{"id":67930,"date":"2002-07-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-07-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/for-vs-for-on-18-july-2002"},"modified":"2014-06-24T10:27:39","modified_gmt":"2014-06-24T04:57:39","slug":"for-vs-for-on-18-july-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/for-vs-for-on-18-july-2002","title":{"rendered":"!For vs ^For on 18 July, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
!For vs ^For on 18 July, 2002<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  JUDICATURE  AT  MADRAS\n\nDated: 18\/07\/2002\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mr Justice V.S. SIRPURKAR\nand\nThe Honourable Mr Justice N.V. BALASUBRAMANIAN\n\nT.C. Appeal No.325 OF 1995\n\n\nTvl. Kannan Art Calenders              ::\nSivakasi                                                     Appelllant\n\n-Vs-\n\nThe State of Tamilnadu, rep. by\nCommercial Tax Officer-I                    ::        Respondent\n\n\nTax Case Appeals under Sec.37 of the TNGST Act\nagainst the orders passed by the\nJoint commissioner (R.P.), Commercial Taxes, Sivakasi\n\n!For Appellants     ::  Mr A. Thiagarajan\n\n^For Respondent     ::  Mr S.V. Radhakrishnan, G.A.\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.\n<\/p>\n
                The  present  appeal  under  Sec.37  of the Tamil Nadu General
\nSales Tax Act (in short \u201cthe TNGST Act\u201d) challenges the  order  of  the  Joint
\nCommissioner  of  Commercial  Taxes-III  (SMR),  dated 18-10-1994, whereby the
\nJoint Commissioner, under his suo motu revisional jurisdiction under Sec.34 of
\nthe TNGST  Act,  had  upset  the  order  passed  by  the  Appellant  Assistant
\nCommissioner  (CT),  Virudhunagar and restored the earlier order passed by the
\nAssistant  Commercial  Tax  Officer,  Sivakasi  thereby,   the   turnover   of
\nRs.2,51,392\/-  and  Rs.98,440\/-  was  restored  and  the  tax  thereon  with a
\nsurcharge levy was ordered to be levied under the TNGST Act and Central  Sales
\nTax Act  (in  short  \u201cthe  CST  Act\u201d).  The following facts will highlight the
\ncontroversy involved.\n<\/p>\n
                2.  Assessee   Tvl.     Kannan  Art  Calenders,  Sivakasi  was
\noriginally assessed under the CST Act for the year 1988-89  by  the  Assistant
\nCommissioner, Commercial Tax-IV, Sivakasi on a taxable turnover of Rs.7,011\/-.
\nSubsequently,  it  was  found  that  the  sales  of educational charts such as
\nAlphabet Chart, Number Chart, etc.  were not assessed  to  tax.    The  entire
\nturnover  of Rs.90,440\/- was therefore treated by him as a sale of educational
\ncharts (printed materials) and was assessed to tax at 10%.\n<\/p>\n
                2.1.  During the appeal, the  assessee  urged  that  the  text
\nbooks, alphabet charts, etc.  were exempted from tax as they were only reading
\nmaterial  and  children\u2019s  books and, therefore, the turnover was liable to be
\nsatisfied.  The appellate authority considered the clarification issued by the
\nDepartment in K.Dis.110999\/84 Acts Cell.II dated 24-7  -1984  wherein  it  was
\nstated that all printed materials (other than the reading books including text
\nbooks, students  note  books and copy books) were liable to tax.  The turnover
\nof the assessee was in respect of the text books, alphabet charts, etc.  which
\nwere printed and sold by the assessee.  He came to the conclusion  that  those<\/p>\n
charts and  books  were  \u201creading  books\u201d  meant to educate the children.  He,
\ntherefore, found that they were the \u201creading books\u201d and as  such  exempt  from
\nthe tax liability.  He, therefore, allowed the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
                2.2.   A  show  cause  notice  dated  24-5-1994 was thereafter
\nissued to the assessee wherein the Joint  Commissioner  (RP)  Madras  took  an
\nobjection   that   the   assessee-dealer   was  only  a  \u201cprinter\u201d;  that  the
\nassessee-dealer was  not  a  dealer  in  reading  books  or  text  books  and,
\ntherefore, they  could  not enjoy the exemption.  According to the notice, the
\namount realised on the sale was not for the sale of books  but  for  the  work
\nrelating to  the printing of the books.  A further clarification issued by the
\nCommissioner of Commercial Taxes, dated 13-5-1985 was also relied upon wherein
\nit was clarified that such exemption of reading books was not available to the
\nprinters and was available only to the actual sellers.  On the basis  of  this
\nshow  cause  notice,  the Joint Commissioner came to the conclusion ultimately
\nthat the intention of the assessee was to sell only  the  \u201cprinted  materials\u201d
\nand not  the  \u201creading books\u201d or the \u201ctext books\u201d.  He, therefore, came to the
\nconclusion that the assessee was not entitled to the exemption.  According  to
\nhim,  the  exemption  notification was applicable only to the \u201c reading books\u201d
\nincluding the \u201ctext books\u201d.  The appellate order was,  therefore,  set  aside.
\nThe said order by the Joint Commissioner is in challenge before us.\n<\/p>\n
                3.  Mr.   A.    Thiagarajan, learned counsel for the assessee,
\nhas taken us through the entries right from the beginning  when  the  \u201creading
\nbooks\u201d  including  \u201ctext  books\u201d  were exempted under Sec.17 of the TNGST Act.
\nThe first such exemption came vide  G.O.    Ms.976  Rev.    Dated  28-3-19  59
\nwhereby,  with  effect from 1-4-1959, the sale of reading books, including the
\ntext books, by any dealer was exempted from tax.  A \u201c school atlas\u201d  was  also
\nconsidered to  be  a  \u201cbook\u201d  under that head.  The next Government Order came
\nvide G.O.  No.4725 Rev.  Dated 30th April, 1961 whereunder the sale of reading
\nbooks including text books was exempted from tax.  The next  Government  Order
\nin the  line  is  G.O.Ms.    No.40  Rev.,  dated 6-1-1969 whereunder again the
\nreading books including the text books were exempted from  the  levy  of  tax.
\nLearned  counsel  then  pointed out that a number of clarifications came to be
\nissued whereunder even the printer, who prints and sell the reading books like
\nalphabet charts, number charts, table books on places of  tourist  importance,
\nreligious songs,  images  of Gods, photographs of national leaders, etc.  were
\nexempted from tax.  Learned counsel also filed  the  clarification  issued  in
\nthat behalf  bearing  No.CEL-III 33120\/92 dated 1 6-3-1992.  It will be better
\nto quote the three clauses by way of this clarification:
\n\u201c       (i) The printers, who print and  sell  reading  books  like  Alphabet,
\nTable Books on places of Tourist importance (Kanyakumari, Kancheepuram, etc.),
\nReligious songs, Gods, National Leaders Photos, etc.  are not liable to tax in
\nview of the Notification dated 6-1-1979 issued by the Government.\n<\/p>\n
        (ii)  In  the case of printers who undertake printing and supplying of
\nbooks for specific customers, the material to be printed is obtained from  the
\ncustomers  and  after  deciding  on  the type of paper, wrapper, cover design,
\ngeneral layout, etc., with customer, the printer print and supply the books to
\nthe customers.  The printer uses his own goods including paper,  ink,  binding
\nmaterials etc.    In  such cases, it is only \u2018works contract\u2019 liable to tax in
\nterms of Section 3-B of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and in the  light
\nof the Supreme Court decision reported in 73 STC 370.\n<\/p>\n
        (iii) In the case of the printer undertaking the work of printing from
\nthe  customer,  where  the  customer  supplies  paper and other goods required
\n(printing ink, binding\/stitching materials, etc.) it will  be  a  pure  labour
\nwork not  liable  to  tax.    But if the printer uses any of his materials, he
\nshall be liable to tax on such materials in the light  of  the  Supreme  Court
\ndecision reported in 73 STC 370.\u201d<\/p>\n
Heavily  relying  on these clarifications, learned counsel argues that firstly
\nthe alphabet charts sold by the appellant herein were the \u201c books\u201d or  as  the
\ncase  may  be  \u201creading  books\u201d  and  it could not be said that they were mere
\n\u201cprinted materials\u201d.  Learned counsel stretches his argument further and  says
\nthat the  exemption  granted under G.O.Ms.  No.40 could not be held restricted
\nto a dealer in the reading books and text books  and  thus  printed  materials
\nlike alphabet  charts,  number  charts,  etc.    were  nothing  but a \u201creading
\nmaterial\u201d meant for educating the children.  Therefore,  they  would  squarely
\ncovered  under  the entry of \u201cbook\u201d, \u201creading book\u201d or \u201ctext book\u201d as the case
\nmay be.  Learned counsel further argues and in our opinion  rightly  that  the
\nentry did  not  restrict  itself only to the dealer.  It covered the sale by a
\nprinter of these printed materials like alphabet charts.\n<\/p>\n
                4.  As against this, a  decision  was  cited  by  the  learned
\ncounsel appearing  for  the Department in State of Tamil Nadu v.  Papco Offset
\nPrinting Works<\/a> (118 STC 160) wherein this Court held that  what  was  exempted
\nwas  the  sales  by  the  dealer  of  reading books which included text books.
\nTherefore, if a dealer had simply printed certain material  according  to  the
\nspecifications  of  some publisher, charging them with price with reference to
\nthe cost of paper, ink, etc.  and had never compiled any books for reading nor
\neffected sale of such reading books such dealer would be outside the  umbrella
\nof exemption.   In that case, it was held that such sales could not fall under
\nitem 22 of the Schedule to the notification.\n<\/p>\n
                5.  On these rival submissions, it will be for us to decide as
\nto whether the dealer in this case was entitled to the exemption.\n<\/p>\n
                6.  Two questions would fall for our consideration, viz.:
\nAre the alphabet charts the books or as the case may be reading books so as to
\nbe covered under Entry 22?\n<\/p>\n
Whether the exemption available to the sale of  reading  books  including  the
\ntext  books  is  available  to  the printer who prints the alphabet charts and
\nsells them?\n<\/p>\n
                7.  In so far as the first question is concerned our task  has
\nbecome  fairly  easy  because  of the judgment of this Court in State of Tamil
\nNadu v.  Mundran Kala Mandir<\/a> (46 STC  365).    The  question  which  fell  for
\nconsideration  there  was  whether the guide-map of Greater Bombay having some
\nmaterial to read could be said to be a book.  What fell for consideration  was
\na  map  simpliciter  with  some  information  about the city of Bombay and the
\ntourist spots therein on the next page.  The learned  Judges  agree  that  the
\nearlier judgment in  S.R.   & Company v.  State of Tamil Nadu<\/a> (42 STC 99) that
\nthe entry was not  happily  worded  and  that  the  reading  books  should  be
\nunderstood as  books  for  reading  or  books meant for reading.  In that case
\nalso, the said test was applied and the learned Judges  had  held  that  three
\npublications  which  fell for consideration were books for reading so as to be
\neligible for exemption.  Relying on  that  decision,  the  learned  Judges  in
\nMundran Kala Mandir case, cited supra, also pointed out that the map contained
\nthe  description  of Bombay, its history, places of interest and various other
\ndetails which would be of importance to a tourist or to a visitor  who  visits
\nBombay for the first time.  The learned Judges, therefore, classified the said
\nmap  as a \u201cbook for reading\u201d and, therefore, within the umbrella of exemption.
\nThe  situation  cannot  be  said  to  be  any  different  under  the   present
\ncircumstances.   In  fact,  the alphabet chart is a basic first book which the
\nchild is taught whereby the  child  starts  recognising  the  alphabet.    The
\nalphabet  chart  is  not only an article like wall-hanging; it is a basic book
\nfor reading, knowing and understanding which the child takes  the  first  step
\ntowards literacy.    It  will  be therefore a travesty to say that an alphabet
\nchart is not a book.  It is in fact the first and basic reading  book  in  the
\nlife of  a  child.  It may not be in the form of a book but then the thrust of
\nthe entry is on the \u201creading\u201d material and not on the \u201cform\u201d thereof.  In  our
\nopinion, therefore, the alphabet chart must be deemed to be a \u201cbook\u201d meant for
\nreading.   Going  a  step  ahead,  we may even say that an alphabet chart is a
\nfirst text book for a child also because it  cannot  differ  in  case  of  the
\nchildren who  are  going  to  learn  the alphabet.  The content or the reading
\nmaterial is going to be the same.    In  our  opinion,  therefore,  the  Joint
\nCommissioner has committed an error in not treating the alphabet chart to be a
\n\u201cbook\u201d.   However,  the  matters  do  not  step  here  and  that takes for the
\nconsideration of the second question.\n<\/p>\n
                8.  According to the Joint Commissioner, the dealer was merely
\na printer and he merely printed those charts and sold them.  It is really  not
\nunderstandable  as  to  what  the  Joint Commissioner meant by saying that the
\nintention of this dealer, who was a printer, was not to  sell  the  books  but
\nonly \u201cprinted  material\u201d.  The confusion has cropped in because of not reading
\nthe entry in its full potential.  Unfortunately, the decision in Mundran  Kala
\nMandir, cited  supra,  was  not  cited  before the Joint Commissioner.  If the
\nentry is to be read in terms of that judgment then, the entry \u201creading  books\u201d
\nwould have  to be read as the \u201cbooks for reading\u201d.  Therefore, it could not be
\nheld by the Joint Commissioner that the intention was merely  to  sell  the  \u201c
\nprinted material\u201d because, in our opinion, that printed material, in this case
\nalphabet charts,  was  nothing  but a \u201creading book\u201d.  This premise is further
\nstrengthened by the subsequent clarification issued by  the  Department  dated
\n16-3-1992  wherein  the  books  like alphabet charts, table books on places of
\ntourist importance, religious  songs,  images  of  Gods,  photos  of  National
\nleaders, etc.  are also considered to be the \u201cbooks\u201d and the printers of these
\nmaterials, who sell such articles are also held entitled to the exemption vide
\nthe notification  dated  6 -1-1969.  It is for this reason that we ventured to
\nquote all the three clauses of the clarification.\n<\/p>\n
                9.  There would be one other way of looking at this, that  is,
\nmerely  because  a person prints the alphabet charts which are undoubtedly the
\nreading books and sells them  could  he  be  said  to  be  excluded  from  the
\nexemption.   In  our opinion, the said course would not be open in view of the
\nclarification issued on 23-5-1988 bearing No.Acts CellII  51741\/88  wherein  a
\nclarification  was issued to the effect that reading books, including the text
\nbooks, were exempt from the tax.  That would  completely  delete  the  \u201cdealer
\naspect\u201d of  the matter.  After all, if a person prints reading books and sells
\nthem he could be safely called the \u201cdealer\u201d of the books as  has  happened  in
\nthis case.    In  that view, we are of the opinion that the Joint Commissioner
\nhas erred.\n<\/p>\n
                10.  Even without having to take the recourse of going to  the
\nclarification  dated  23-5-1988  or for the subsequent clarification issued on
\n16-3-1992 it can be seen that in the judgment in BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA
\nAND OTHERS v.  UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (73 STC 370)  while  considering  the
\nimplications  of  the sales involved in the works contract the Apex Court held
\nin respect of the materials used in the works  contract  that  their  transfer
\nwould amount to deemed sale.  The deeming fiction was based on the Forty-sixth
\nAmendment  whereby  Art.366(2 9A) was introduced and as per sub-clauses (a) to\n<\/p>\n
(f) of Clause (29-A), transfer, delivery or supply of any goods was deemed  to
\nbe a  sale  of  those  goods.    The  Apex  Court  in  that  case  upheld  the
\nconstitutional validity of the amendment and came to the conclusion that under
\nsub-clause (b)  of  clause  (29-A)  that  the  goods  for  construction  which
\nultimately  are  transferred  would  amount to a sale and for that purpose the
\nworks contract which till then was considered to be indivisible was held to be
\ndivisible.  Therefore, in a case where a printer supplies  the  goods  on  the
\nbasis of a contract given to him and recovers the price of the paper and other
\nmaterials  and  in addition to it recovers the printing charges at least in so
\nfar as the goods are supplied that would amount to a  deemed  sale.    If  the
\nactual of the printed material has been exempted then the same exemption would
\nbe applicable  even  to  the  deemed  sales.    We have already shown that the
\nprinted material concerned in this case,  viz.    A  B  C  D  Alphabet  Charts
\namounted  to the books and, therefore, the sale of that material was liable to
\nbe exempted for the purposes of sales tax.    Therefore,  the  said  exemption
\nwould  equally  apply  to  the printed material also and the assessee would be
\nentitled to succeed on this count also.\n<\/p>\n
                11.  Before we close,  we  have  to  take  the  stock  of  the
\ndecision in  Papco  Offset  Printers case, cited supra.  We must hasten to add
\nthat the learned Judges therein were not called upon to decide the question as
\nto whether the alphabet chart could be said to be a \u201cbook\u201d.    In  fact,  that
\nquestion  was  never  argued  before  the  leaned  Judges since the matter was
\ndecided ex parte as no one appeared on behalf of the assessee.  The assessment
\nyear in that case was also 1985-86.  However, the clarification issued by  the
\nDepartment  was not made available to the learned Judges; nor was the judgment
\nin Mundran Kala Mandir case, cited supra, was brought to  the  notice  of  the
\nlearned Judges.    Again what the printed material was also not clear from the
\njudgment.  We do not know as to whether the learned  Judges  were  considering
\nthe  alphabet charts or some other thing because there is no indication in the
\njudgment that they were considering the alphabet charts.  In that view, we are
\nof the clear opinion that the judgment in Papco Offset  Printers  case,  cited
\nsupra, would be of no help to the State.\n<\/p>\n
                12.   On  the  whole,  it  will have to be held that the Joint
\nCommissioner had  erred  in  upsetting  the  order  passed  by  the  Appellate
\nAssistant Commissioner.    The  order  passed  by  the  Joint Commissioner is,
\ntherefore,  set  aside  and  the  order  passed  by  the  Appellate  Assistant
\nCommissioner is restored.  The appeal is allowed.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n
Index:Yes
\nWebsite:Yes
\n(V.S.S., J.) (N.V.B., J.)<\/p>\n
Jai
\n18-07-2002<\/p>\n
To:\n<\/p>\n
1.  The Assistant Commercial Tax Officer IV, Sivakasi<\/p>\n
2.  The Commercial Tax Officer-I, Sivakasi<\/p>\n
3.  The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT)
\nVirudhunagar<\/p>\n
4.  The Joint Commissioner-III(SMR) of Commercial Taxes
\nOffice of the Special Commissioner and Commissioner
\nof Commercial Taxes, Chepauk, Chennai-5<\/p>\n
5.  The Assistant Commercial Tax Officer-IV, Sivakasi<\/p>\n
6.  The Principal Commissioner and Commissioner
\nof Commercial Taxes, Madras<\/p>\n
7.  The Joint Commissioner (RP)
\nOffice of the Principal Commssioner and
\nCommissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madras<\/p>\n
V.S.  SIRPURKAR, J.\n<\/p>\n
And
\nN.V.  BALASUBRAMANIAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT in
\nT.C.(A) No.325 of 1995<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court !For vs ^For on 18 July, 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 18\/07\/2002 Coram The Honourable Mr Justice V.S. SIRPURKAR and The Honourable Mr Justice N.V. BALASUBRAMANIAN T.C. Appeal No.325 OF 1995 Tvl. Kannan Art Calenders :: Sivakasi Appelllant -Vs- The State of Tamilnadu, rep. by Commercial Tax […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-67930","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\n!For vs ^For on 18 July, 2002 - 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\/for-vs-for-on-18-july-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"!For vs ^For on 18 July, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/for-vs-for-on-18-july-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-07-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-06-24T04:57:39+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/for-vs-for-on-18-july-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/for-vs-for-on-18-july-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"!For vs ^For on 18 July, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-07-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-24T04:57:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/for-vs-for-on-18-july-2002\"},\"wordCount\":2845,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/for-vs-for-on-18-july-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/for-vs-for-on-18-july-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/for-vs-for-on-18-july-2002\",\"name\":\"!For vs ^For on 18 July, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-07-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-24T04:57:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/for-vs-for-on-18-july-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/for-vs-for-on-18-july-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/for-vs-for-on-18-july-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"!For vs ^For on 18 July, 2002\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"!For vs ^For on 18 July, 2002 - 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\/for-vs-for-on-18-july-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"!For vs ^For on 18 July, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/for-vs-for-on-18-july-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-07-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-06-24T04:57:39+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/for-vs-for-on-18-july-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/for-vs-for-on-18-july-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"!For vs ^For on 18 July, 2002","datePublished":"2002-07-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-24T04:57:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/for-vs-for-on-18-july-2002"},"wordCount":2845,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/for-vs-for-on-18-july-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/for-vs-for-on-18-july-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/for-vs-for-on-18-july-2002","name":"!For vs ^For on 18 July, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-07-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-24T04:57:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/for-vs-for-on-18-july-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/for-vs-for-on-18-july-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/for-vs-for-on-18-july-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"!For vs ^For on 18 July, 2002"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/67930","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=67930"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67930\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=67930"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=67930"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=67930"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}