{"id":89894,"date":"1998-08-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1998-08-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/polychem-limited-anr-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-4-august-1998"},"modified":"2017-08-31T21:01:54","modified_gmt":"2017-08-31T15:31:54","slug":"polychem-limited-anr-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-4-august-1998","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/polychem-limited-anr-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-4-august-1998","title":{"rendered":"Polychem Limited &amp; Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra &amp; Ors on 4 August, 1998"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Polychem Limited &amp; Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra &amp; Ors on 4 August, 1998<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: K Venkataswami<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Cji, K. Venkataswami<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nPOLYCHEM LIMITED &amp; ANR.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t04\/08\/1998\n\nBENCH:\nCJI, K. VENKATASWAMI\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\t      J U D G M E N T<br \/>\nK. Venkataswami, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The short question that arises for our consideration in<br \/>\nthis appeal  is whether the State Government is empowered to<br \/>\ncollect differential  supervision charges with retrospective<br \/>\neffect under  Section 58-A  of the  Bombay Prohibition\tAct,<br \/>\n1949?\n<\/p>\n<p>     The facts\tleading to the filling of this appeal are as<br \/>\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>     The first\tappellant is  a company registered under the<br \/>\nprovision of  the Companies  Act, 1956. The second appellant<br \/>\nis a  share-holder and\tdirector  of  the  first  appellant-<br \/>\ncompany. The  appellants, for  the sake of convenience, will<br \/>\nbe referred  to hereinafter as the &#8216;Company&#8217;. The company is<br \/>\nengaged\t in  the  manufacture  of  alcohol  potable  liquor,<br \/>\ncountry liquor\tand alcohol  based  chemicals.\tAs  required<br \/>\nunder Section  58 A  of the  Act read with Condition No.2 of<br \/>\nthe License  issued to\tthe Company in Form &#8216;I&#8217;, the Company<br \/>\nused to\t pay in\t advance the supervision charges towards the<br \/>\ncosts of  the staff  deputed for  the purpose of supervising<br \/>\nthe operation  of manufacture,\tstorage and issue of spirit.<br \/>\nThe Inspector  of prohibition  and Excise  by a letter dated<br \/>\n19th July,  1979 informed  the company\tthat the  wages\t and<br \/>\ndearness allowance  of Government  servants  were  increased<br \/>\nretrospectively and  on\t account  of  that  the\t supervision<br \/>\ncharges payable\t by the Company comes to Rs. 1,54,379.79 for<br \/>\nthe period  1970 to  1979.   However, pursuant\tto the\tsaid<br \/>\nletter dated  19th July,  1979, no  steps were\ttaken by the<br \/>\nrespondents to\tcollect the  differential  amount  from\t the<br \/>\nCompany. While so, the Company on 7th April, 1983 received a<br \/>\ndemand Notice  dated  21st  March,  1989  calling  upon\t the<br \/>\nCompany\t to  pay  the  differential  amount  of\t supervision<br \/>\ncharges amounting  to Rs.  99,702.10 immediately  within  15<br \/>\ndays from the date of the receipt of the said Demand Notice,<br \/>\nfailing which  legal action to recover the amount as arrears<br \/>\nof land revenue would be taken.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Aggrieved\tby   the   said\t  demand   of\tdifferential<br \/>\nsupervision charges  retrospectively, the  company moved the<br \/>\nHigh Court  by filing  a writ  Petition\t  No. 1672\/83  under<br \/>\nArticle 226  of the  Constitution of  India. The  said\tWrit<br \/>\nPetition was  heard along  with writ Petition No. 940\/82 and<br \/>\nthe main  judgment was rendered in Writ Petition No. 940\/82.<br \/>\nA Division  Bench  of  the  Bombay  High  Court\t upheld\t the<br \/>\nimpugned  demand   of\tdifferential   supervision   charges<br \/>\nretrospectively. The  Company, aggrieved  by the judgment of<br \/>\nthe Bombay  High Court\tdated 12.9.90,\thas  preferred\tthis<br \/>\nappeal by  special leave.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Learned counsel  appearing for  the  appellants-company<br \/>\nsubmitted that\tthe impugned  judgment of the Division Bench<br \/>\nruns counter  to an  earlier Division  Bench judgment of the<br \/>\nsame High Court on the same point. It is stated that another<br \/>\nDivision Bench\tin M\/s J.E. Bilmoria &amp; sons Vs. The State of<br \/>\nMaharashtra &amp; Ors. [1990 (2) Bombay C.R. 108 (Nagpur Bench)]<br \/>\nhas  quashed  similar  demand  of  differential\t supervision<br \/>\ncharges\t retrospectively.   Therefore,\tthe  judgment  under<br \/>\nappeal, ignoring  the earlier division Bench judgment on the<br \/>\nsame point, cannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Learned counsel  appearing for the respondents, placing<br \/>\nreliance on  the  reasoning  given  in\tthe  judgment  under<br \/>\nappeal, supported  the conclusions  reached by\tthe Division<br \/>\nBench.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Section  58-A  of\tthe  Bombay  Prohibition  Act,\t1949<br \/>\nenables the Statement Government to levy and collect what is<br \/>\ncalled supervision  charges. It\t is common  ground that this<br \/>\nsupervision  charges   are  collected\tin  advance  at\t the<br \/>\nbeginning of  every quarter.  The question for consideration<br \/>\nis whether this collection of supervision charges in advance<br \/>\ncan be\trevised as  a consequence of revision of salaries to<br \/>\nGovernment  servants.  While  upholding\t such  revision\t and<br \/>\ncollection    of     differential    supervision     charges<br \/>\nretrospectively, the  learned judges  in the  judgment under<br \/>\nappeal held  that the  liability to  pay supervision charges<br \/>\nand  the  quantification  of  the  same\t are  two  different<br \/>\nconcepts and,  therefore, the liability was not imposed with<br \/>\nretrospective effect,  but merely  rates  are  revised\twith<br \/>\nretrospective effect.  The Division  Bench for coming to the<br \/>\nabove  conclusion   placed  reliance  on  a  single  Judge&#8217;s<br \/>\njudgment in  Writ Petition  No. 631\/82. As a matter or fact,<br \/>\nwe find\t that the  judgment of\tthe learned  Single judge in<br \/>\nWrit Petition  No. 631\/82  was\texpressly  overruled  by  an<br \/>\nearlier Division Bench of the Bombay High Court on 1.8.89 in<br \/>\nM\/s   J.E. Bilmoria&#8217;s  case (supra).  We presume  that\tthis<br \/>\nDivision Bench judgment was not brought to the notice of the<br \/>\nlatter Division\t Bench, otherwise  they would not have taken<br \/>\ndiametrically opposite view without referring the issue to a<br \/>\nlarger Bench.  We further  notice that\tthe judgment  in M\/s<br \/>\nJ.E. Bilmoria&#8217;s\t case was  not challenged  by the Revenue as<br \/>\nper the\t information passed  on by  Mr.\t Nargolkar,  learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In M\/s  J.E. Bilmoria&#8217;s  case, the\t reasonings  of\t the<br \/>\nDivision Bench\tto hold\t that  the  demand  of\tdifferential<br \/>\nsupervision    charges\t   retrospectively    was    without<br \/>\njurisdiction, are in the following words:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;We have  already pointed out above<br \/>\n     the provisions  of Section\t 58-A of<br \/>\n     the  Bombay   Prohibition\tAct  the<br \/>\n     relevant rules  and the  conditions<br \/>\n     of licence,  which\t bear  upon  the<br \/>\n     question of supervision charges. If<br \/>\n     in pursuance  of the  provisions of<br \/>\n     Section   58-A    of   the\t  Bombay<br \/>\n     Prohibition Act,  the rules and the<br \/>\n     conditions\t of   licence,\t advance<br \/>\n     payment of\t the supervision charges<br \/>\n     had to  be made at the beginning of<br \/>\n     every quarter  and without\t payment<br \/>\n     of\t those\t charges,  the\tarticles<br \/>\n     could be  removed from  the  bonded<br \/>\n     warehouse for  sale   evidently the<br \/>\n     duty of  the licensee,  who  stores<br \/>\n     articles in  the bonded  warehouse,<br \/>\n     would be  only to\tpay  the  amount<br \/>\n     which has\tbeen ascertained and had<br \/>\n     to be  paid in  advance. Neither of<br \/>\n     these provisions  clothes the State<br \/>\n     Government or the commissioner with<br \/>\n     the   authority   to   charge   the<br \/>\n     supervision      charges\t    with<br \/>\n     retrospective  effect.   Obviously,<br \/>\n     when section  58-A uses  the  words<br \/>\n     &#8220;the cost\tof such\t staff shall  be<br \/>\n     paid to the State Government&#8221;, that<br \/>\n     would have reference to the cost of<br \/>\n     the  staff\t as  obtaining\tfor  the<br \/>\n     period during  which the  goods are<br \/>\n     stored in\tthe bonded warehouse and<br \/>\n     not the  incidence which  the State<br \/>\n     would have\t to bear  by  reason  of<br \/>\n     such a  remote circumstance  as the<br \/>\n     upward revision  of the  pay-scales<br \/>\n     of its  own employees  at &amp;  latter<br \/>\n     date.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..<br \/>\n     &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..<br \/>\n\t  We  must   bear  in  mind  the<br \/>\n     nature of\texcise duty as indicated<br \/>\n     in M\/s  Mc Dowell\t&amp; Co.  &#8216;s  case,<br \/>\n     A.I.R. 1977  S.C. 1459 (supra) that<br \/>\n     it is  an indirect\t duty which  the<br \/>\n     manufacturer or  producer passes on<br \/>\n     to the  ultimate consumer, that is,<br \/>\n     ultimate incidence\t will always  to<br \/>\n     be on  the customer.  By attempting<br \/>\n     to\t pass on the incidence of upward<br \/>\n     revision  of   pay-scales\tto   the<br \/>\n     licensees, several\t years after the<br \/>\n     removal of\t the articles  from  the<br \/>\n     bonded warehouse,\tthe  respondents<br \/>\n     would make\t it impossible\tfor  the<br \/>\n     petitioners to  pass on the cost of<br \/>\n     storing the  articles in the bonded<br \/>\n     warehouse to the ultimate consumer,<br \/>\n     and this  clearly\tthe  respondents<br \/>\n     cannot be\tpermitted to do, because<br \/>\n     such a  situation\thad  never  been<br \/>\n     anticipated by the petitioners, and<br \/>\n     by the  unilateral\t action\t of  the<br \/>\n     respondents,     no      additional<br \/>\n     liability can  be\timposed\t on  the<br \/>\n     petitioners.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t  As  observed\tin  <a href=\"\/doc\/1214358\/\">(Income  Tax<br \/>\n     Officer V. I.M.C. Ponnoose), A.I.R.<\/a><br \/>\n     1970 S.C.\t385, it\t is  open  to  a<br \/>\n     sovereign legislature to enact laws<br \/>\n     which have retrospective operation.<br \/>\n     Even  when\t the  parliament  enacts<br \/>\n     retrospective laws such laws are no<br \/>\n     doubt prima  facie of  questionable<br \/>\n     policy, and contrary to the general<br \/>\n     principle that legislation by which<br \/>\n     the conduct  of mankind  is  to  be<br \/>\n     regulated\tought,\twhen  introduced<br \/>\n     for the  first time,  to deal  with<br \/>\n     future  acts,   and  ought\t not  to<br \/>\n     change  the   character   of   past<br \/>\n     transactions carried  on  upon  the<br \/>\n     faith of the then existing law. The<br \/>\n     Courts will not, therefore, ascribe<br \/>\n     retrospectivity   to    new    laws<br \/>\n     affecting rights  unless by express<br \/>\n     words or  necessary implication, it<br \/>\n     appears that such was the intention<br \/>\n     of the  legislature. Here,\t it does<br \/>\n     not appear\t to us that Section 58-A<br \/>\n     of\t the   Bombay  prohibition   Act<br \/>\n     permitted\t    the\t      Government<br \/>\n     retrospectively   to    raise   the<br \/>\n     quantum of\t costs, nor is there any<br \/>\n     warrant to\t infer\tthat  there  was<br \/>\n     delegation\t to   the  rule\t  making<br \/>\n     authority to  charge the  amount of<br \/>\n     costs on  the basis  of the  events<br \/>\n     which   could    not   have    been<br \/>\n     anticipated at  the time  the costs<br \/>\n     were assessed.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t  After describing in detail how<br \/>\n     the   petitioners\t  order\t   their<br \/>\n     affairs,\tthe   petitioners   have<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">     stated in ground No. (vi) of para 2<\/span><br \/>\n     of the  petition that on a rational<br \/>\n     interpretation  of\t  the\trelevant<br \/>\n     conditions\t and   provisions,   the<br \/>\n     petitioners were  entitled to  know<br \/>\n     in advance\t the  costs  payable  by<br \/>\n     them so  as to  enable them  to fix<br \/>\n     the  price\t  of  goods,   and   the<br \/>\n     respondents, having  acted\t in  the<br \/>\n     manner   and   permitted\tto   the<br \/>\n     petitioners to  sell the  goods  on<br \/>\n     the effective  representation  that<br \/>\n     the cost of supervision charges for<br \/>\n     incoming quarter  was fixed for the<br \/>\n     said   quarter,   cannot\tnow   be<br \/>\n     permitted to  go back on their said<br \/>\n     representation\t and\t  demand<br \/>\n     additional\t amount,  more\tso  with<br \/>\n     retrospective\teffect\t    from<br \/>\n     5.5.1970.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     On a  scrutiny of\tthese two  Division Bench judgments,<br \/>\nthe view  taken in  M\/s J.E.  Bilmoria&#8217;s case commends to us<br \/>\nand we are of the view that the reasonings given therein are<br \/>\nwell-founded. We  are,\ttherefore,  of\tthe  view  that\t the<br \/>\nimpugned  demand   of\tdifferential   supervision   charges<br \/>\nretrospectively cannot\tbe  sustained  and  accordingly\t the<br \/>\njudgment under appeal is set aside and the Writ Petition No.<br \/>\n1672\/83 filed  by the  company stands  allowed. The question<br \/>\nposed at the beginning is answered in the negative.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In the  result, the  appeal is allowed accordingly with<br \/>\nno order as to cost.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Polychem Limited &amp; Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra &amp; Ors on 4 August, 1998 Author: K Venkataswami Bench: Cji, K. Venkataswami PETITIONER: POLYCHEM LIMITED &amp; ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04\/08\/1998 BENCH: CJI, K. VENKATASWAMI ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: J U D G M [&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-89894","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>Polychem Limited &amp; Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra &amp; Ors on 4 August, 1998 - 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\/polychem-limited-anr-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-4-august-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Polychem Limited &amp; Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra &amp; Ors on 4 August, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/polychem-limited-anr-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-4-august-1998\" \/>\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=\"1998-08-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-31T15:31:54+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/polychem-limited-anr-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-4-august-1998#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/polychem-limited-anr-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-4-august-1998\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Polychem Limited &amp; Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra &amp; Ors on 4 August, 1998\",\"datePublished\":\"1998-08-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-31T15:31:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/polychem-limited-anr-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-4-august-1998\"},\"wordCount\":1585,\"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\\\/polychem-limited-anr-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-4-august-1998#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/polychem-limited-anr-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-4-august-1998\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/polychem-limited-anr-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-4-august-1998\",\"name\":\"Polychem Limited &amp; Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra &amp; Ors on 4 August, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1998-08-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-31T15:31:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/polychem-limited-anr-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-4-august-1998#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/polychem-limited-anr-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-4-august-1998\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/polychem-limited-anr-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-4-august-1998#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Polychem Limited &amp; Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra &amp; Ors on 4 August, 1998\"}]},{\"@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":"Polychem Limited &amp; Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra &amp; Ors on 4 August, 1998 - 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\/polychem-limited-anr-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-4-august-1998","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Polychem Limited &amp; Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra &amp; Ors on 4 August, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/polychem-limited-anr-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-4-august-1998","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1998-08-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-31T15:31:54+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/polychem-limited-anr-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-4-august-1998#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/polychem-limited-anr-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-4-august-1998"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Polychem Limited &amp; Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra &amp; Ors on 4 August, 1998","datePublished":"1998-08-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-31T15:31:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/polychem-limited-anr-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-4-august-1998"},"wordCount":1585,"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\/polychem-limited-anr-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-4-august-1998#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/polychem-limited-anr-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-4-august-1998","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/polychem-limited-anr-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-4-august-1998","name":"Polychem Limited &amp; Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra &amp; Ors on 4 August, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1998-08-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-31T15:31:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/polychem-limited-anr-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-4-august-1998#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/polychem-limited-anr-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-4-august-1998"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/polychem-limited-anr-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-4-august-1998#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Polychem Limited &amp; Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra &amp; Ors on 4 August, 1998"}]},{"@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\/89894","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=89894"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/89894\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=89894"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=89894"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=89894"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}