{"id":97067,"date":"1986-09-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1986-09-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rib-tapes-india-pvt-ltd-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-1986"},"modified":"2016-05-17T01:12:49","modified_gmt":"2016-05-16T19:42:49","slug":"rib-tapes-india-pvt-ltd-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-1986","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rib-tapes-india-pvt-ltd-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-1986","title":{"rendered":"Rib Tapes (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 September, 1986"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Rib Tapes (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 September, 1986<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1986 AIR 2014, \t\t 1986 SCR (3) 697<\/div>\n
Author: G Oza<\/div>\n
Bench: Oza, G.L. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nRIB TAPES (INDIA) PVT. LTD. & ANR.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT02\/09\/1986\n\nBENCH:\nOZA, G.L. (J)\nBENCH:\nOZA, G.L. (J)\nNATRAJAN, S. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1986 AIR 2014\t\t  1986 SCR  (3) 697\n 1986 SCC  (4) 189\t  JT 1986   312\n 1986 SCALE  (2)367\n\n\nACT:\n     Customs   Act,   1962;-Section   III(m)-Difference\t  in\n'value'- Whether  could be  made basis\tof breach  prior  to\n1973.\n     Statutory Interpretation:-\t Object and Reasons of Bill-\nResort to - for intention of Legislature re-Permissible.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The appellants,  owners of\t a hosiery factory, imported\n27 knitting  machines in  1972 under the import licence held\nby them.  According to the Customs authorities the machinery\nwas not\t new as the licence permitted to import, but was old\nreconditioned, and  that the price shown was much lower than\nthe  actual   value.  After   hearing  the  appellants,\t the\nCollector of Customs found that the appellants had committed\nbreach of  s. l l l(d) and also of s. l ll(m) of the Customs\nAct 1962  and for  both the  counts he\timposed the penalty,\nwhich was  maintained by  the Board. On revision the Central\nGovernment reduced  the penalty\t from Rs.  1,47,000  to\t Rs.\n1,00,000 which\thad been imposed for breach of s. 111 (m). A\nwrit petition  filed by\t the appellants was dismissed by the\nHigh Court.\n     In\t the   appeal  to  this\t Court,\t on  behalf  of\t the\nappellants it was contended that a penal provision has to be\nconstrued  strictly   and  in\tabsence\t of  specific  words\nrequiring 'value'  to be mentioned, it could not be inferred\nthat any  difference in\t value could  be made  the basis  of\npenalty.\n     On behalf\tof the\trespondents it\twas  contended\tthat\nalthough the  term 'value' was not in s. 1 l l(m) before the\n1973 amendment\tbut that  will make  no difference  as\teven\nwithout\t the   term  'value'   a  mis-description  could  be\ninterpreted to\tbe a  mis-description on  the basis of value\nstated and  ultimately the  goods found\t to be\tof a  higher\nvalue. By  the amendment  the Legislature  had only tried to\nexplain or clarify the position.\n698\n     Allowing the Appeals, the Court,\n^\n     HELD: 1.  The impugned  orders are\t set aside  and\t the\npenalty imposed\t on the appellants under s. Ill(m) read with\ns. 111(d) of the Customs Act 1962 is quashed. [704A-B]\n     2. Before\tthe amendment  in 1973,\t s. 111(m)  did\t not\ncontemplate  any   difference  in  material  particulars  in\nrespect of  value but  it referred  matters other  than\t the\nvalue. [703B-C]\n     3. Unamended  s. 111(m)  indicated that  wherever goods\nactually imported are different in material particulars than\nthe goods  which were  shown in\t the  bill  of\tentry  or  a\ndeclaration as\tcontemplated in\t s. 46\tthen it\t will  be  a\nbreach of s. 11 l(m). The difference in particulars could be\nin respect of anything but value, as this sub-clause clearly\nshows that  the difference  in value  could not\t be made the\nbasis of  breach of  this sub-clause before the amendment of\n1973, when  the term  'value' has  been introduced into this\nsub-clause. [70 1 B-C ]\n     4. In  order to interpret a particular provision and to\ninfer the  intention of\t the Legislature,  the\tobjects\t and\nReasons stated\tin the\tBill, when  it is  presented to\t the\nLegislature, could be used. [703B ]\n     5. The  amendment inserting  the  term  'value'  in  s.\n111(m) cannot be said to be explanatory. [703Fl\n     Union of  India &\tors. v.\t M\/s. Rai  Bahadur Shree Ram\nDurga Prasad (P) Ltd. & ors.<\/a>, [1969] 2 SCR 727, relied upon.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal No. 172 of
\n1979<\/span>
\n     From the Judgment and order dated 4.4.1978 of the Delhi
\nHigh Court in Civil Writ No. 261 of 1978.\n<\/p>\n
     B.R. Aggarwala for the Appellants.\n<\/p>\n
     O.P. Sharma for the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     OZA, J.  This appeal  on special  leave arises out of a
\nJudgment of
\n699<\/span>
\nthe Delhi  High Court  dated 4th  April, 1978.\tThe leave is
\ngranted on  a limited  question as  regards the\t question of
\ninterpretation of  sub-clause .\t (m) of\t Section 111  of the
\nCustoms Act, 1962 (‘Act’ for short). The appellants imported
\n27 knitting  machines  as  the\tappellants  owns  a  hosiery
\nfactory in  1972. The  appellants held an import licence for
\nimport of knitting machinery.\n<\/p>\n
     According to  the Customs authorities the machinery was
\nnot new\t as the\t licence permitted  to import,\tbut was\t old
\nreconditioned. The  Customs authorities\t also held  that the
\nprice shown  by the  appellant on  the basis  of invoice was
\nmuch lower than what the price actually should be. The price
\nshown by  the appellant on the basis of invoice was Rs.77441
\nwhereas according. to the Customs authorities the price came
\nto Rs.2,98,359.\t On this  basis, a  show  cause\t notice\t was
\nissued and  after hearing  the appellant,  the Collector  of
\nCustoms Bombay\tby  order  dated  29.12.73  found  that\t the
\nappellants had committed breach of Section 111(d) of the Act
\nand also  Section 111(m)  of the Act and for both the counts
\nthe penalty  was imposed  on the  appellants. Under  Section
\n111(d) the  penalty  imposed  was  Rs.1,12,000\tin  lieu  of
\nconfiscation of\t goods\tand  for  breach  Section  111(m)  a
\npenalty of Rs. 1.47,000 was imposed under Section 112 of the
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
     Against this  order passed by the Collector of Customs,
\nan appeal  was filed  by the appellants before the Board and
\nthe Board  maintained the  order passed\t by the Collector of
\nCustoms. On  revision, the  Central Government\treduced\t the
\npenalty from  Rs.1,47.000 to  Rs. One lac only. Against this
\nthe appellant  preferred a  writ petition  before the  Delhi
\nHigh Court  which was  dismissed by  a Division Bench of the
\nHigh Court  by\tits  judgment  dated  4th  April,  1978\t and
\naggrieved by this the present appeal has been preferred.\n<\/p>\n
     So far  as the  penalty under Section 111(d) in lieu of
\nconfiscation was  concerned, the  leave has not been granted
\nand it\tis not\tdisputed that the appellants have taken away
\nthe goods after paying the duty and in this appeal therefore
\nwe are\tnot concerned  with it. The only challenge before us
\ntherefore is  in respect  of penalty  of Rs. One lac imposed
\nunder Section 111(m) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  not disputed  that Section 111(m) of the Act has
\nbeen amended  in 1973  by  Act\tNo.  36\t of  1973  but\tthis
\namendment will\tnot  be\t applicable  to\t the  present  case.
\nSection 111(m)\tas it  stood before  the amendment  reads as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
700<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  “Any dutiable\t or prohibited\tgoods which  do\t not
\n\t  correspond in\t any material  particular  with\t the
\n\t  entry made  under this  Act  or  in  the  case  of
\n\t  baggage with the declaration made under Section 77
\n\t  in respect thereof.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
and After  the Amendment  Act 1973  this provision now reads
\nlike:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “any goods  which do\tnot correspond in respect of
\n\t  value or  in any  other particular  with the entry
\n\t  made under this Act or in the case of baggage with
\n\t  the declaration  made under  Section 77 in respect
\n\t  thereof.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It is  therefore clear that the word ‘value’ was inserted in
\nthis provision.\t Before the  insertion of this word ‘value’;
\nSection 111(m)\tappears to  mean that  if  the\tdutiable  or
\nprohibited goods are imported which do not correspond in any
\nmaterial particular  with the entry made under Section 46 of
\nthe Act\t and in\t case of  baggage with\tthe declaration made
\nunder  Section\t77,  then  alone  Section  111(m)  could  be
\nattracted:\n<\/p>\n
\t  Section 46 of the Act provides:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  “46(1) The importer of any goods, other than goods
\n\t  in tended  for transit or transhipment, shall make
\n\t  entry thereof\t by presenting to the proper officer
\n\t  a  bill   of\tentry\tfor  home   consumption\t  or
\n\t  warehousing in the prescribed form:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       Provided\t that  if  the\timporter  makes\t and
\n\t  subscribes to\t a  declaration\t before\t the  proper
\n\t  officer, to  the effect that he is unable for want
\n\t  of full information to furnish all the particulars
\n\t  of the  goods required under this sub-section, the
\n\t  proper officer may, pending the production of such
\n\t  information, permit  him, previous  to  the  entry
\n\t  thereof (a)  to examine  the goods in the presence
\n\t  of an\t officer of  customs or\t (b) to\t deposit the
\n\t  goods\t in   a\t public\t warehouse  appointed  under
\n\t  Section 57 without warehousing the same.
\n\t  XX\t  XX\t  XX\t  XX
\n\t  XX\t  XX\t  XX\t  XX
\n\t  XX\t  XX\t  XX\t  XX
\n\t  (4) The  importer while presenting a bill of entry
\n\t  shall at  the foot thereof make and subscribe to a
\n\t  declaration as to
\n\t\t\t  MANOHAR
\n701<\/span>
\n\t  the truth  of the  contents of  such bill of entry
\n\t  and shall,  in  A  support  of  such\tdeclaration,
\n\t  produce to the proper officer the invoice, if any,
\n\t  relating to the imported goods.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  XX\t  XX\t  XX\t XX
\nIt is  in respect of this that Section 111(m) indicated that
\nwherever goods\tactually imported  are different in material
\nparticulars than  the goods  which were shown in the bill of
\nentry or a declaration as contemplated in Section 46 then it
\nwill be\t a breach  of  Section\t111(m).\t The  difference  in
\nparticulars could  be in  respect of  anything but value, as
\nthis sub-clause\t clearly show  that the\t difference in value
\ncould not  be made  the basis  of breach  of this sub-clause
\nbefore the amendment of 1973, when the term ‘value’ has been
\nintroduced into this sub-clause.\n<\/p>\n
     It\t was  contended\t by  the  learned  counsel  for\t the
\nappellants that\t in fact  in the  decision of  this Court in
\nUnion of  India &  ors. v.  M\/s Rai  Bahadur Shree Ram Durga
\nPrasad (P)  Ltd.  &  ors.<\/a>,  [1969]  2  SCR  727\t this  Court
\nconsidered the\tquestion of  description  and  came  to\t the
\nconclusion that\t a  penal  provision  has  to  be  construed
\nstrictly and  in absence of specific words requiring ‘value’
\nto  be\t mentioned,  it\t could\tnot  be\t inferred  that\t any
\ndifference in  value could  be made  the basis\tof  penalty.
\nWhereas\t learned   counsel  appearing  for  the\t respondents
\ncontended that\talthough the  term ‘value’  was not  in Sec.
\n111(m) of the Act before the amendment but that will make no
\ndifference as according to him even without the term ‘value’
\na  mis-description   could  be\tinterpreted  to\t be  a\tmis-
\ndescription on\tthe basis of value stated and ultimately the
\ngoods found  to be  of a  higher value. By the amendment the
\nLegislature  had  only\ttried  to  explain  or\tclarify\t the
\nposition and  he contended  that this  was the view taken by
\nthe High Court while considering this question.
\n\t  In Union of India’s case the Court held:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “If we  are to  hold that  every declaration which
\n\t  does not state accurately the full export value of
\n\t  the goods  exported  is  a  contravention  of\t the
\n\t  restrictions imposed\tby s. 12(1) then all exports
\n\t  on consignment  basis must  be held  to contravene
\n\t  the restrictions  imposed by\ts. 12(1). Admittedly
\n\t  s. 12(1) governs every type of export. Again it is
\n\t  hard to believe that the legislature intended that
\n\t  any minor  mistake in giving the full export value
\n\t  should be  penalised in  the manner provided in s.
\n\t  23(A). The wording of s. 12(1) does
\n702<\/span>
\n\t  not support  such a  conclusion. Such a conclusion
\n\t  does not accord with the purpose of s. 12(1).\n<\/p>\n
\t       It is  true that the regulations contained in
\n\t  the Act  are enacted in the economic and financial
\n\t  interest of  this country.  The  contravention  of
\n\t  those\t regulations   which  we   were\t  told\t are
\n\t  widespread are  affecting vital  economic interest
\n\t  of this country. Therefore the rigour and sanctity
\n\t  of those  regulations should\tbe maintained but at
\n\t  the same  time it  should not be forgotten that s.
\n\t  12(1)\t is  a\tpenal  section.\t The  true  rule  of
\n\t  construction of  a section like s. 12(1) is, if we
\n\t  may say  so with respect, as mentioned by Plowman,
\n\t  J. in\t Re H.P.C.  Productions Ltd.-[1962]  Ch. Dn.
\n\t  466 at 473.”\n<\/p>\n
It is  therefore clear\tthat their  Lordships relied  on the
\nrule of\t construction holding that penal provision has to be
\nstrictly construed  and held that where the provision itself
\ndid not\t require the  value to\tbe stated  for any  error in
\nrespect of  that,  no  penalty\tcould  be  imposed.  Learned
\ncounsel contended  that it was because of this decision that
\nthe Amendment  Act 1973 was passed by the Parliament and the
\nterm ‘value’ was inserted in Sec. 111(m) of the Act. Learned
\ncounsel referred  to objects  and Reasons  for the amendment
\nmentioned in the Bill, which resulted in Act No. 36 of 1973.
\nThe material  words mentioned in the objects and Reasons for
\nthe amendment as stated in the Bill reads as under
\n\t  “The amendments to these Acts proposed in the Bill
\n\t  mainly seek  to make\tthe  punishments  prescribed
\n\t  thereunder more  severe and  to make certain other
\n\t  provisions the  rein with  regard to\tthe rules of
\n\t  evidence and procedure with a view to removing the
\n\t  loopholes noticed in the working of these Acts and
\n\t  making their enforcement more effective.\n<\/p>\n
\t  2. The  notes on  clauses explain  in\t detail\t the
\n\t  various provisions of the Bill.\n<\/p>\n
\t  -Clause(2). This clause seeks to amend Section 111
\n\t  of the Customs Act, 1962, with a view to providing
\n\t  for the  confiscation of  goods in  cases of\tmis-
\n\t  declaration  of   the\t value\t or  imported  goods
\n\t  irrespective of whether or not such goods
\n703<\/span>
\n\t  are dutiable\tor prohibited,\tin  order  to  cover
\n\t  cases of over invoiced imports.”\n<\/p>\n
It is not in dispute that in order to interpret a particular
\nprovision and to infer the intention of the Legislature, the
\nobjects and Reasons stated in the bill, when it is presented
\nto the\tLegislature, could  be used.  In this  view  of\t the
\nmatter it  appears that\t before the  amendment in 1973, Sec.
\n111(m)\tdid  not  contemplate  any  difference\tin  material
\nparticulars in\trespect of  value but  it  referred  matters
\nother than the value.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  not disputed  that penalty under Sec. 111(m) has
\nbeen imposed  solely on\t the ground  that the price shown by
\nthe appellant in the declaration was much less than what was
\nultimately found  by the  Department  to  be  the  price  of
\nimported goods\tand in\trespect of this difference of price,
\nit  was\t  held\tthat  there  is\t a  difference\tin  material
\nparticulars which  brought the matter within the mischief of
\nSec. 111(m)  of the  Act. But  in view\tof the fact that the
\nterm ‘value’  was not in Sec. 111(m) before the amendment of
\n1973 this difference on the basis of value could not be said
\nto be  a  difference  in  material  particulars\t within\t the
\nmeaning of  the language  of Sec. 111(m) and in this view of
\nthe matter,  the view  taken by the authorities could not be
\nmaintained.\n<\/p>\n
     The  High\t Court\tin   its  judgment   realising\tthis
\ndifficulty observed  that  this\t amendment  where  the\tterm
\n‘value’ has now been inserted is merely explanatory and that
\nwas what  was also  contended by  learned  counsel  for\t the
\nrespondents.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  not in  dispute that a penal provision has to be
\nstrictly  construed  and  reading  Sec.\t 111(m)\t before\t the
\namendment it  is not  possible to draw an inference that any
\ndifference in  material\t particulars  may  be  referable  to
\n‘value’. This  argument therefore  can not  be accepted. The
\nscheme of  Sec. 111(m)\tas it stood then nowhere referred to
\nthe difference\tof value as one of the ingredients which may
\nattract this  provision. In such a situation therefore if it
\nwas  not   the\tspecific   intention  of  the  provision,  a
\ndifference in  respect of  value therefore could not be said
\nto attract this provision and on that basis no penalty could
\nbe imposed.\n<\/p>\n
704<\/span><\/p>\n
     The appeal\t is allowed  and the  orders passed  by\t the
\nCollector, Board,  Central Government and the High Court are
\nhereby set  aside. The\tpenalty imposed\t on  the  appellants
\nunder Sec.  111(m) read with Sec. 112 is hereby quashed. The
\nappellant shall\t be entitled to get refund of the penalty if
\nalready deposited. No order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
A.P.J.\t\t\t\t\t    Appeals allowed.\n705<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Rib Tapes (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 September, 1986 Equivalent citations: 1986 AIR 2014, 1986 SCR (3) 697 Author: G Oza Bench: Oza, G.L. (J) PETITIONER: RIB TAPES (INDIA) PVT. LTD. & ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT02\/09\/1986 […]<\/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-97067","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRib Tapes (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 September, 1986 - 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\/rib-tapes-india-pvt-ltd-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-1986\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rib Tapes (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 September, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rib-tapes-india-pvt-ltd-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-1986\" \/>\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=\"1986-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-16T19:42:49+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rib-tapes-india-pvt-ltd-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-1986#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rib-tapes-india-pvt-ltd-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-1986\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rib Tapes (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 September, 1986\",\"datePublished\":\"1986-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-16T19:42:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rib-tapes-india-pvt-ltd-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-1986\"},\"wordCount\":2011,\"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\\\/rib-tapes-india-pvt-ltd-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-1986#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rib-tapes-india-pvt-ltd-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-1986\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rib-tapes-india-pvt-ltd-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-1986\",\"name\":\"Rib Tapes (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 September, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1986-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-16T19:42:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rib-tapes-india-pvt-ltd-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-1986#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rib-tapes-india-pvt-ltd-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-1986\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rib-tapes-india-pvt-ltd-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-1986#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rib Tapes (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 September, 1986\"}]},{\"@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":"Rib Tapes (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 September, 1986 - 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\/rib-tapes-india-pvt-ltd-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-1986","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rib Tapes (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 September, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rib-tapes-india-pvt-ltd-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-1986","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1986-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-16T19:42:49+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rib-tapes-india-pvt-ltd-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-1986#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rib-tapes-india-pvt-ltd-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-1986"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rib Tapes (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 September, 1986","datePublished":"1986-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-16T19:42:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rib-tapes-india-pvt-ltd-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-1986"},"wordCount":2011,"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\/rib-tapes-india-pvt-ltd-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-1986#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rib-tapes-india-pvt-ltd-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-1986","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rib-tapes-india-pvt-ltd-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-1986","name":"Rib Tapes (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 September, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1986-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-16T19:42:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rib-tapes-india-pvt-ltd-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-1986#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rib-tapes-india-pvt-ltd-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-1986"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rib-tapes-india-pvt-ltd-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-september-1986#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rib Tapes (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 September, 1986"}]},{"@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\/97067","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=97067"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/97067\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=97067"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=97067"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=97067"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}