeal in the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan
\nat  Jaipur  Bench, Jaipur.  The learned Single Judge of\t the
\nHigh  Court dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and
\ndecree\tpassed\tin  favour  of\tthe  Plaintiff.\t  Hence\t the
\nDefendant  has\tfiled, this appeal challenging the  validity
\nand  correctness  of the said judgment and decree passed  by
\nthe High Court.\n<\/p>\n
      7.   Shri\t Pradeep  Aggarwal learned counsel  for\t the
\ndefendant  No.\tI – appellant urged that (1) consumption  of
\nenergy”\t for  pumping  out  water from the  mine  cannot  be
\nconstrued as energy consumed by industry in the manufacture,
\nproduction,  processing\t or  repair of the  goods:   further
\nexcavating.stones  from\t a mine and thereafter\tcutting\t and
\npolishing them into slabs did not amount to any manufacture.
\n(2)  The  subsequent  two notifications dated  2.3.1963\t and
\n1.11.1965  have clearly removed exemption in relation to any
\nmine..\t In  support  of his submissions, he relied  on\t the
\ndecision  of  this  Court in Collector\tof  Central  Excise,
\nJaipur\tvs.   Rajasthott  State Chemical  Works.   Deedwana,
\nRajasthan<\/a> (1991) 4 SCC 473.\n<\/p>\n
      8.  Per contra., the learned counsel for the plaintiff
\nmade  submissions  supporting  the   impugned  judgment\t and
\ndecree.\t  He  argued  that excavation of  stones  thereafter
\ncutting\t  and\tpolishing  them\t  into\tslabs  amounted\t  to
\nmanufacture.\n<\/p>\n
      9.   We  have considered the submissions made  by\t the
\nlearned counsel for the parties.  The 3 Notifications to the
\nextent they are relevant are extracted hereunder:-\n<\/p>\n
      Notification dated 26.3.1962<\/p>\n
      “In  pursuance  of  sub-clause 3 of clause 3  of\tthe.
\nRajasthan  Electricity\t(Duty)\tBill, 1962,  read  with\t the
\ndeclaration   inserted\ttherein\t under\t section  3  of\t the
\nRajasthan  Provisional\tCollection  of\t Taxes\tAct.\t1958
\n(Rajasthan  Act\t 23 of 1958), the State Government being  of
\nthe  opinion  that it inexpedient in public interest  to-do^
\nso, hereby exempts from tax the-energy-consumed –\n<\/p>\n
      (1)  by a consumer in any industry in the manufacture.
\nproduction, processing or repair of goods’, and (2) by or in
\nrespect of any mine as defined in the Indian Mines Act, 1923
\n(Central Act of 1923)-”\n<\/p>\n
      Notification dated 2.3.1963<\/p>\n
      ”In  exercise of the powers conferred by\t sub-section
\n(3)  of\t section 3 of the Rajasthan Electricity\t (Duty\tAct,
\n1962  (Rajasthan)  Act\t12 of 1962) and in  supersession  of
\nExcise\t  and\tTaxation     Department\t  Notification\t No.
\nF.9(2>-E&T\/62\/1\t dated\tthe  26th March.   1962,  the  State
\nGovernment  being  of  the opinion that it is  expedient  in
\npublic\tinterest  to do so.  hereby remits the\telectricity’
\nduly-\ton  the\t energy\t  consurned  in\t electro’   chemical
\nindustries  and\t in  electric  furnaces\t of  electro-thernal
\nindustries  and reduces such duty on the energy consumed  in
\nother  industries in the manufacture, production, processing
\nor  repair  of goods, from three naya paise per unit to\t one
\npaisa per unit.”\n<\/p>\n
      Notification dated 1.11.1965<\/p>\n
      “In  exercise of the powers conferred by section 3  of
\nthe Rajasthan Electricity (Duty) Act, 1962 (Rajasthan Act 12
\nof  1962) and in supersession of Government Notification No.
\nF.9(2)\/E&T\/62-li   dated  the  26^   March,  1962  and\t No.
\nF.(6)FD\/RT\/63\tdated  the  2th\t  March.   1963,  the  Stole
\nGovernment  being  of  the opinion that it is  expedient  in
\npublic\tinterest  to  do so.  herebv fixes,  with  immediate
\neffect,\t five  parse  per  unit as the rate  at\t which\ttlie
\nelectricity  duty.’shall  be  computed and  subject  to\t the
\nconditions  laid  down:\t  in the third proviso to  the\tsaid
\nsection –\n<\/p>\n
      (a) remits, with immediate effect the electricity duty
\n  on the energy consumed (i) in electrochemical industries,
\nand (ii) in electro furnaces of electro thermal industries.\n<\/p>\n
      (b)  remits with effect on and from the 1st  November,
\n1964.\tthe  electricity’ duty on energy consumed by  or  in
\nrespect\t of  any municipal Board or Council or Panchayat  or
\nPanchayat Samiti or other authority for the purpose of or in
\nrespect of public street lighting;  and<\/p>\n
      (c)  reduces  with immediate effect such duty  on\t the
\nenergy consumed in industries, other than those mentioned in\n<\/p>\n
(a)  above, in the manufacturc..  production, processing  or
\nrepair of good to (two paise per unit)”.\n<\/p>\n
      10.    There  is\tno   dispute  that  the\t controversy
\nreiated-to  claim  for exemption or reduced rate of duty  in
\nrelation  lo  consumption energy for pumping out water\tfrom
\nthe  mines.  In the Notification dated 26.3.1962 the tax was
\nexempted  expressly  for  the  energy’ consumed\t by  or\t ill
\nrespect of mines as defined in the Indian Mines Act.  .1923.
\nThe  two subsequent Notifications of 2.3.1963 and  1.11.1965
\nhave omitted provision of exemption in respect of mines.  It
\nis  not the case of the Plaintiff that electrical energy was
\nconsumed  in  any industry in the  manufacture,\t production,
\n.processing  or\t repair of goods.  The specific case of\t the
\nPlaintiff  is  that the electrical energy was  consumed\t for
\npumping out water ‘from mines to make mines ready tor mining
\nactivity  namely,  excavating stones and thereafter  catting
\nand..\tpolishing  them into slabs.  The  1963\tNotification
\nsuperseded  the\t 1962.\tNotification and  1965\tNotification
\nsuperseded  both 1962 and 1963 – Notifications.\t As  already
\nnoticed\t above.\t  1963 and 1965 Notifications have not\tmade
\nany provision for exemption of duty on the electricity-\n<\/p>\n
      consumed by or in respect of mines, it is the ca.se of
\nthe  Plaintiff\tthat”  the  electricity- was  used  for\t the
\npurpose\t of  pumping out water from the mines to  facilitate
\nmining\tactivity’, namely excavating of stones.\t It must  be
\nalso  kept in mind that a mining activity’ is  distinguished
\nfrom  a\t manufacturing activity, it appears this removal  of
\nexemption  in the said Notifications in respect of mines was
\ndone  consciously so as to bring the mining activity  within
\nthe  purview of Section 3 of the Act.  Hence we consider  it
\nunnecessary  to\t deal  with  the  notification\tof  1962  in
\nrelation  to  the claim for exemption by or in respect of  a
\nmine.\n<\/p>\n
      11.   The word “manufacture” is not defined in the Act
\nunder  which aforementioned three Notifications were issued.
\nThe  word  “manufacture”  used in  the\tNotifications  under
\nSection\t 3(3)  of  the\tAct,  a\t taxing\t statute  should  be
\nunderstood  in\tits commercial sense, in the absence of\t the
\ndefinition  of it in the statute itself.  The definitions of
\n“manufacture”  given  in other enactments such as  Factories
\nAct,  Industrial  Dispute  Act or the Excise Act  cannot  be
\napplied\t while\tinterpreting  the  expression  “manufacture”
\ninrelation totlie^rovisions of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
      The  learned  Judge in the judgment under\t appeal\t has
\nstated\t“it  is also admitted that.  the.   electricity\t was
\nutilised  for pumping out water from the mines, it cannol be
\ndisputed  that the Plaintiff could not have worked his mines
\nunless\tthe  water  had been lumped out from  themia^s\tand,
\ntherefore,  pumping  out  the  water   from  the  mines\t was
\nincidental with the excavation of stones on the mines”\n<\/p>\n
      Further  having referred to various decisions  dealing
\nwith  ‘manufacturing” and “manufacturing process” has stated
\nthus-.-\n<\/p>\n
      “In  my  opinion, the pumping out of water from  mines
\nwas  necessary\tand  essential for carrying of the  work  of
\nexcavation  of\tstones\tfrom the mines\tand,  therefore,  it
\nshould\tbe held to be a part of the manufacturing process of
\nthe  whole  industries\tand  business  carried\tout  by\t the
\nplaintiff.”\n<\/p>\n
      13.   In\tthe ‘Notification dated 26.3.1962 the  State
\nhad  exempted from duty the energy consumed in any industry-
\nin  the\t manufacture,.\tproduction, processing or repair  of
\ngoods  and  also by or-in respect of any mine as defined  in
\nthe  Indian Mines Act, 1923.  As can be seen from subsequent
\ntwo  Notifications  of 2.3.1963 andl.ll.l965  the  exemption
\ngiven\tto   the    mines    .in   the\t ‘Notification,dated
\n26.3.;1962^was.,:   withdrawn.\tThe intention appears to  be
\nclear that the exemption<\/p>\n
      available to mines speciticaiiy.\twas taken .away.  it
\nappears\t the  Plaintiff did not plead specifically that\t the
\nelectricity  was  being used for pumping out water from\t the
\nmines  which formed part of the manufacturing process.\tThis
\napart  excavation  of  stones ti’oma  mine-  and  thereafter
\ncutting\t them and polishmg them into slabs did not amount to
\nmanufacture  of goods.\tThe word “manufacture” generally and
\nin  the ordinal parlance in the absence of its definition in
\ntlie  Act should be understood to mean bringing to existence
\na  new\tand  different\t article  having  distinctive  name.
\ncharacter or use after undergoing some transformation.\tWhen
\nno  new\t product as such comes into existence, there  is  no
\nprocess\t of  manufacture.  The cutting and polishing  stones
\ninto  slabs is not a process of manufacture for obvious\t and
\nsimple\treason\tthat no new and distinct commercial  product
\ncame  into existence as the end product still remained stone
\nand thus its original identity continued.\n<\/p>\n
      14.   This Court in Union of India & Ors.\t Vs.   Delhi
\nCloth  and  General  Mills Co.\tLtd.  & Ors.   (1977  E.L.T.
\n(J.199)\t as  to the meaning of “manufacture” in para 14\t has
\nstated thus:-\n<\/p>\n
      “The  word  “manufacture” used ns a verv is  generally
\nunderstood  to\tmean  as  “bringing  into  existence  a\t new
\nsubstence” and does not mean mereiy “to produce sonic change
\nin a substance”, however minor in consequence the change may
\nbe.   Tills  distinction is well brought about in a  passage
\nthus quoted in-Permanent Edition of Words and Phrases.\tVol.\n<\/p>\n
26.  from an American Judgment.\t The passage runs thus’<\/p>\n
      “Manufacture implies a change, but every change is not
\nmanufacture and yet even’ change of an article is the result
\nof treatment labour and transformation:\t a new and different
\narticle\t must emerge having a distinctive name, character or
\nuse.”\n<\/p>\n
      Para 17 of the .same judgment reads thus:- –\n<\/p>\n
      “These  definitions  make\t it  clear  that  to  become
\n“goods”\t an  article must be something which can  ordinarily
\ncome to the market to be brought and sold.”\n<\/p>\n
      15.   In\tthe  case of Collector\tof  Central  Excise,
\nJaqJur Vs.<\/p>\n
      Rajasthan\t State\tChemical Works, Deedwana,  Rajasthan\n<\/p>\n
-((1991)  4  SCC 473) this Court was  considering  “process”
\nconnected  with\t the manufacture;  for manufacturing  common
\nsalt  brine  pumped into salt pans by using diesel pump\t and
\nfor man.ufacturing lime, coke, .and limestones lifted to the
\nplatform at the head kiln by aid of power.  It was held that
\npumping\t of  brine and lifting of  raw-material\t constituted
\nprocesses in or in relation to the manufacture.\t Para .16 of
\nthe judgment reads thus:-\n<\/p>\n
      “The  expression\t“m the manufacture of  goods”  would
\nnormally  encompas!S  the  entire process earned on  by\t the
\ndealer\tof  converting\traw materials into  finished  goods.
\nWhere any particular process is so integrally connected with
\nthe  ultimate production of goods that but for that  process
\nmanufacture  or\t processing of goods would  be\tcommercially
\ninexpedient,  goods  required in that process would, in\t our
\njudgment, iail within the expression “in the nianutacture of
\ngoods.”\n<\/p>\n
      This  Court in the same judgment in para 21 has stated
\nthus:-\n<\/p>\n
      “A  process is a manufacturing process when it  brings
\nout  a complete transformation ‘for the whole componenis  so
\nas  to\tproduce\t a  commercially   different  article  or  a
\ncommodity.   But that process itself may consist of  several
\nprocesses  which  may or may not bring about any  change  at
\nevery  intermediate  stage.   But  the\t.activities  or\t the
\noperations  may\t be so integrally connected that  the  final
\nresult\tis  the\t production  of\t a  commercially   different
\narticle.   Therefore, any activity or operation which is the
\ne.ssential  requirement\t and  is so related to\tthe  further
\noperations  tor the end result would also be a process in or
\nin relation to manufacture to attract the relevant clause in
\nthe exemption notification.  In our view, the word ‘process’
\nin  the\t context  in  which  it\t appears  in  the  aforesaid
\nnotification  includes an operation or activity in  relation
\nto manufacture.”\n<\/p>\n
      16.   In conclusion, it is said that if any  operation
\nin the course of manufacture is so integrally connected with
\nthe  further  operations  which result in the  emergence  of
\nmanufactured goods and such operation is carried on with the
\naid of powder, the .process-in or in<\/p>\n
      relation\tto the manufacture must be deemed to be\t one
\ncarried\t with  the  aid\t of power.  Pumping  out  of  water,
\nexcavation  of,stones  and cutting and polishing  them\tinto
\nslabs  cannot  be  said to-be, integrally connected  in\t the
\nmanufacturing of goods.\n<\/p>\n
      17.   Keeping  in view what is stated aboye,we  iindit
\ndifficult  to accept the view of the learned Judge that\t the
\nenergy\t consumed  for\tpumping\t out   of  water  from\t the
\nmines^houldbeheld  to  be a part of  ~.\t the  manufacturing
\nprocess\t of  the.  whole industry and the- business  carried
\nout  by\t the Plaintiff.\t It is also not possible  to  accept
\nthat   excavation  of  stones\tand  thereafter\t cuttmg\t and
\npolishing  them\t into slabs resulted in any  manufacture  of
\ngoods.\t On  the basis of evidence,.  the trial court  found
\nthat  there  are  two  separate electric  meters;   one\t for
\npumping\t cutwater  whenever  requited,\tthe  other  for\t the
\nworkshop  to  which the stones excavated are  carried.\t The
\ntrial court also concluded that the electricity consumed for
\npumping\t out  water  was not consumed in  the  manufacturing
\nbusiness of the Plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
      18.   In the light of what is stated above, we are  of
\nthe  considered opinion that the energy consumed for pumping
\nout water from a mine<\/p>\n
      Caimot  be  accepted  as\tthe energy  consumed  by  a
\nconsumer  in  any industry’ in the manufacture,\t production,
\nprocessing  or\trepair of goods so as to claim exemption  or
\nreduced\t rate  of  duty by the plaintiff by  virtue  of\t the
\naforenientioned\t  two  notificationss\tdated  2.3.1963\t and
\n1.11.1965.   In\t the  view.  we have taken,  the  appeal  is
\nentitled  to succeed.  Hence it is allowed, the judgment and
\ndecree\tunder  appeal  are  set aside and the  suit  of\t the
\nplaintiff is dismissed.\t Parties to bear their own costs, in
\nthe tacts and circumstances of the case.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Raiasthanstateelectricity … vs Associated Stone Industries & … on 8 May, 2000 Bench: Syed Shah Quadri, Shivaraj V. Patil PETITIONER: RAIASTHANSTATEELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. RESPONDENT: ASSOCIATED STONE INDUSTRIES & ANR. … DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08\/05\/2000 BENCH: Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, Shivaraj V. Patil JUDGMENT: ‘L…..I………T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T..J SHIVARAJV. PATIL. In the light of the […]<\/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-53517","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRaiasthanstateelectricity ... vs Associated Stone Industries & ... on 8 May, 2000 - 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\/raiasthanstateelectricity-vs-associated-stone-industries-on-8-may-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Raiasthanstateelectricity ... vs Associated Stone Industries & ... on 8 May, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raiasthanstateelectricity-vs-associated-stone-industries-on-8-may-2000\" \/>\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=\"2000-05-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-24T09:49:32+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raiasthanstateelectricity-vs-associated-stone-industries-on-8-may-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raiasthanstateelectricity-vs-associated-stone-industries-on-8-may-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Raiasthanstateelectricity … vs Associated Stone Industries & … on 8 May, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-05-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-24T09:49:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raiasthanstateelectricity-vs-associated-stone-industries-on-8-may-2000\"},\"wordCount\":2656,\"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\\\/raiasthanstateelectricity-vs-associated-stone-industries-on-8-may-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raiasthanstateelectricity-vs-associated-stone-industries-on-8-may-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raiasthanstateelectricity-vs-associated-stone-industries-on-8-may-2000\",\"name\":\"Raiasthanstateelectricity ... vs Associated Stone Industries & ... on 8 May, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-05-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-24T09:49:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raiasthanstateelectricity-vs-associated-stone-industries-on-8-may-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raiasthanstateelectricity-vs-associated-stone-industries-on-8-may-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raiasthanstateelectricity-vs-associated-stone-industries-on-8-may-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Raiasthanstateelectricity … vs Associated Stone Industries & … on 8 May, 2000\"}]},{\"@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":"Raiasthanstateelectricity ... vs Associated Stone Industries & ... on 8 May, 2000 - 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\/raiasthanstateelectricity-vs-associated-stone-industries-on-8-may-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Raiasthanstateelectricity ... vs Associated Stone Industries & ... on 8 May, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raiasthanstateelectricity-vs-associated-stone-industries-on-8-may-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-05-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-24T09:49:32+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raiasthanstateelectricity-vs-associated-stone-industries-on-8-may-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raiasthanstateelectricity-vs-associated-stone-industries-on-8-may-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Raiasthanstateelectricity … vs Associated Stone Industries & … on 8 May, 2000","datePublished":"2000-05-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-24T09:49:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raiasthanstateelectricity-vs-associated-stone-industries-on-8-may-2000"},"wordCount":2656,"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\/raiasthanstateelectricity-vs-associated-stone-industries-on-8-may-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raiasthanstateelectricity-vs-associated-stone-industries-on-8-may-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raiasthanstateelectricity-vs-associated-stone-industries-on-8-may-2000","name":"Raiasthanstateelectricity ... vs Associated Stone Industries & ... on 8 May, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-05-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-24T09:49:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raiasthanstateelectricity-vs-associated-stone-industries-on-8-may-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raiasthanstateelectricity-vs-associated-stone-industries-on-8-may-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raiasthanstateelectricity-vs-associated-stone-industries-on-8-may-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Raiasthanstateelectricity … vs Associated Stone Industries & … on 8 May, 2000"}]},{"@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\/53517","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=53517"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53517\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=53517"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=53517"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=53517"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}