{"id":60582,"date":"2009-08-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhakar-s-pangol-ig-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-7-august-2009"},"modified":"2019-03-09T01:42:06","modified_gmt":"2019-03-08T20:12:06","slug":"sudhakar-s-pangol-ig-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-7-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhakar-s-pangol-ig-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-7-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"Sudhakar S. Pangol Ig vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 7 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Sudhakar S. Pangol Ig vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 7 August, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: F.I. Rebello, D.G. Karnik<\/div>\n
                                                    1\n\n    abs\n\n                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                         \n                                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                                                                 \n                                WRIT PETITION NO. 496 OF 1990\n                                                 WITH\n\n\n\n\n                                                                \n                               WRIT PETITION NO. 4885 OF 1990\n                                                  AND\n                               WRIT PETITION NO. 4886 OF 1990\n\n\n\n\n                                                   \n          Sudhakar S. Pangol        ig                                             ..  Petitioner\n                V\/s\n          State of Maharashtra & Anr.                                            .. Respondents\n                                  \n          Mr. A.V. Anturkar for the Petitioners.\n                 \n\n\n          Mr. V.A. Sonpal, A.G.P. for the respondents.\n              \n\n\n\n                                        CORAM :  FERDINO I. REBELLO & D.G. KARNIK, JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
                                 DATE     :  7TH AUGUST 2009<\/p>\n
          JUDGMENT : (Per D.G. Karnik, J.)<\/p>\n
          1.    In   each   of   these   three   petitions,   the   petitioners   challenge   the <\/p>\n
          constitutional   validity   of   Maharashtra   Sales   Tax   on   the   Transfer   of <\/p>\n
          Property in Goods  involved in the Execution of Works Contract (Re-\n<\/p>\n
          enacted) Act, 1989 (for short “the Works Contract Act, 1989”) and pray <\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:52:28 :::<\/span>
\n                                                2<\/span><\/p>\n
    for a declaration that the  Works Contract Act, 1989 is unconstitutional <\/p>\n
    and ultra vires the provisions of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) as well as <\/p>\n
    Article 246(2) read with Entry No.54 List II in Seventh Schedule read <\/p>\n
    with Article 366 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
    2.     Mr.   Anturkar,   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   petitioners, <\/p>\n
    submitted that the grounds of challenge in all the three petitions are <\/p>\n
    common.  He took us through the facts stated in Writ Petition no. 496 <\/p>\n
    of   1990   and  submitted  that   decision   on   that   petition   would  also  be <\/p>\n
    applicable to the other two petitions.\n<\/p>\n
    3.     Mr. Anturkar in fairness invited our attention to a decision of this <\/p>\n
    Court in Writ Petition No. 485 of 1990 (Builders Association of India v.\n<\/p>\n
    State of Maharashtra & Ors., decided on 25th  August 1994 – Coram:\n<\/p>\n
    Pendse, J.), wherein the constitutional validity of the   Works Contract <\/p>\n
    Act, 1989 was upheld by this Court.   He however submitted that the <\/p>\n
    grounds   of   challenge   to   the   constitutional   validity   of   the     Works <\/p>\n
    Contract Act, 1989 raised in this petition were not raised before the <\/p>\n
    Court in that petition and, therefore, this Court can again go into the <\/p>\n
    question   of   constitutional   validity   independent   of   that   decision.     He <\/p>\n
    further submitted that in any event the points raised in these petitions <\/p>\n
    are   not   covered   by   the   previous   decision   and,   therefore,   the   points <\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:52:28 :::<\/span>
\n                                               3<\/span><\/p>\n
    raised herein would be required to be considered independently by this <\/p>\n
    Court.  We are afraid this is not permissible.  A decision of a Court in a <\/p>\n
    writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of a statute, if not <\/p>\n
    akin to a judgment in relm, would certainly amount to a stare decisis.\n<\/p>\n
    The   challenge   to   the   constitutional   validity   may   be   on   a   different <\/p>\n
    ground or grounds or in addition to the grounds raised in the earlier <\/p>\n
    petition   would   not   ordinarily   be   permissible   before   the   same   Court.\n<\/p>\n
    The same Court cannot be moved again and again by one and other <\/p>\n
    petitioners challenging the issue of constitutional validity of the same <\/p>\n
    statute on different grounds.  Even otherwise, we are satisfied that no <\/p>\n
    grounds   exist   to   declare   the     Works   Contract   Act,   1989     to   be <\/p>\n
    constitutionally invalid for the reasons indicated below.\n<\/p>\n
    4.    In State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley & Co. (Madras) Ltd., AIR<\/a>  <\/p>\n
    1958 SC 560, the Supreme Court examined the ambit of Entry 48 of <\/p>\n
    List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Government of India Act, 1935 <\/p>\n
    and   held   that   the   expression   “sale   of   goods”   connotes   essential <\/p>\n
    ingredients   being   an   agreement   to   sell   movables   for   a   price   and <\/p>\n
    property   therein   passing   pursuant   to   that   agreement.     The   Supreme <\/p>\n
    Court   further   held   that   in   a   works   contract,   which   is   entire   and <\/p>\n
    indivisible, there is no sale of goods and no tax could be imposed on <\/p>\n
    the supply of material used in such a contract treating it as a sale.  After <\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:52:28 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  4<\/span><\/p>\n
    the   decision   of   the   Supreme   Court,   with   regard   to   the   taxability   of <\/p>\n
    goods   involved   in   the   execution   of   the   works   contract,   the   Law <\/p>\n
    Commission in its 61st Report made a suggestion to insert in Article 466 <\/p>\n
    a wide definition of “sale” so as to include works contracts.  Keeping in <\/p>\n
    view  the  recommendations of the Law Commission, the Constitution <\/p>\n
    was   amended   by   46th  Amendment.     The   46th  Amendment   made   it <\/p>\n
    possible   for   the   State   to   levy   sales   tax   on   the   price   of   goods   and <\/p>\n
    materials   used   in   a   works   contract.     In   its   judgment   in  Builders  <\/p>\n
    Association of India v. Union of India, (1989) 2 SCC 645, the Supreme <\/p>\n
    Court upheld the validity of the 46th  Amendment to the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
    The petitioners therefore have not challenged the constitutional validity <\/p>\n
    of   the   46th  Amendment   to   the   Constitution,   but   have   restricted   the <\/p>\n
    challenge to the  Works Contract Act, 1989.\n<\/p>\n
    5.     Mr. Anturkar, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that <\/p>\n
    the   Works   Contract   Act,   1989   seeks   to   charge   tax   on   the   goods <\/p>\n
    purchased outside the State and was void to the extent it sought to levy <\/p>\n
    tax on purchase of goods outside the State.  He invited our attention to <\/p>\n
    section   3   of   the     Works   Contract   Act,   1989   which   is   the   charging <\/p>\n
    section   and   creates   a   liability   on   every   dealer   on   turnover   of   all <\/p>\n
    purchases or sales.   Turnover of sales has been defined under section <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:52:28 :::<\/span>
\n                                               5<\/span><\/p>\n
    2(p) of the  Works Contract Act, 1989 to mean aggregate of the amount <\/p>\n
    of sale price received or receivable by a dealer in respect of any transfer <\/p>\n
    of   property   in   the   goods   involved   in   the   execution   of   any   works <\/p>\n
    contract   whether   executed   fully   or   partly   during   any   period.     “Sale <\/p>\n
    price” has been defined under section 2(m) as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
           “2(m)  “Sale price” means-<\/p>\n
                (i) the amount of purchase price of the goods or, as the <\/p>\n
                   case   may   be,   the   value   of   the   goods,   brought   or <\/p>\n
                   transferred   from   a   place   outside   the   State   where <\/p>\n
                   such goods are sold in the same form in which they <\/p>\n
                   were purchased, brought or transferred; and<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                (ii)  where the goods have been sold in the form other <\/p>\n
                   than the form in which they were purchased or, as <\/p>\n
                   the case may be, brought or transferred from a place <\/p>\n
                   outside   the   State,   then   the   purchase   price   of   the <\/p>\n
                   goods or, as the case may be, the value of the goods <\/p>\n
                   brought   or   transferred   from   a   place   outside   the <\/p>\n
                   State, and so sold.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
    6.    Mr. Anturkar submitted that under sub-clause (i) of clause (m) of <\/p>\n
    section 2 of the  Works Contract Act, 1989 lays down that in respect of <\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:52:28 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 6<\/span><\/p>\n
    goods brought or transferred by a dealer from a place outside the State, <\/p>\n
    the purchase price of the goods outside the State would be regarded as <\/p>\n
    the   sale   price   for   the   purpose   of   determination   of   incidence   of   tax <\/p>\n
    payable under the  Works Contract Act, 1989.  He submitted that thus <\/p>\n
    the   price   of   the   goods   paid   by   a   dealer   in   respect   of   a   purchase <\/p>\n
    transaction which has taken outside State is regarded as price for the <\/p>\n
    purpose of determination of the incidence of tax.  The Legislature has <\/p>\n
    thus sought to bring to tax the purchase effected by the dealer outside <\/p>\n
    the State.  The Legislature has no power or competence to tax purchase <\/p>\n
    or   sale   which   takes   place   outside   the   State   of   Maharashtra   and, <\/p>\n
    therefore, the Act is void for lack of legislative competence.\n<\/p>\n
    7.     Mr.   Anturkar   further   submitted   that   the   petitioners   purchase <\/p>\n
    goods outside the State and bring them to the State of Maharashtra, <\/p>\n
    where   they   are   used   in   works   contracts   with   their   customers.   The <\/p>\n
    property   in   the   goods   purchased   outside   the   State   of   Maharashtra <\/p>\n
    passes on to the customers in the execution of the works contracts.  The <\/p>\n
    Legislature of Maharashtra may be competent to impose tax the value <\/p>\n
    of   the  goods  which   are  purchased by the  petitioners in  the State of <\/p>\n
    Maharashtra and used in the execution of a works contract.  However, <\/p>\n
    by   seeking  to   tax   the   goods   which   are   purchased  by   the   petitioners <\/p>\n
    outside   the   State   of   Maharashtra   and   which   are   transferred   in <\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:52:28 :::<\/span>
\n                                               7<\/span><\/p>\n
    execution of works contract in the State of Maharashtra on the basis of <\/p>\n
    the   purchase   price   paid   outside   the   State,   the   Legislature   of <\/p>\n
    Maharashtra has exceeded its power by imposing tax on the purchases <\/p>\n
    of the goods effected outside the State of Maharashtra.\n<\/p>\n
    8.    In   its   decision   in   Builders   Association   of   India   v.   State   of <\/p>\n
    Maharashtra<\/a> (supra), this Court has upheld the constitutional validity <\/p>\n
    of the   Works Contract Act, 1989 and has held that the Legislature of <\/p>\n
    Maharashtra has a power to impose tax on the value of goods which <\/p>\n
    are   transferred   by   a   person   to   another   while   executing   the   works <\/p>\n
    contract.   In determining value of the goods as transferred, a dispute <\/p>\n
    may arise as to how the value of goods which have been transferred by <\/p>\n
    a person to another in execution of works contract, is to be determined.\n<\/p>\n
    The property in which it is transferred may have been purchased by the <\/p>\n
    dealer\/contractor   either   within   the   State   or   from   outside   the   State.\n<\/p>\n
    While   there   may   be   no   dispute   between   the   parties   as   to   the <\/p>\n
    computation of the price of the goods purchased by the dealer or the <\/p>\n
    contractor   or   a   dealer   in   the   State   of   Maharashtra   and   used   in <\/p>\n
    execution of the work, a dispute may arise as to the value of the goods <\/p>\n
    purchased by the dealer or the contractor outside the State and used in <\/p>\n
    execution of a works contract.   In order to obviate such dispute, the <\/p>\n
    Legislature has defined the word “sale price” in section 2(m).  By that <\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:52:28 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  8<\/span><\/p>\n
    definition,   it   is   provided   that   in   respect   of   the   goods   brought   by   a <\/p>\n
    contractor or a dealer from outside the State and used in the works <\/p>\n
    contract, the price of the goods at which they were purchased would be <\/p>\n
    the sale price for computation of the “turnover of sale” in section 2(p).\n<\/p>\n
    The combined effect of section  2(p) read with 2(m) is to consider the <\/p>\n
    price   at   which   the   goods   were   purchased   by   the   dealer   or   the <\/p>\n
    contractor outside the State and brought into the State for execution of <\/p>\n
    the   works   contract   as   the   price   for   the   purpose   of   computing   the <\/p>\n
    turnover of a works contract.   Undoubtedly, the State is competent to <\/p>\n
    tax the goods, whether purchased within the State or outside the State <\/p>\n
    and   brought   in   the   State,   the   property   in   which   is   transferred   to <\/p>\n
    another   in   execution   of   a   works   contract   within   the   State   of <\/p>\n
    Maharashtra.   For the purpose of taxation, it matters not where from <\/p>\n
    the   goods   have   been   brought   by   the   contractor\/dealer   and   used   in <\/p>\n
    execution   of   a   works   contract.     Section   2(p)  read  with  2(m)  of  the <\/p>\n
    Works Contract Act, 1989 only provides the mechanism of determining <\/p>\n
    the value of the goods which have been purchased outside the State <\/p>\n
    and used in a works contract in the State.  By doing so, the Legislature <\/p>\n
    has not taxed the sale transaction which has taken place outside the <\/p>\n
    State, but has only provided a mechanism as to how the value of the <\/p>\n
    goods, the property in which it is transferred by the contractor\/dealer <\/p>\n
    in execution of works contract, is to be determined.  This definition is <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:52:28 :::<\/span>
\n                                               9<\/span><\/p>\n
    introduced to obviate any dispute in ascertaining the price of the goods <\/p>\n
    which form the total turnover of the contractor\/dealer.\n<\/p>\n
    9.       No other point was urged challenging the constitutional validity <\/p>\n
    of the  Works Contract Act, 1989.\n<\/p>\n
    10.      For the reasons stated above, we are of the view that there was <\/p>\n
    no lack of legislative power in the Legislature of Maharashtra in taxing <\/p>\n
    the   goods   brought   into   the   State   from   outside   the   State   and   the <\/p>\n
    property  in which   it  is  transferred in  execution  of  a  works  contract.\n<\/p>\n
    The petitions accordingly fail and are dismissed with no order as to <\/p>\n
    costs.\n<\/p>\n
    11.      Rule discharged with no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
    (D.G. KARNIK, J.)                                      (FERDINO I. REBELLO, J.)\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                          ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:52:28 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Sudhakar S. Pangol Ig vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 7 August, 2009 Bench: F.I. Rebello, D.G. Karnik 1 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 496 OF 1990 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4885 OF 1990 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 4886 OF 1990 […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-60582","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSudhakar S. Pangol Ig vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 7 August, 2009 - 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\/sudhakar-s-pangol-ig-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-7-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sudhakar S. Pangol Ig vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 7 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhakar-s-pangol-ig-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-7-august-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-08-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-08T20:12:06+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudhakar-s-pangol-ig-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-7-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudhakar-s-pangol-ig-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-7-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sudhakar S. Pangol Ig vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 7 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-08T20:12:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudhakar-s-pangol-ig-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-7-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1837,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudhakar-s-pangol-ig-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-7-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudhakar-s-pangol-ig-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-7-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudhakar-s-pangol-ig-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-7-august-2009\",\"name\":\"Sudhakar S. Pangol Ig vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 7 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-08T20:12:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudhakar-s-pangol-ig-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-7-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudhakar-s-pangol-ig-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-7-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudhakar-s-pangol-ig-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-7-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sudhakar S. Pangol Ig vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 7 August, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Sudhakar S. Pangol Ig vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 7 August, 2009 - 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\/sudhakar-s-pangol-ig-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-7-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sudhakar S. Pangol Ig vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 7 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhakar-s-pangol-ig-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-7-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-08T20:12:06+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhakar-s-pangol-ig-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-7-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhakar-s-pangol-ig-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-7-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sudhakar S. Pangol Ig vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 7 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-08T20:12:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhakar-s-pangol-ig-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-7-august-2009"},"wordCount":1837,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhakar-s-pangol-ig-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-7-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhakar-s-pangol-ig-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-7-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhakar-s-pangol-ig-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-7-august-2009","name":"Sudhakar S. Pangol Ig vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 7 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-08T20:12:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhakar-s-pangol-ig-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-7-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhakar-s-pangol-ig-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-7-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhakar-s-pangol-ig-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-7-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sudhakar S. Pangol Ig vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 7 August, 2009"}]},{"@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\/60582","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=60582"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60582\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=60582"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=60582"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=60582"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}