{"id":58719,"date":"1972-03-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1972-03-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadhar-narsingras-agarwal-vs-p-s-thrivikraman-anr-on-16-march-1972"},"modified":"2017-12-25T10:33:46","modified_gmt":"2017-12-25T05:03:46","slug":"gangadhar-narsingras-agarwal-vs-p-s-thrivikraman-anr-on-16-march-1972","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadhar-narsingras-agarwal-vs-p-s-thrivikraman-anr-on-16-march-1972","title":{"rendered":"Gangadhar Narsingras Agarwal vs P. S. Thrivikraman & Anr on 16 March, 1972"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Gangadhar Narsingras Agarwal vs P. S. Thrivikraman & Anr on 16 March, 1972<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1973 AIR 350, \t\t 1972 SCR (3) 874<\/div>\n
Author: A Ray<\/div>\n
Bench: Sikri, S.M. (Cj), Grover, A.N., Ray, A.N., Palekar, D.G., Beg, M. Hameedullah<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nGANGADHAR NARSINGRAS AGARWAL\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nP. S. THRIVIKRAMAN & ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT16\/03\/1972\n\nBENCH:\nRAY, A.N.\nBENCH:\nRAY, A.N.\nSIKRI, S.M. (CJ)\nGROVER, A.N.\nPALEKAR, D.G.\nBEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH\n\nCITATION:\n 1973 AIR  350\t\t  1972 SCR  (3) 874\n 1972 SCC  (3) 475\n\n\nACT:\nTariff\tAct  1934--S.  44--Whether notification under  S.  44  is\napplicable to the fact find circumstances of the case.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  appellant\ton  26th  July\t1966  filed,  shipping\tbill   in\ntriplicate  before  the\t Joint Chief Controller\t of  Imports  and\nExports\t for the porpose of obtaining export licences in  respect\nof  10,160.  metric tonnes of iron ore.\t On 28 July  1966  export\nlicence was granted to the appellant.  On 30 July 1966 the agents\nof  the\t vessel made an application to the Asstt.   Collector  of\nCustoms,  for  the grant of entry outward to the said  vessel  to\nload iron ore, which was granted- on the same day with permission\nto  ship  cargo\t on  board the said vessel.   On  1  August,  the\nappellant presented to the Customs authority under section 50  of\nthe  Customs  Act, 1962., shipping bills in  triplicate\t and  the\nCustoms authority made several endorsements on the shipping  bill\non  the same day.  On, the2 August 1966, further  endorsements-on\nthe  shipping bill was made by the Customs  authority  indicating\nthat the shipment was inspected, checked and payment was made  in\nfull.\nOn  2 August 1966, a notification was issued by the  Ministry  of\nCommerce  imposing a duty at the rate of Rs. 10 per metric  tonne\non lumpy iron ore. and on 28 January 1967, the Customs\tauthority\nissued\ta notice to the appellant notifying that  goods\t actually\nshipped\t by  the appellant were subject to export  duty\t and  the\nappellant  was\tliable\tto pay Rs. 98044 and  the  appellant  was\ncalled\tupon  to show cause as to why the amount  should  not  be\nrecovered from him.\nThe  appellant contended that the shipping bill was presented  to\nthe.,  Customs\tauthority and the entry outward to-the\tship  was\ngiven  prior  to 2 August, 1966 when the notification  came  into\nforce and so, the notification under S. 4A of the Tariff Act 1934\nwas  not applicable to the consignment in question.  The  Customs\nauthorities held that the appellant was liable to pay the  export\nduty.\tThe  appellant impeached the order  before  the\t Judicial\nCommissioner   Who   also  upheld  the\torder  of   the\t  Customs\nauthorities.\nThe only question which arose for decision before this Court  was\nwhether\t the  shipment and export of iron ore  by  the\tappellant\nbecame liable to the said duty introduced on 2 August 1966.   The\nappellant  contended  that the shipping bill was presented  on\t1\nAugust,\t 1966 and the order of the Customs authorities for  entry\noutwards  to the vessel was also given on 1 August 1966\t and  so,\nthe export in the present case was not liable to payment of  duty\nimposed\t on  2\tAugust 1966.   The  Customs  authorities  however\ncontended that the vessel arrived at Marmagoa barhour on 3 August\n1966  and  the vessel commenced loading on 3  August,  1966,  and\ntherefore, under s. 16(i) of the Customs Act 1962, the shipping\n875\nbill  which  had  been presented before the  date  of  entry\noutwards  \"shall be, deemed to be presented at the  earliest\non 3 August 1966 when the vessel in question arrived.\nAllowing the appeal,\nHELD  : In the present case, the Customs  authorities  acted\nwithout\t jurisdiction  in  imposing duty on  the  export  by\nholding\t that the date of entry outwards of the\t vessel\t was\nthe  date when the vessel, arrived.  Section 38 of  the\t Sea\nCustoms\t Act  1878 was the Counter-part of Sec.\t 16  of\t the\nCustoms Act, 1962.  Section 38 had two provisos.  Under\t the\nfirst  proviso\tto  that  old  section\twhere  shipment\t was\npermitted  without a shipping bill, the rate of duty was  to\nbe the rate in force at the time when the shipment of  goods\ncommenced.  Under the second proviso, the shipping bill must\nbe  deemed to have been delivered on the date on which\tthat\nvessel\tarrived or entry outwards was given which  ever\t was\nlater.\t Under\tthe provisos of S. 38 of the  old  Act,\t the\nCustoms authorities had power to apply the rate in force  on\nthe  date of the arrival of the vessel.\t Under S. 16 of\t the\n1962 Act, it is not permissible to do so.  The statute\tdoes\nnot contain such a provision.  S. 16 of the 1962 Act  speaks\nof the fictional date only in relation to the order of\tdate\nof entry outwards of the vessel.  In, the present case,\t the\norder  of entry outwards of the vessel was made prior  to  2\nAugust,\t 1966.\t Therefore, the Customs\t authorities.  acted\nwithout jurisdiction in imposing the duty in question.\t1879\nG-880 C]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2137 of
\n1968.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tfrom the judgment and order dated April 5,  1968  of
\nthe  Judicial Commissioner’s Court , G a, Daman and  Diu  in
\nWrit Petition No. 9 of’1967.\n<\/p>\n
Soli  Sorabji,\tP.  C.\tBhartari, B.  D.  Bharucha,  J.\t  B.
\nDadachanj’i and Ravinder Narain, for the appellant.
\nJagadish Swarup,  Solicitor-General of India, Govind Das and
\nB.   D. Sharma, for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nRaj, J. This is an appeal by certificate from the,  judgment
\ndated\t5  April,  1968\t of  the  Court\t of   the   Judicial
\nCommissioner, Goa, Daman and Diu at Panaji.
\nThe  appellant\tchallenged the levy of export  duty  of\t Rs.
\n98044  on 9804-40 metric tonnes of iron ore shipped on\tS.S.
\n‘Ardenode’  on\t3  August, 1966 at the rate of\tRs.  10\t per
\nmetric tonne.\n<\/p>\n
The  appellant\ton  26 July, 1966  filed  shipping  bill  in
\ntriplicate before the Joint Chief Controller of Imports\t and
\nExports\t Panaji,  Goa for the purpose  of  obtaining  export
\nlicence in respect of 10,160 metric tonnes of iron ore.\t  On
\n28  July, 1966 export licence was granted to the  appellant.
\nOn 30 July, 1966 M\/s.\n<\/p>\n
971<\/span><\/p>\n
appeal to voters that voting for Congress would amount to  a
\nsin.. Reading the evidence in print one gets the  impression
\nthat each witness came prepared to play the part assigned to
\nhim.\n<\/p>\n
Exhibit\t R-1\/8\tdated  26 August, 1966 is  a  notice  for  a
\nmeeting\t of the Congress Committee at Singoli.\t Exhibit  R-
\n1\/50  dated 26 August, 1966 is the draft resolution of\tthat
\ncommittee  meeting.,  It  is  written  by  the\t respondent.
\nExhibit R-1\/5 dated 26 August, 1966 contains the minutes  of
\nthe meeting at Singoli.\t Exhibit R-1\/6 contains the  minutes
\nof  the\t meeting of the Congress committee at Singoli  on  2
\nOctober, 1966.\tThese documents show that Paras Ram, Bhanwar
\nLai and Ram Chandra Sharma were connected with the  Congress
\nOrganisation.\tThe respondent was also associated with\t the
\nCongress  committee.   The  minutes showed  that  Ratan\t Lai
\nPetlia\twas  a member of the  committee.   The\trespondent’s
\nwitnesses  stated that Ratan Lai Petlia was a worker of\t the
\nJan  Sangh.   The reason for saying so was  that  Ratan\t Lai
\nPetlia was cited by the appellant as a witness.\t The records
\nshow that Ratan Lai Petlia was associated with the  Congress
\nOrganisation.  Patan Lai Petlia R. 1 W. 10 said that he\t was
\nassociated  with the Congress Organisation at  Singoli.\t  He
\ndenied\tthat  Swamiji  of Bhanpura made any  appeal  to\t the
\nvoters\tthat voting for Congress would amount to the sin  of
\nkilling\t cow.  The respondent’s witnesses wanted to  condemn
\nRatan  Lai  Petlia  by saying that  Ratan  Lai\tPetlia\tmade
\narrangements for Jan Sangh.  That is another illustration of
\nthe partisan character of the respondent’s witnesses.
\nNathu Lal P.W. 19 was believed by the High Court.  It  tran-
\nspired\tin the evidence that Nathu Lai became liable to\t pay
\nRs. 372.06 to Krishi Sewa Sehkari Samiti and also to account
\nfor  73\t bags  of super-phosphate.   Nathu  Lai\t signed\t the
\ndocument R-1\/15.  At the time of giving evidence he said  it
\nwas  Chhote  Lai   who promised to pay and account  for\t the
\nphosphate.  He did not rest content with that position.\t  He
\nsaid  that  he signed the document as a\t member.   The\tHigh
\nCourt  did  not consider these justified criticisms  of\t the
\nevidence adduced on behalf of th respondent,
\nManna Lai P.W. 20 gave evidence not only about the speech of
\nSwamiji of Bhanpura at Singoli on 15 February, 1967 but also
\nof  the\t speech of the appellant at Singoli on\t29  January,
\n1967.  As to the appellant’s speech Manna Lai said that\t the
\nappellant talked of ‘cow killing Congress 10 times’ and that
\nis how he remembered the speech.  He narrated the speech  of
\nthe  appellant\tlike other witnesses in the  same  language.
\nManna  Lai said that Swamiji of Bhanpura spoke about  voting
\nfor dharma and cow.  Manna Lal\t came to court from  Singoli
\nalong with Ram Chandra Sharma.\n<\/p>\n
The  overwhelming  impression produced by the  witnesses  on
\nbehalf\tof the respondent is that they were all prepared  on
\nthe same
\n876<\/span>
\nHiralal\t &  Co.\t agents of the vessel S. S.  ‘Ardenode’\t made  an
\napplication  to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Marmagoa  for
\nthe grant of entry outwards to the said vessel to load iron  ore.
\nOn  30\tJuly, 1966 the Assistant Collector of  Customs,\t Marmagoa
\nmade  an  order granting entry outwards to the said  vessel  S.S.
\nArdenode and also gave permission to ship cargo on board the said
\nvessel.\n<\/p>\n
On  1  August,\t1966  the  appellant  presented\t to  the  Customs
\nauthorities  under section 50 of the Customs Act, 1962,\t (herein-
\nafter  called  the Act), shipping bills in triplicate,\tdated  26
\nJuly,  1966.  The appellant in accordance with the provisions  of
\nsection 50 of the Act at the foot of the shipping bill subscribed
\nto a declaration as to the truth of the contents of the\t shipping
\nbills.\t On  1 August, 1966 the Customs\t authorities  made  these
\nentries\t on  the shipping- bill ‘rotation No. 730 Sd\/  1  August,
\n1966  ‘Let export after examination if necessary Sd\/-  1  August,
\n1966’ and.  ‘E.F.No. 3\/1\/8\/1966’.  The abbreviation ‘E.F.’  means
\nExport\tFee.   On  2 August 1966  the  Customs\tauthorities  made
\nfurther\t endorsements on the shipping bill.   These  endorsements
\nwere  PI as usual and checked des’; ‘Inspected the  lot-2-barges-
\ncheclkeci des’; and Pd in full’.\n<\/p>\n
On  2  August,\t1966  there was a  notification\t issued,  by  the
\nMinistry  of Commerce in exercise of powers conferred by  section
\n4-A  of the Indian Tariff Act, 1934 amending the second\t schedule
\nto  the\t Tariff\t Act.  The relevant item  in  the  said\t schedule
\nintroduced by way amendment is 28 and the name of the article  is
\nlumpy iron ore and the rate of duty is Rs. 10 per tonne.
\nThe S.S. Ardenode arrived at Marmagoa at 23.20 hours on 2 August,
\n1966.\tThe  vessel  arrived at Marmagoa  Inner\t Harbour  on  (3)
\nAugust,\t 1966 at 07.50 hour-,.\tThe vessel commenced loading  the
\ncargo on 3 August, 1966.\n<\/p>\n
The  Customs authorities on 28 January, 1967 issued a  notice  to
\nthe  appellant notifying that the goods actually shipped  by  the
\nappellant  were subject to export duty at the rate of Rs. 10  Per
\nmetric tonne and the custom duty amounting to Rs. 98044 which was
\nnot  levied  in\t respect  of the consignment  was  due\tfrom  the
\nappellant  and the appellant was called upon in\t accordance  with
\nsection 28 of the Act as to why the amount should not be recover-
\ned from the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
The  appellant contended before the Customs authorities that  the
\nshipping  bill was presented to the Customs authorities\t and  the
\nentry  outwards\t to the ship S.S. Ardenode was given prior  to\t2
\nAugust, 1966 when no duty was payable in respect of the export of
\nthe goods in question.\tThe appellant, therefore, contended
\n877<\/span>
\nthe notification under section 4-A of the Tariff Art 1934 was not
\napplicable to the consignment and no duty was payable in  respect
\nof  the export of the having regard to the provisions of  section
\n16 of the Customs Act.\tIt may also be stated that the\tappellant
\nimpeached the vires of the notification.\n<\/p>\n
The Customs authorities on 19 April, 1967 held that by virtue  of
\nthe  provisions\t of section 16(1) of the Act  the  shipping  bill
\nshall  be  deemed  to have been presented at the  earliest  on\t3
\nAugust,\t 1966  when the vessel in question arrived.   The  export
\nduty  was  levied with effect from 2 August, 1966.   The  Customs
\nauthorities  therefore held that the appellant was liable to  pay
\nthe export duty.\n<\/p>\n
The  appellant\timpeached the order of\tthe  Customs  authorities
\nunder  Article\t226  of\t the Constitution in  the  Court  of  the
\nJudicial Commissioner, Goa, Daman and Diu, Panaji.  The\t Judicial
\nCommissioner upheld the order of the Customs authorities.
\nThe entire controversy in the present appeal is whether\t shipment
\nand export of iron ore by the appellant became liable to the said
\nduty introduced on 2 August, 1966.\n<\/p>\n
The relevant provisions for the purpose of the present appeal are
\nto be found in section 16 which deals with date for determination
\nof rate of duty and tariff valuation of export goods and sections
\n39,  50 and 51 which deal with loading of export goods on  vessel
\nand clearance of goods for exportation.\n<\/p>\n
Section 16 is as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
\t       “16(1).\t  The  rate  of\t duty\tand   tariff
\n\t      valuation,  if any, applicable to\t any  export
\n\t      goods,  shall  be the rate  and  valuation  in
\n\t      force-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)  in the case of goods entered\t for  export
\n\t      under  section  50,  on the date\ton  which  a
\n\t      shipping\tbill or a bill of export in  respect
\n\t      of such goods is presented under that section;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   in\tthe case of any other goods, on\t the
\n\t      date of payment of duty;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Provided\tthat if the shipping bill  has\tbeen
\n\t      presented before the date of entry outwards of
\n\t      the  vessel  by  which the  goods\t are  to  be
\n\t      exported, the shipping bill shall be deemed to
\n\t      have been presented on the date of such  entry
\n\t      outwords.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (2)   The provisions of this section shall not
\n\t      apply to baggage and goods exported by post.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      L1061supCI\/27
\n878<\/span>
\nThe appellant contended that the shipping bill was presented
\non  1 August, 1966 and the order of the Customs\t authorities
\nfor entry outwards to the vessel was also given on 1 August,
\n1966, and, therefore, the export in the present case was not
\nliable\tto payment of duty imposed on 2 August,\t 1966.\t The
\nCustoms\t authorities  on the other hand contended  that\t the
\nvessel arrived at Marmagoa on 3 August, 1966 and the  vessel
\ncommenced  loading  on 3 August, 1966, and,  therefore,\t the
\nshipping  bill which had been presented before the  date  of
\nentry  outwards\t ‘shall\t be deemed to be  presented  at\t the
\nearliest  on  3\t August, 1966 when the\tvessel\tin  question
\narrived’.\n<\/p>\n
The  shipping  bill under the Customs Act means\t a  shipping
\nbill referred to in section 50 of the Act.  Section 50 is as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “50(1).  The exporter of any goods shall\tmake
\n\t      entry  thereof  by presenting  to\t the  proper
\n\t      officer in the case of goods to be exported in
\n\t      a vessel or aircraft, a shipping bill, and  in
\n\t      the  case of goods to be exported by  land,  a
\n\t      bill of export in the prescribed form.
\n\t      (2)   The\t  exporter  of\tany   goods,   while
\n\t      presenting a shipping bill or bill of  export,
\n\t      shall  at the foot thereof make and  subscribe
\n\t      to  a  declaration  as to\t the  truth  of\t its
\n\t      contents”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In  the\t present case, it is common case that  the  shipping
\nbill  was presented to the Customs authorities on 1  August,
\n1966  and the Customs authorities made several\tendorsements
\non  the shipping bill on the same day.\t These\tendorsements
\npermitted  export  after  examination,\tif  necessary.\t The
\nfurther endorsements on the shipping bill on 2 August,\t1966
\nindicated  that\t the  shipment was  inspected,\tchecked\t and
\npayment in full was made.\n<\/p>\n
\t      Section 51 of the Act is as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Where  the proper officer is  satisfied\tthat
\n\t      any   goods   entered  for  export   are\t not
\n\t      prohibited goods and the exporter has paid the
\n\t      duty, if any, assessed thereon and any charges
\n\t      payable under this Act in respect of the same,
\n\t      the   proper   officer  may  make\t  an   order
\n\t      permitting clearance and loading of goods\t for
\n\t      exportation”.\n<\/p>\n
In   the   present  case,  the\tCustoms\t  authorities\tmade
\nendorsement   on  the  shipping\t bill  on  1  August,\t1966
\npermitting  export  after examination,\tif  necessary.\t The
\nshipping  bill described the goods as ‘free goods’.   Export
\nlicence was also granted on that shipping bill.\t Sections 50
\nand  51 of the Act deal with entry of goods for\t exportation
\nand clearance of goods for exportation.\t The word
\n880<\/span>
\nwhere  the shipping bill was in anticipation of the  arrival
\nof  any\t vessel\t of  before an order  Was  given  for  entry
\noutwards  of the vessel the shipping bill must be deemed  to
\nhave been delivered on the date on which that vessel arrived
\nor entry outwards was given whichever was later.  Under\t the
\nprovisions  of\tsection\t 38  of the  1878  Act\tthe  Customs
\nauthorities had power to apply the rate in force on the date
\nof the arrival of the vessel.  Under section 16 of the\t1962
\nAct  it is not permissible to do so.  The statute  does\t not
\ncontain such a provision.  Section 16 of the 1962 Act speaks
\nof the fictional date only in relation to the order of\tdate
\nof  entry outwards of the vessel.  In the present case,\t the
\norder  of entry outwards of the vessel was made prior  to  2
\nAugust,\t 1966.\tTherefore, the Customs authorities,  in\t the
\nimpugned  order acted without jurisdiction in imposing\tduty
\non the export by holding that the date of entry outwards  of
\nthe vessel was the date “when the vessel arrived”.
\nFor  the foregoing reasons the appellant is entitled  to  an
\norder cancelling the notice dated 28 January, 1967 by  which
\nthe Customs authorities demand duty from the appellant.\t The
\norder of the Judicial Commissioner is set aside.  There will
\nbe  a writ setting aside the notice dated 28  January,\t1967
\nand  an\t order for bearing the respondents from\t taking\t any
\nsteps  or  proceedings\tpursuant  to  the  notice  dated  28
\nJanuary,  1967.\t  There will also be an order  quashing\t the
\norder of the Assistant Collector of Customs dated 19  April,
\n1967 which gave effect to the notice and held the  appellant
\nliable to pay the export duty.\tThe appeal Is allowed.
\nIn  the facts and circumstances of the case each party\twill
\npay and bear their owm costs.\n<\/p>\n
S.C.\t\t\t\t  Appeal allowed.\n881<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Gangadhar Narsingras Agarwal vs P. S. Thrivikraman & Anr on 16 March, 1972 Equivalent citations: 1973 AIR 350, 1972 SCR (3) 874 Author: A Ray Bench: Sikri, S.M. (Cj), Grover, A.N., Ray, A.N., Palekar, D.G., Beg, M. Hameedullah PETITIONER: GANGADHAR NARSINGRAS AGARWAL Vs. RESPONDENT: P. S. THRIVIKRAMAN & ANR. DATE OF […]<\/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-58719","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nGangadhar Narsingras Agarwal vs P. S. Thrivikraman & Anr on 16 March, 1972 - 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\/gangadhar-narsingras-agarwal-vs-p-s-thrivikraman-anr-on-16-march-1972\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gangadhar Narsingras Agarwal vs P. S. Thrivikraman & Anr on 16 March, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadhar-narsingras-agarwal-vs-p-s-thrivikraman-anr-on-16-march-1972\" \/>\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=\"1972-03-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-25T05:03:46+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gangadhar-narsingras-agarwal-vs-p-s-thrivikraman-anr-on-16-march-1972#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gangadhar-narsingras-agarwal-vs-p-s-thrivikraman-anr-on-16-march-1972\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gangadhar Narsingras Agarwal vs P. S. Thrivikraman & Anr on 16 March, 1972\",\"datePublished\":\"1972-03-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-25T05:03:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gangadhar-narsingras-agarwal-vs-p-s-thrivikraman-anr-on-16-march-1972\"},\"wordCount\":2168,\"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\\\/gangadhar-narsingras-agarwal-vs-p-s-thrivikraman-anr-on-16-march-1972#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gangadhar-narsingras-agarwal-vs-p-s-thrivikraman-anr-on-16-march-1972\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gangadhar-narsingras-agarwal-vs-p-s-thrivikraman-anr-on-16-march-1972\",\"name\":\"Gangadhar Narsingras Agarwal vs P. S. Thrivikraman & Anr on 16 March, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1972-03-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-25T05:03:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gangadhar-narsingras-agarwal-vs-p-s-thrivikraman-anr-on-16-march-1972#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gangadhar-narsingras-agarwal-vs-p-s-thrivikraman-anr-on-16-march-1972\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gangadhar-narsingras-agarwal-vs-p-s-thrivikraman-anr-on-16-march-1972#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gangadhar Narsingras Agarwal vs P. S. Thrivikraman & Anr on 16 March, 1972\"}]},{\"@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":"Gangadhar Narsingras Agarwal vs P. S. Thrivikraman & Anr on 16 March, 1972 - 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\/gangadhar-narsingras-agarwal-vs-p-s-thrivikraman-anr-on-16-march-1972","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gangadhar Narsingras Agarwal vs P. S. Thrivikraman & Anr on 16 March, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadhar-narsingras-agarwal-vs-p-s-thrivikraman-anr-on-16-march-1972","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1972-03-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-25T05:03:46+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadhar-narsingras-agarwal-vs-p-s-thrivikraman-anr-on-16-march-1972#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadhar-narsingras-agarwal-vs-p-s-thrivikraman-anr-on-16-march-1972"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gangadhar Narsingras Agarwal vs P. S. Thrivikraman & Anr on 16 March, 1972","datePublished":"1972-03-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-25T05:03:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadhar-narsingras-agarwal-vs-p-s-thrivikraman-anr-on-16-march-1972"},"wordCount":2168,"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\/gangadhar-narsingras-agarwal-vs-p-s-thrivikraman-anr-on-16-march-1972#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadhar-narsingras-agarwal-vs-p-s-thrivikraman-anr-on-16-march-1972","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadhar-narsingras-agarwal-vs-p-s-thrivikraman-anr-on-16-march-1972","name":"Gangadhar Narsingras Agarwal vs P. S. Thrivikraman & Anr on 16 March, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1972-03-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-25T05:03:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadhar-narsingras-agarwal-vs-p-s-thrivikraman-anr-on-16-march-1972#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadhar-narsingras-agarwal-vs-p-s-thrivikraman-anr-on-16-march-1972"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadhar-narsingras-agarwal-vs-p-s-thrivikraman-anr-on-16-march-1972#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gangadhar Narsingras Agarwal vs P. S. Thrivikraman & Anr on 16 March, 1972"}]},{"@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\/58719","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=58719"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58719\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=58719"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=58719"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=58719"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}