{"id":59629,"date":"1975-12-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1975-12-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madras-rubber-factory-ltd-vs-the-union-of-india-ors-on-3-december-1975"},"modified":"2016-03-18T08:55:53","modified_gmt":"2016-03-18T03:25:53","slug":"madras-rubber-factory-ltd-vs-the-union-of-india-ors-on-3-december-1975","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madras-rubber-factory-ltd-vs-the-union-of-india-ors-on-3-december-1975","title":{"rendered":"Madras Rubber Factory Ltd vs The Union Of India &amp; Ors on 3 December, 1975"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Madras Rubber Factory Ltd vs The Union Of India &amp; Ors on 3 December, 1975<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1976 AIR  638, \t\t  1976 SCR  (2) 864<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: N Untwalia<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Untwalia, N.L.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nMADRAS RUBBER FACTORY LTD.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE UNION OF INDIA &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT03\/12\/1975\n\nBENCH:\nUNTWALIA, N.L.\nBENCH:\nUNTWALIA, N.L.\nMATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN\nGOSWAMI, P.K.\n\nCITATION:\n 1976 AIR  638\t\t  1976 SCR  (2) 864\n 1976 SCC  (2) 255\n\n\nACT:\n     Customs  Act-Section  27(1)-Limitation  for  refund  of\nclaims.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     \"V. P. Latex\" imported by the appellants was treated as\nfalling under  item 87\tof the\tIndian Tariff  Act 1934, the\ncustom Authorities  and custom duty was charged, in addition\nto a  countervailing duty  under item  15A  of\tthe  Central\nExcise Tariff,\tin accordance with the Central Salt &amp; Excise\nAct 1944.  The appellants  contending that  V.P. Latex is an\nitem of\t raw-rubber covered  only by  item 39  of the Indian\nTariff Act  1934 preferred  refund-claim under section 27(1)\nof the Customs Act before the Assistant Collector, which was\ndismissed on  the ground  of limitation.  The  appeal  under\nsection 128(1)(b) and the Revision failed.\n     Dismissing the appeals, by special leave the Court.\n^\n     HELD: In  the instant  case, there\t was nothing to show\nthat duty  was paid  under protest,  general or specific and\ntherefore the claim was not within the period of limitation.\nThe view  taken\t by  the  authorities  on  the\tquestion  of\nlimitation was correct. [867-DE]\n     Dunlop India  Ltd., etc.  v. Union of India, [1976] (2)\nS.C.R., P. 98 referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal Nos. 1565-<br \/>\n1569\/73.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Appeals by Special Leave from the orders Nos. 4844-4848<br \/>\nof 1972\t dated 25th  November 1972  of\tthe  Central  Govt.,<br \/>\nMinistry of Finance, Govt. of India.\n<\/p>\n<p>     D. V. Patel and K. R. Nambiyar for the Appellant.<br \/>\n     G. L. Sanghi and Girish Chander for the Respondents.<br \/>\n     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n     UNTWALIA, J.  The appellant company in these appeals by<br \/>\nspecial leave  is a  manufacturer of rubber tyres and tubes.<br \/>\nIt imports  several raw-materials  including  Pyratex  Vinyl<br \/>\nPyridine Latex\tused in\t the manufacture of rubber tyres and<br \/>\ntubes. The  Customs authorities\t of the\t Government of India<br \/>\nhave been  charging custom  duty on  V. P.  Latex under\t the<br \/>\nresiduary item\t87 of  the Indin Tariff Act, 1934 instead of<br \/>\nICT 39-an  item meant  for charging  duty on raw rubber. The<br \/>\ncustom duty  charged under item 87 is much more than the one<br \/>\nchargeable under  item 39.  A countervailing duty under item<br \/>\n15-A of\t the Central  Excise Tariff  in accordance  with the<br \/>\nCentral Salt  and Excise  Act, 1944  is also  charged if the<br \/>\narticle imported  is not  treated  as  raw-rubber.  On\tfive<br \/>\nconsignments of V. P. Latex imported by the appellant in the<br \/>\nyear 1968  custom duty\twas charged  under item\t 87  by\t the<br \/>\nAppraiser pursuant  to his order of assessment. Since he was<br \/>\nan officer  lower in  rank than\t the Assistant\tCollector of<br \/>\nCustoms the  appellant filed  five applications\t before\t the<br \/>\nAssistant Collector under section 27 (1) of the Customs<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">865<\/span><br \/>\nAct, 1962-hereinafter  referred to as the Act, for refund of<br \/>\nthe excess  amount of  duty charged.  In  other\t words,\t the<br \/>\nappellant took\tthe stand  that if  a custom duty would have<br \/>\nbeen charged  on V.  P. Latex  under item 39 then the amount<br \/>\nwould have been less to the extent of Rs. 3,74,879.49 on the<br \/>\nfive consignments  in question.\t It, therefore,\t claimed the<br \/>\nrefund of  the said  amount, the  details of  which  are  as<br \/>\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n<p>___________________________________________________________<br \/>\nBill No. and date\t  Date of\tDelay\t      Amount<br \/>\n\t\t\t claim for<br \/>\n\t\t\t  refund<br \/>\n____________________________________________________________\n<\/p>\n<p>1. D. NO. 1644 dated\t 8-4-69\t       31\/4 Months 50,305.53<br \/>\n     24-6-1968\n<\/p>\n<p>2. D. No. 1024 dated\t 27-6-69       3 Months\t   60,339.97<br \/>\n     18-9-1968\n<\/p>\n<p>3. D. No. 1132 dated\t  8-4-69       2 Months\t 1,61,615.10<br \/>\n     21-8-1968\n<\/p>\n<p>4. D. No. 1931 dated\t 10-4-69       1 Months\t   50,512.71<br \/>\n     23-7-1968\n<\/p>\n<p>5. D. No. 68 dated\t  10-4-69\t4 Months   52,106.18<br \/>\n     1-6-1968\t\t\t\t\t____________<br \/>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t 3,74,879.49<br \/>\n____________________________________________________________<br \/>\n     Under section  27(1) of  the Act  the  application\t for<br \/>\nrefund had  to be  made before the expiry of six months from<br \/>\nthe date  of payment  of duty, the date of payment being the<br \/>\ndate of\t the bill  in each  case. Thus\tthere  was  a  delay<br \/>\nvarying between 1 month to 4 months in the filing of each of<br \/>\nthe applications  for refund.  The  Assistant  Collector  of<br \/>\nCustoms dismissed  the applications  on the ground that they<br \/>\nwere filed  out\t of  time.  The\t appeals  to  the  Appellate<br \/>\nCollector of  Customs filed  under section 128(1) (b) of the<br \/>\nAct failed. The appellant took the matter in revision to the<br \/>\nCentral Government  under section  131. The  revisions\twere<br \/>\ndismissed by  the Central  Government by  their order  dated<br \/>\nNovember 29, 1972 stating therein:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t  &#8220;The Govt.  of India have carefully considered the<br \/>\n     reasons advanced  by the  petitioners for their failure<br \/>\n     to\t prefer\t the  claims  for  refund  within  the\ttime<br \/>\n     stipulated under  section 27  of the Customs Act, 1962,<br \/>\n     but  see\tno  justification   to\tinterfere  with\t the<br \/>\n     appellate\torders.\t  The  revision\t  applications\tare,<br \/>\n     therefore, rejected.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>These appeals were filed from the said order after obtaining<br \/>\nspecial leave of this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Mr. D.  V. Patel  learned\tcounsel\t for  the  appellant<br \/>\nsubmitted that\tin view of the recent decision of this Court<br \/>\nin Dunlop  India Ltd.  etc. v.\tUnion of  India &amp; Ors. V. P.<br \/>\nLatex was  chargeable  to  duty\t under\titem  39  only.\t The<br \/>\napplications filed by the appellant for refund of the excess<br \/>\namount have  erroneously been  dismissed on  the  ground  of<br \/>\nhaving been  filed out\tof time.  Counsel submitted that the<br \/>\nappellant used\tto  pay\t custom\t duty  not  as\tand  when  a<br \/>\nparticular consignment\twas received  but by making deposits<br \/>\nin a running account. Hence no parti-\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">866<\/span><\/p>\n<p>cular date  of payment\tcould be  assigned in  respect of  a<br \/>\nparticular consignment.\t He further  submitted that the duty<br \/>\nwas paid  under protest\t and hence under the proviso to sub-<br \/>\nsection (1)  of section 27, the limitation of six months did<br \/>\nnot apply.  Mr.\t G.  L.\t Sanghi,  learned  counsel  for\t the<br \/>\nrespondents contended  that no\tcase of\t running account had<br \/>\nbeen made  before the  authorities below  and that there was<br \/>\nnothing to show that the duty had been paid under protest in<br \/>\nrelation to any of of the five consignments.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It is  no doubt  true that\t in view  of the decision of<br \/>\nthis Court mentioned above the custom duty was chargeable on<br \/>\nimport of  V. P.  Latex under item 39. The authorities below<br \/>\ndo not\tseem to\t have decided the refund applications of the<br \/>\nappellant on  merits. They have dismissed them merely on the<br \/>\nground of  limitation. The  only question,  therefore, which<br \/>\nfalls for  determination by  us is  whether the applications<br \/>\nfor refund were filed out of time.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Section 27 reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t  &#8220;27. (1)  Any person\tclaiming refund of any duty,<br \/>\n     paid by him in pursuance of an order of assessment made<br \/>\n     by\t an  officer  of  customs  lower  in  rank  than  an<br \/>\n     Assistant Collector  of Customs may make an application<br \/>\n     for refund\t of such  duty to the Assistant Collector of<br \/>\n     Customs before  the expiry\t of six months from the date<br \/>\n     of payment of duty:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t  Provided that\t the limitation\t of six months shall<br \/>\n     not apply where any duty has been paid under protest.<br \/>\n\t  Explanation-Where any\t duty is  paid provisionally<br \/>\n     under section  18, the  period of\tsix months  shall be<br \/>\n     computed from  the date of adjustment of duty after the<br \/>\n     final assessment thereof.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t  (2) If  on receipt  of any  such  application\t the<br \/>\n     Assistant Collector,  of Customs  is satisfied that the<br \/>\n     whole or  any part\t of the\t duty paid  by the applicant<br \/>\n     should be\trefunded  to  him,  he\tmay  make  an  order<br \/>\n     accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t  (3) Where,  as a  result of  any order  passed  in<br \/>\n     appeal or\trevision under\tthis Act, refund of any duty<br \/>\n     becomes due  to any  person,  the\tproper\tofficer\t may<br \/>\n     refund the\t amount to such person without his having to<br \/>\n     make any claim in that behalf.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t  (4) Save  as provided\t in section 26, no claim for<br \/>\n     refund of\tany duty  shall\t be  entertained  except  in<br \/>\n     accordance with the provisions section.<br \/>\nThe  appellant&#8217;s  case\tobviously  and\tadmittedly  was\t not<br \/>\ncovered by  sub-section (3)  as it  had not  challenged\t the<br \/>\norder of  assessment in any appeal or revision. Nor was it a<br \/>\ncase where any duty was paid provisionally under section 18.<br \/>\nThe appellant&#8217;s\t case was  governed by\tsub-section  (1)  of<br \/>\nsection 27.  No. case  of any  running account was set up by<br \/>\nthe appellant  nor was there anything in the records of this<br \/>\ncase to\t substantiate it. Custom duty was paid in respect of<br \/>\neach of\t the five consignments on the date of its respective<br \/>\nbill. Ultimately this<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">867<\/span><br \/>\nposition could\tnot be\tdisputed before\t us. The  appellant,<br \/>\nhowever, contended  that the  duty  was\t paid  always  under<br \/>\ngeneral protest\t which\tcovered\t the  cases  of\t these\tfive<br \/>\nconsignments also.  Hence under\t the proviso  to sub-section<br \/>\n(1) the limitation of six months does not apply.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Our attention  was drawn  to  several  letters  in\t the<br \/>\nrecords of the appeals before us to substantiate the plea of<br \/>\npayment under protest, but none of them helps the appellant.<br \/>\nWe may\trefer to  only two  of them.  The appellant  wrote a<br \/>\nletter on  February 8,\t1968 to\t the Assistant\tCollector of<br \/>\nCustoms, Madras\t making out  a case therein that V. P. Latex<br \/>\nwas assessable\tto duty\t under item  39-ICT. Finally in this<br \/>\nletter a  protest was  made for the assessment of duty under<br \/>\nitem 87\t on V. P. Latex imported by the company in the past.<br \/>\nThis letter  was written  before the  five  consignments  in<br \/>\nquestion were  imported and  duty paid thereon. The protest,<br \/>\ntherefore, embodied  in the  letter  aforesaid\twas  not  in<br \/>\nrespect of  any of  these consignments.\t A letter written on<br \/>\nJuly 15,  1968 was  a letter written at a point of time when<br \/>\ntwo out\t of the\t five consignments  had been  imported;\t but<br \/>\nthree were  imported after the writing of this letter by the<br \/>\nappellant to  the Asstt.  Collector of Customs, Madras. This<br \/>\nletter relates\tto a  consignment of 59 drums of V. P. Latex<br \/>\nwhich  could   not  be\t connected  with  any  of  the\tfive<br \/>\nconsignments in question. Thus there is nothing to show that<br \/>\nduty on them was paid under protest, general or specific.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It was lastly contended on behalf of the appellant that<br \/>\nin view\t of the\t recent decision  of this  Court, the  Govt.<br \/>\nshould be  directed to\trefund\tthe  excess  amount  of\t Rs.<br \/>\n3,74,879.49 charged  on the five consignments. We are unable<br \/>\nto do  so because  the present\tappeals arising\t out of\t the<br \/>\norders made  by the Government of India in proceedings under<br \/>\nsection 27(1) of the Act have got to fail on the ground that<br \/>\nthe view  taken by  the authorities below on the question of<br \/>\nlimitation could not be shown the incorrect.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In the result the appeals fail and are dismissed. There<br \/>\nwill be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<pre>S.R.\t\t\t\t\t  Appeals dismissed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">868<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Madras Rubber Factory Ltd vs The Union Of India &amp; Ors on 3 December, 1975 Equivalent citations: 1976 AIR 638, 1976 SCR (2) 864 Author: N Untwalia Bench: Untwalia, N.L. PETITIONER: MADRAS RUBBER FACTORY LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: THE UNION OF INDIA &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT03\/12\/1975 BENCH: UNTWALIA, N.L. BENCH: UNTWALIA, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-59629","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Madras Rubber Factory Ltd vs The Union Of India &amp; Ors on 3 December, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madras-rubber-factory-ltd-vs-the-union-of-india-ors-on-3-december-1975\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Madras Rubber Factory Ltd vs The Union Of India &amp; Ors on 3 December, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madras-rubber-factory-ltd-vs-the-union-of-india-ors-on-3-december-1975\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1975-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-18T03:25:53+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madras-rubber-factory-ltd-vs-the-union-of-india-ors-on-3-december-1975#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madras-rubber-factory-ltd-vs-the-union-of-india-ors-on-3-december-1975\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Madras Rubber Factory Ltd vs The Union Of India &amp; Ors on 3 December, 1975\",\"datePublished\":\"1975-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-18T03:25:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madras-rubber-factory-ltd-vs-the-union-of-india-ors-on-3-december-1975\"},\"wordCount\":1519,\"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\\\/madras-rubber-factory-ltd-vs-the-union-of-india-ors-on-3-december-1975#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madras-rubber-factory-ltd-vs-the-union-of-india-ors-on-3-december-1975\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madras-rubber-factory-ltd-vs-the-union-of-india-ors-on-3-december-1975\",\"name\":\"Madras Rubber Factory Ltd vs The Union Of India &amp; Ors on 3 December, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1975-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-18T03:25:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madras-rubber-factory-ltd-vs-the-union-of-india-ors-on-3-december-1975#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madras-rubber-factory-ltd-vs-the-union-of-india-ors-on-3-december-1975\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madras-rubber-factory-ltd-vs-the-union-of-india-ors-on-3-december-1975#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Madras Rubber Factory Ltd vs The Union Of India &amp; Ors on 3 December, 1975\"}]},{\"@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":"Madras Rubber Factory Ltd vs The Union Of India &amp; Ors on 3 December, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madras-rubber-factory-ltd-vs-the-union-of-india-ors-on-3-december-1975","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Madras Rubber Factory Ltd vs The Union Of India &amp; Ors on 3 December, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madras-rubber-factory-ltd-vs-the-union-of-india-ors-on-3-december-1975","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1975-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-18T03:25:53+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madras-rubber-factory-ltd-vs-the-union-of-india-ors-on-3-december-1975#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madras-rubber-factory-ltd-vs-the-union-of-india-ors-on-3-december-1975"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Madras Rubber Factory Ltd vs The Union Of India &amp; Ors on 3 December, 1975","datePublished":"1975-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-18T03:25:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madras-rubber-factory-ltd-vs-the-union-of-india-ors-on-3-december-1975"},"wordCount":1519,"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\/madras-rubber-factory-ltd-vs-the-union-of-india-ors-on-3-december-1975#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madras-rubber-factory-ltd-vs-the-union-of-india-ors-on-3-december-1975","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madras-rubber-factory-ltd-vs-the-union-of-india-ors-on-3-december-1975","name":"Madras Rubber Factory Ltd vs The Union Of India &amp; Ors on 3 December, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1975-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-18T03:25:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madras-rubber-factory-ltd-vs-the-union-of-india-ors-on-3-december-1975#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madras-rubber-factory-ltd-vs-the-union-of-india-ors-on-3-december-1975"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madras-rubber-factory-ltd-vs-the-union-of-india-ors-on-3-december-1975#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Madras Rubber Factory Ltd vs The Union Of India &amp; Ors on 3 December, 1975"}]},{"@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\/59629","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=59629"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59629\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=59629"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=59629"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=59629"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}