ed Case No7 of 1987 In Transfer Petition No 390 of 1986
Dr YS Chitale T U Mehta and RP Kapur for the Petitioners NN Keshwani RN Keshwani Ms Madhu Moolchandani and K Rajendra Chodhary for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SEN J
The principal question in controversy in this petition under article 226 of the Constitution filed by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd a Government of India undertaking which has been transferred from the High Court of Bombay to this Court under article 139A Of the Constitution is whether the petitioner is entitled to the protection of PG NO 48 section 15A of the Bombay Rent Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 introduced by Maharashtra Act No 17 of 1973 read with section 5 of the Esso Acquisition of Undertakings in India Act 1974
Put very briefly the essential facts are these
The Esso Eastern Inc a company organised and existing under the laws of the State of Belaware USA was carrying on in India the business of distributing and marketing petroleum products manufactured by Esso Standard Refining Company of India Ltd and Lube India Ltd and had for that purpose established places of business in India
The company had taken several fiats in the Metropolitan City of Greater Bombay and elsewhere for accommodating their employees including Flat No35 in Block No8 in the housing colony known as Shyam Niwas situate at Warden Road now called Bhulabhai Desai Road Bombay on leave and licence basis for a period of one year in terms of an agreement in writing dated 26th November 1968 from Smt
Nanki M Malkani
respondent No 2 herein
On 4th December
1968 respondent No 1 Shyam Co operative Housing Society Ltd passed a Resolution admitting petitioner No 2 TJ Nansukhani and employee of the company as a nominal member of the society though he was not the licensee The company on 16th January 1970 exercised the option of renewal of the licence for another year ie till 30th November 1970
On 29th November 1971 respondent No 2 Smt
Nanki M Malkani addressed a letter to the company intimating that the agreement for leave and licence was due to expire on that date and accordingly the period of the said licence was renewed yearly from time to time to time years on the expiry of each term of licence ie on 30th November 1972 and 30th November 1972 and 30th November 1973
In the meanwhile the State Legislature of Maharashtra enacted Act No 17 of 1973
The amendment Act also made consequential changes to which we shall presently refer
Undoubtedly the Esso Standard Inc was in occupation of the flat in question as on 1st February 1973 and thus acquired the status of a tenant under section 15A of the Act
On 13th March
the Esso Acquisition of Undertakings in India Act 1974 was brought into force
As from that date
the Central Government by virtue of sub section
1 of section 5 of the Act was deemed to be the tenant of the flat in question
On 9th April
1975 respondent No 2 Smt
Nanki M Malkani sent a communication to the petitioner affirming the terms and conditions of the licence
Again on 24th March 1975 she addressed a letter confirming that she had given the aforesaid flat to Esso Eastern Inc in December 1968 on leave and licence basis and the petitoner PG NO 49 being the successor in tittle of that company had been occupying the flat as licensee on the same terms and conditions
On 11th September 1980 the society passed a resolution calling upon the petitioner Corporation to vacate the said premises and directing that respondent No 2 Smt
Nanki M Malkani should herself occupy the flat
Upon failure of the Corporation to vacate the premises the society on 15th September 1980 filed an application under section 9II of the Maharashtra Co operative Societies Act 1960 before the 3rd Co operative Court Bombay for eviction of the petitioner and its employee
On 7th January 1981 petitioner No I permitted another employee to occupy the flat
The 3rd Co operative Court Bombay after consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties by its well reasoned judgment dated 6th June 1983 dismissed the claims of the society holding inter alia that Esso Eastern Inc was in occupation of the flat in dispute under a subsisting licence as on 1st February 1973 and thus got the protection available to a licensee under section I5A of the Bombay Rent Act and the said protection could not be taken away merely by the society making a claim for eviction under section 91I of the Act
Aggrieved the society went up in appeal to the Maharashtra State Co operative Appellate Court which by its judgment dated 17th March 19X4 allowed the appeal and decreed the claim of the society requiring petitioner No 1 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd to vacate Flat No 35 in Block No 8 of the society building with a further direction that respondent No 2 Smt
Nanki M Malkani should occupy the flat in question herself
I hereupon the petitioner moved the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution for an appropriate writ direction or order for quashing the impugned judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra State Co operative Appellate Court
This petition mainly raises three questions
They are 1 Whether the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited being a successor in interest of the Esso Eastern Inc the licensee was entitled to the protection of section 15A of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 introduced by the Maharashtra Act No 17 of 1973 having regard to the fact that the Esso Eastern Inc was in occupation of the flat in dispute under a subsisting licence as existing on 1st February 1973 2 Whether the Maharashtra State operative Appellate Court was justified in holding that a licence being purely personal
upOn acquisitiOn of the Esso Eastern Inc by the Central Government under the Esso Acquisition of Undertakings in India Act 1974 the agreement for leave and licence as existing on the appointed day ie 13th March 1974 under section 2 a of that Act stood extinguished and therefore the right acquired by Esso PG NO 50 Eastern Inc under section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act of being a protected tenant in relation to the flat in question could not stand transferred to or be vested in the Central Government under section 3 of the Acquisition Act
Was it also justified in holding that although the Esso Eastern Inc was deemed to be a tenant of the disputed flat under section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act the Central Government could not be deemed to have become the tenant thereof under sub section
I of section 5 of the Acquisition Act merely because prior to the enactment of section ISA of the Bombay Rent Act the premises were held by Esso Eastern Inc on an agreement for leave and licence 3 Whether a claim for ejectment of an occupant of a flat in a cooperative housing society having been let into possession of the premises under an agreement for leave and licence executed between it and a member of the society by virtue of its employee having become a nominal member thereof is a dispute touching the business of the society  within the meaning of section 9 1 of the Act
In the view that we take on the first two questions there is no need to answer the third which is already covered by the decision of this Court in O N Bhatnagar vs Smt
Rukibai Narsindas  Ors
  The statutory provisions bearing on these questions are set out below
The relevant provision in sub section
I of section 91 of the Act prior to its amendment provided 91 1 Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force any dispute touching the parties to the dispute  to the Registrar if both the parties thereto are one or other of the following a a society b a member past member or a person claiming through a member  
The definition of the term landlord  as contained in section 53 of the Bombay Rent Act was amended to include in respect of a licensee deemed to be tenant by section 15A the licenser who has given such licence 
The expression licensee  as defined in sub section
4A thereof introduced by the Amending Act insofar as material reads as follows 4A licensee  in respect of any premises or any part thereof means the person who is in occupation of the pre PG NO 51 mises or such part as the case may be under a subsisting agreement for licence given for a licence fee or charge  and includes any person in such occupation of any premises or part thereof in a building vesting in or leased to a cooperative housing society registered or deemed to be registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act 1960 but does not include a paying guest a member of a family residing together a person in the service or employment of the licensor etc  and the expressions licence licenser and premises given on licence  shall be construed accordingly
 Sub section
1 of section 15A of the Bombay Rent as introduced by the Maharashtra Act No 17 of 1973 provides 15A1
Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Act or anything contrary in any other law for the time being in force or in any contract where any person is on February 1 1973 in occupation of any premises or any part thereof which is not less than a room as a licensee he shall on that date be deemed to have become for the purposes of this Act the tenant of the landlord in respect of the premises or part thereof in his occupation
 Sec
281 of the Act insofar as material reads
28 1
Notwithstanding anything contained in any law and notwithstanding that by reason of the amount of the claim or for any other reason the suit or proceeding would not but
for this provision be within its jurisdiction
a in Greater Bombay the Court of Small Causes Bombay aa b shall have jurisdiction to entertain and try any suit or proceeding between a landlord and a tenant relating to the recovery of rent or possession of any premises to which any of the provisions of this Part apply  and to decide any application made under this Act and to deal with any claim PG NO 52 or question arising out of this Act or any of its provisions and  no other court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any such suit proceeding or application or to deal with such claim or question
 We must then refer to the relevant provisions of the Esso Eastern Inc The avowed object and purpose of the Esso Acquisition of Undertakings in India Act 1974 as reflected in the long title is to provide for the acquisition and transfer of the right title and interest of Esso Eastern Inc the foreign company in relation to its undertakings in India with a view to ensuring co ordinated distribution and utilisation of petroleum products distributed and marketed in India by Esso Eastern Inc and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto
The preamble to the Act is in these terms Whereas Esso Eastern Inc a foreign company is carrying on in India the business of distributing and marketing petroleum products manufactured by Esso Standard Refining Company of India Limited and Lube India Limited and has for that purpose established places of business at Bombay and other places in India And whereas it is expedient in the public interest that the undertakings in India of Esso Eastern Inc should he acquired in order to ensure that the ownership and control of the petroleum products distributed and marketed in India by the said company are vested in the State and thereby so distributed as best to subserve the common good Section 3 of the Act provides 3 Transfer and vesting in the Central Government of the undertakings of Esso in India On the appointed day the right title and interest of Esso in relation to its undertakings in India shall stand transferred to and shall stand in the Central Government
The Act received the assent of the President on the 13th March 1974 and published on that day became the appointed day as defined in section 2a of the Act
Sub section
 1 of section 5 provides 5
Central Government to be lessee or tenant under certain circumstances l Where any property is held in India by Esso under any lease or under any right of tenancy PG NO 53 the Central Government shall on and from the appointed day be deemed to have become the lessee or tenant as the case may be in respect of such property as if the lease or tenancy in relation to such property had been granted to the Central Government and thereupon all the rights under such lease or tenancy shall be deemed to have been transferred to and vested in the Central Government Section 71 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sections 3 4 and 6 the Central Government may if it is satisfied that a Government company is willing to comply or has complied with such terms and conditions as that Government may think fit to impose direct by notification that the right title and interest and the liabilities of Esso in relation to any undertaking in India shall instead of continuing to vest in the Central Government vest in the Government company either on the date of the notification or on such earlier or later date not being a date earlier than the appointed day as may be specified in the notification
The Act makes provision that if there was any dispute with regard to what is vested in the Central Government the proper forum was the Central Government for taking a decision
19 of the Act reads as under 19
Power to remove difficulties If any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of this Act the Central Government may by order not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act
remove the difficulty Provided that no such order shall be made after the expiry of a period of two years from the appointed day
 In exercise of the powers conferred by sub sl of section 7 of the Act the Central Government in the Ministry of Petroleum  Chemicals issued a notification No GSR 131F dated 14th March 1974
that on being satisfied that Esso Standard Refining Company of India Limited a Government company is willing to comply with the terms and India imposed by the Central Government hereby directs that the right title and interest and the liabilities of Esso Eastern Inc in relation to its undertakings in l ndia shall instead of continuing to vest in the Central Government
vest wef
the 15th day of March 1974 in Esso Standard Refining Company of India Limited
Indubitably
as on the appointed day ie 13th March 1974 PG NO 54 under section 2a of the Acquisition Act the Esso Eastern Inc had acquired the status of a protected tenant under section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act and the tenancy rights so acquired in relation to the flat in question stood transferred to and became vested in the Central Government
By virtue of the aforesaid notification issued under section 71 of the Act the rights of tenancy in the 13 flat in question instead of continuing to vest in the Central Government became vested in Esso Standard Refining Company of India Limited a Government of India undertaking wef
15th March 1974
It is also necessary to mention that the Central Government held in the name of the President 74 of the equity share capital of the Esso Standard Refining Company of India Limited which therefore became a Government company as defined by section 617 of the 
On 12th July 1974 the Company Law Board in exercise of the powers conferred by sub sections
1 and 2 of section 396 of the  read with the notification of the Government of India in the Department of Company Affairs No GSR 443E dated 18th October 1972 made Lube India Limited a Esso Standard Refining company of India Limited Amalgamation Order 1974
3 of the said Order provided that as from the appointed day the undertaking of Lube India Limited shall stand transferred to and vest in Esso Standard Refining Company of India Limited
As a result of the amalgamation of the two companies the name of Esso Standard Refining Company of India Limited was changed to Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited
It is therefore evident that petition No 1 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited a Government of India undertaking is a successor in interest of Esso Eastern Inc which acquired the status of a deemed tenant under section ISA of the Bombay Rent Act which right devolved on the Central Government under section 61 of the Acquisition Act
Upon these facts and the statutory provisions the 3rd Cooperative Court rightly concluded as under Thus it is clear that there was a subsisting licence in favour of opponent No 3 as on 1273
The definition Licensee  as given in Section 54A of the Rent Act includes inter alia a person in occupation of premises of a co operative housing society
PG NO 55 My findings on this issue are that the opponent No 3 has a right to the premises against opponent No 1 as protected tenant under Section 15A of the Rent Act
 In dealing with the question it observed The Supreme Court has clearly observed that the protection given to a licensee under a valid licence as on 1273 under Act 17 of the amended Rent Act is available to a licensee of any premises or any part thereof in a building vesting in or leased to a co operative housing society
This protection given to a licensee in the position mentioned above cannot be taken away merely by the society filing the case against the member and occupant for reliefs to the opponent member
The provisions of the two legislations are to be harmoniously interpreted and such harmonious interpretation is possible
In case the occupant of a premises gets protection under section 15A of the Rent Act against the member the society can implement the provisions of section 2 l6 of the Maharashtra Co operative Societies Act 1960 by determining the rights of the member and admitting a new member for the premises
Hence my finding on the second part of the issue are that the rights of opponent No 3 cannot be determined without determining the rights of opponent No I ie Nanki M Malkani a co partner member in the suit premises
 In view of these findings the 3rd Co operative Court held in favour of the petitioner corporation and dismissed the claim for eviction filed by the society under section 9 l of the Act
Curiously enough while allowing the appeal the State Appellate Court has observed as follows One thing is clear that Hindustan Petroleum took over the rights and liabilities of Esso Standard Eastern Co We would like to point out that leave and licence agreement confers only a personal right to occupy  that right cannot be transferred nor it can be inherited by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation by virtue of the merger of Esso Company with Hindustan Petroleum Corporation
Under these circumstances it has to be noted that as soon as the Esso PG NO 56 Standard Eastern Co was taken over by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation the rights under the leave and license agreement came to an end   it cannot be said that it Hindustan Petroleum Corporation also took over the rights of Esso Standard Eastern Co to occupy the flat under the leave and licence agreement
Again it observed  At P 299 of the record there is a letter dated 24380 written by respondent No 1 to the personal adviser of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd In the first para of the said letter it is stated by respondent No 1 that he has given the suit that to Esso Standard Eastern Inc in December 1968 on leave and licence basis and that Hindustan Petroleum Corporation is the successor in title of the Esso Company and that Hindustan Petroleum Corporation is occupying the said flat Probably in ignorance of this legal position the respondent No I wrote the above mentioned letter dated 24
380 to Hindustan Petroleum Corporation 
Even supposing that respondent No I intended that respondent No 3 should continue as a licensee after Esso Standard Eastern Co was taken over by respondent No 3 it has to be noted that there was no separate leave and licence agreement with Hindustan Petroleum Corporation namely
respondent No 3
Even assuming for the sake of argument that respondent No I intended that the flat should be occupied on leave and licence basis by respondent No 3 that leave and licence agreement was terminated by respondent No I by the above mentioned letter
 Further it observed However there is absolutely no evidence to show the licence was renewed at any time
The evidence of the witness examined on behalf of respondent No 2 clearly shows that there was no renewal of the leave and licence agreement respondent No 3 the leave and licence agreement automatically came to an end  under these circumstances we feel that the rights that were given under PG NO 57 the leave and licence agreement were not available to respondent No 3 Dr YS Chitale learned counsel appearing for the petitioners rightly contends that the findings reached by the Appellate Court are manifestly erroneous and have caused a grave miscarriage of justice
The finding that there was no subsisting licence existing as on 1st February 1973 to attract the provisions of section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act in the case of the petitioner Corporation is vitiated by its failure to give effect to the admission contained in the letter dated 24th March 1980 written by respondent No 2 Smt
Nanki M Malkani which is to the effect I had given the above flat to the then Esso Standard Inc in December 1968 on leave and licence basis
You as a successor in title of that company have been occupying the flat as licensee on the same terms and conditions
As you and your predecessors in title are reputed organisation I had given the flat for your officers use in the expectation that you will return the flat
when l require it for my own use
 Besides this letter the learned counsel for the petitioners drew our attention to a sheaf of letters exchanged between respondent No 2 Smt
Nanki M Malkani and the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd showing that she accepted that there was subsisting agreement of leave and licence as late as 24th March 1980 which must be necessary implication give rise to the inference as to the existence of such a licence between its predecessor Esso Eastern Inc as on 1st February 1973 which conferred on it the status of a protected tenant under section 15A of the Act
Indeed the correspondence shows that it was at the behest of respondent No 2 that every time on the expiry of a term of licence it came to be renewed from year to year till section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act was brought into force
Thereafter the predecessor in interest of the petitioner corporation was deemed to be her tenant under section I5A of the Bombay Rent Act
For instance by letter dated 9th April 1975 she wrote to the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd that the above flat had been in its possession since December 1 1968
Again by letter dated 15th November 1976 she wrote to the Corporation forwarding the original bill of the society in support of her demand for payment of enhanced taxes and PG NO 58 charges
In view of these admissions made in these letters and more particularly in the letter dated 29th November 1971 to Esso Eastern Inc which reads as under As the present agreement of leave and licence in regard to above flat is due to expire on 30th November 1973 that is two years from hence you would like me to give you an undertaking of renewal of this agreement to justify the expenditure being incurred by you now the findings of the Appellate Court are clearly erroneous
On the other hand it stands proved that Esso Eastern Inc had acquired the status of deemed tenant or protected licensee under section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act as on 1st February 1973
The findings of the Appellate Court to the contrary are therefore clearly erroneous
We are unable to sustain the view taken by the Appellate  Court in not giving effect to sub section
1 of section 5 which vested the tenancy rights in relation to the flat in question on the Central Government as from appointed day
While it is true that a licence being personal is not capable of being transferred there was no warrant for the assumption by the Appellate Court that the licence stood extinguished with the acquisition of the right title and interest of Esso Eastern Inc under section 3 of the Acquisition Act
That Act came into force on 15th March 1974 and in the meanwhile the licensee Esso Eastern Inc had already acquired the status of deemed tenant under section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act admittedly there was a subsisting licence as on 1st February 1973
The Appellate Court has also failed to appreciate that the name of Esso Eastern Inc was changed to Esso Eastern Inc by a Certificate of Amendment dated22nd December 1970 vide a Resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the Corporation on 15th December 1970
In view of all this the finding of the Appellate Court that the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd was entitled to the protection of section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act clearly borders on traversity and can hardly be swtained
The Appellate Court was clearly in error in not appreciating that section by 4 3 of the Acquisition Act the right title and interest of Esso Eastern Inc in relation to its undertakings in India shall stand transferred to and shall vest in the Central Government as from the appointed day ie as from 13th March
Under sub section
I of section 5 thereof the Central Government became the lessee or tenant as the case may be
By sub section
2 thereof on the expiry of the term of any or tenancy refereed to in sub section
1 such lease or tenancy shall if PG NO 59 so desired by the Central Government be renewed on the same terms and conditions on which the lease or tenancy was held by Esso immediately before the appointed day
By a notification issued on the next date the right title and interest of the Central Government became vested in Esso Standard Refining Company of India Ltd a Government company wef 15th March 1974
Furthermore by reason of Lube India and Esso Standard Refining Company of India Ltd Amalgamation Order 1974 made by the Company Law Board under section 396 1  2 of the  the undertaking of Lube lndia Ltd vested in Esso Standard Refining Company of India Ltd and immediately upon such transfer the name of Esso Standard Refining Company of lndia Ltd stood changed to Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd In the premises petitioner No 1 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd is clearly protected under section 15A of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act
In that view of the matter we do not think it necessary to deal with the contention as regards the applicability of section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act 1960
All aspects arising out of the submissions as to the jurisdiction of the Registrar under section 911 of the Act have already been considered by this Court on ON Bhatnagar s case and we reiterate the principles laid down therein
In the result the petition under article 226 of the Constitution succeeds and is allowed
I he judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra State Co operative Appellate Court dated June 6 1983 allowing the claim of respondent No 1 Shyam Co operative Housing Society for eviction of the petitioners as also the proceedings initiated by it under section 91 of the Maharashtra Co operative Societies Act
1960 are quashed
Y Lal Petition allowed


Summary:
The respondent company was engaged in the manufacture of Carbon Paper
It was served with a notice demanding central excise duty on carbon papers cleared from its factory during the period 2531979 to 2491979 under section 11 B of the 
The respondent stated in reply that the notice was without jurisdiction because it was only after 2821982 that the product was subjected to duty under sub item 3 of item 17 of the Central Excise Tariff
The Assistant Collector of Central Excise confirmed the demand
The appellate Collector however accepted the respondent s contention
The Collector Appeals and the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Revenue s appeals
The Tribunal upheld the contention of the respondent that for the period before its amendment in 1982 carbon paper fell under Tariff item 68 and not under Tariff Item 172 as was contended by the Revenue
Before this Court the Revenue contends that I carbon paper being akin to coated paper was covered since 1976 under sub item 2 of item 17 of the Central Excise Tariff which included paper which had been subjected to coating 2 the introduction of specific name carbon paper  as sub item 3 of item 17 in 1982 was with a view to subject it to a different rate of duty and 3 the amendment so far as item 173 was concerned was mere clarificatory and was introduced ex abundanti cautela
The respondent on the other hand contends that if carbon paper was already included then there was no purpose of introducing these subsequent amendments
Disposing of the appeal it was PG NO 12 PG NO 13 HELD 1 Where no definition is provided in the statute itself for ascertaining the correct meaning of a fiscal entry reference to a dictionary is not always safe
The correct guide is the context and the trade meaning which is prevalent in that particular trade where that goods is known or traded
21D E 2 If a statute contains language which is capable of being construed in a popular sense such a statute is not to be construed according to the strict or technical meaning of the language contained in it but is to be construed in its popular sense meaning of course by the words popular sense that which people conversant with the subject matter with which the statute is dealing would attribute to it
The ordinary words in every day use are therefore to be construed according to their popular sense
23F G 3 Paper simpliciter cannot include  carbon paper because that would not be in consonance with the popular understanding of the expression paper
23G H 24A 4 Where paper of a special type defined in the particular statute as one including paper which have been subjected to various treatments such as coating impregnating how that paper be understood there must be evidence of that understanding
24A 5 There is authority of the Indian Standards Institute s publication Glossary of Terms used in Paper Trade and Industry to the effect that carbon paper is understood as a coated paper in trade
23A C 6 The trade notices and the tariff advices issued by the Board are not relevant as such in construing items in Tariff Schedule
24E F 7 Understood in the accepted notion of construing entries of fiscal Statute not from a technical or scientific point of view but from the point of view of the people in the trade dealing with that particular type of goods and having regard to the evidence of the Indian Standards Institute and in the absence of any other evidence to the contrary on the basis of the definition of paper or it was in the year 1976 carbon paper would come within item 172 of the Tariff Items and would not fall into the residuary entry
23B C Sai Giridhara Supply Co vs Collector vs Collector of Central Excise Bombay Tribunal Commissioner of Sales Tax UP vs MSN Brothers Kanpur PG NO 14   King vs Planters Nut and Chocolate Company Ltd 1951 CLR exhibit 122 Union of India and Anr
vs Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co Ltd AIR 1963 SC 791 Grenfell vs IRC  Porritts  Spencer Asia Ltd vs State of Haryana 1979 I SCC 82 Kores India Ltd Thane vs Collector of Central Excise Thane
 State of Uttar Pradesh vs Ms Kores India Ltd   Attorney General vs Winstar lay   Khoday Industries Ltd vs Union of India  Orient Paper Mills Ltd vs Union of India   Ms Colgate Palmolive India P Ltd 1979 ELT J 567 Dunlop India Ltd vs Union of India AIR 1977 SC 597 Md Qasim Larry Factory Manager Sasamusa Sugar Works vs Muhammad Samsuddin   referred to