# M/s Sandeep Entp., Varanasi v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 12 ILRA 713
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-12-04
- **Case number:** Writ -C No. 25200 of 2024
- **Bench:** Shekhar B. Saraf, Vipin Chandra Dixit
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-sandeep-entp-varanasi-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51331
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Civil Law - Uttar Pradesh Procurement
Manual, 2016 - Clause 9.17 - Issue in
instant writ petition relates to a condition
in tender document issued by respondent
No.3 for procurement of super enamelled
aluminium
winding
wire
wherein
performance guarantee at the rate of 10%
of contract value was required to be
furnished by person, who was awarded
tender. (Para 3)

Argument by petitioner that it being a
micro and small enterprise and Clause
9.17
exempted
it
from
furnishing
performance security/guarantee against
contract for supply of goods manufactured
by it - Clause 1.2 of Manual St.s that
provisions of Manual was to apply to
Government
departments
and
its
ancillaries - As seen in both judgments
cited by respondents, one cannot in any
manner treat companies enacted under
Electricity Act, 2003 and governed by
Companies Act, 1956 to be part of
Government departments - In instant
case, tender was issued after Board of
Directors finalised the same - Conditions
in tender decided in Board meeting, and
thereafter, letter was issued by U.P.
Power
Corporation
Limited
to
other
distribution companies - As U.P. Power
Corporation Limited and respondent No.3
are
not
part
of
any
Government
department, person who participated in
tender issued by said companies cannot
take benefits of provisions of Manual - In
fact, petitioner first applied for tender and
thereafter raised objection with regard to
performance security deposit. (Para 7)

Contracts given for supply of materials by
infrastructure
companies
such
as
respondent Nos.2 and 3, as independent
companies, cannot be subject to any of
conditions in Manual unless companies
themselves agree to same. (Para 8)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

12 All. M/s Sandeep Entp., Varanasi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
713
exercise
be
concluded
expeditiously, say within a period of 2
months from the date a certified copy of
this Judgment is submitted to the opposite
party no.2.
----------
(2024) 12 ILRA 713
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.12.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE VIPIN CHANDRA DIXIT, J.

Writ -C No. 25200 of 2024

M/s Sandeep Entp., Varanasi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Nikhil Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Krishna Agarwal, Sri Gireesh Chandra Tiwari
(S.C.)

Civil Law - Uttar Pradesh Procurement
Manual, 2016 - Clause 9.17 - Issue in
instant writ petition relates to a condition
in tender document issued by respondent
No.3 for procurement of super enamelled
aluminium
winding
wire
wherein
performance guarantee at the rate of 10%
of contract value was required to be
furnished by person, who was awarded
tender. (Para 3)

Argument by petitioner that it being a
micro and small enterprise and Clause
9.17
exempted
it
from
furnishing
performance security/guarantee against
contract for supply of goods manufactured
by it - Clause 1.2 of Manual St.s that
provisions of Manual was to apply to
Government
departments
and
its
ancillaries - As seen in both judgments
cited by respondents, one cannot in any
manner treat companies enacted under
Electricity Act, 2003 and governed by
Companies Act, 1956 to be part of
Government departments - In instant
case, tender was issued after Board of
Directors finalised the same - Conditions
in tender decided in Board meeting, and
thereafter, letter was issued by U.P.
Power
Corporation
Limited
to
other
distribution companies - As U.P. Power
Corporation Limited and respondent No.3
are
not
part
of
any
Government
department, person who participated in
tender issued by said companies cannot
take benefits of provisions of Manual - In
fact, petitioner first applied for tender and
thereafter raised objection with regard to
performance security deposit. (Para 7)

Contracts given for supply of materials by
infrastructure
companies
such
as
respondent Nos.2 and 3, as independent
companies, cannot be subject to any of
conditions in Manual unless companies
themselves agree to same. (Para 8)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Maa Vind Vasini Industries Vs Purvanchal
Vidut Vitran Nigam Ltd. reported in 2008 2 AIILJ
456, (Para 34 to 38)

2. Rajeev Kumar Jauhari & ors. Vs St. of U.P. &
ors. reported in 2006 10 ADJ 729, (Para 31, 33,
34)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J.)

1. We have heard learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondent No.2, being the Uttar
Pradesh Power Corporation Limited and
learned Standing Counsel for the State
respondents.

2. In the present writ petition, the
petitioner has prayed for the following
reliefs:-
714 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
"(a) issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
calling for the record of the matter
and quashing the order dated
19.07.2024
passed
by
the
respondent no.2.
(b) issue a writ, order or
direction
in
the
nature
of
mandamus
commanding
the
respondent no.3 to exempt the
petitioner
from
furnishing
performance security pursuant to
Offer (Letter of Intent) dated
15.05.2024 for supply of super
enameled Aluminium winding wire
manufactured by the petitioner in
the light of provisions contained in
para 9.17 of the U.P. Procurement
Manual, 2016.
(c) issue a writ, order or
direction
in
the
nature
of
mandamus
commanding
the
respondent no.3 to issue amended
Offer (Letter of Intent) dated
15.05.2024
as
per
provisions
contained in para 9.17 of the U.P.
Procurement Manual, 2016.
(d) issue any other or
further order which this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in
the circumstances of the case.
(e) Award the cost of writ
petition to the petitioner."

3. The crux of the issue in this
writ petition relates to a condition in the
tender document issued by the respondent
No.3 for procurement of super enameled
aluminium winding wire wherein a
performance guarantee at the rate of 10%
of the contract value is required to be
furnished by the person, who is awarded
the tender.

FACTS
4. The facts of the case, in
nutshell, are as under:-

(a) The tender was opened
on 26.12.2023 and the petitioner
applied for the same on 1.1.2024.
Subsequent to the tender being
filed
by
the
petitioner,
the
petitioner raised an objection on
3.1.2024 with regard to the 10%
performance security deposit on the
ground that the said clause is in
violation of the provisions of the
Uttar Pradesh Procurement Manual,
2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Manual'). Thereafter, several such
letters
were
written
by
the
petitioner
to
the
respondents.
Furthermore, the Special Secretary,
Government of U.P., Lucknow also
issued
several
letters
to
the
respondent No.2, being the U.P.
Power Corporation Limited, asking
it to consider the performance
guarantee and reduce the same
from 10% to 1% in favour of the
petitioner.

(b) It is to be noted that the
petitioner was granted tender and
Letter of Intent was issued on
15.5.2024. It is to be further noted
that the petitioner had come to this
Court in an earlier round of
litigation and the U.P. Power
Corporation Limited was directed
to decide the issue with regard to
the performance guarantee by an
order of the coordinate Bench of
this Court dated 4.6.2024. The
respondent in furtherance of the
above order, has passed an order on
19.7.2024 which is the impugned
order in the present writ petition.
12 All. M/s Sandeep Entp., Varanasi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
715
ARGUMENTS
OF
THE
PETITIONER

5. Mr. Nikhil Kumar, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner
has
raised
the
following
submissions:-

(i) Mr. Kumar has placed
Clause 9.17 of the Manual to
emphasise that since the petitioner
is a micro and small enterprise, it is
exempted
from
furnishing
performance
security/guarantee
against contract for supply of goods
manufactured by it. The relevant
paragraph of aforesaid clause of the
Manual is provided below for
better reference:-

"9.17 Micro and
Small
Enterprises
and
Industrial
Co-operatives
within State, which have
been registered as such
with the Commissioner and
Director of Industries, on
furnishing proof of such
registration are exempted
from
furnishing
performance
security
against
contracts
for
supply
of
goods
manufactured by them."

(ii) Mr. Kumar has further
relied on Paragraph 38 of a
judgment of the coordinate Bench
of this High Court in Maa Vind
Vasini Industries Vs. Purvanchal
Vidut Vitran Nigam Ltd. reported
in 2008 2 AIILJ 456 to buttress his
argument
that
even
if
the
respondent
Nos.2
and
3
are
independent companies, they are
required to follow the statutory
provisions especially one issued by
the State Government. The relevant
paragraph is provided below:-

"38. Thus it is
evident
that
once
independent
companies
have come into existence,
rights,
property
and
obligations
have
also
vested therein separately,
they are all totally separate
and individual bodies and
have to function in an
autonomous
manner
without any influence from
any third party except to
the extent the statutory
provisions
otherwise
require. We have not been
shown any provision under
which an officer of UPPCL
can issue binding orders to
other
companies
like
various Discerns including
the respondent No. 1. It
appears to us that though
the
UPSEB
has
been
disbanded and its entire
functions and obligations
etc.
have
been
decentralised in various
companies
yet
the
authorities
of
erstwhile
UPSEB who have now been
transferred and absorbed
in
newly
incorporated
companies are yet working
in the same old atmosphere
as if the hierarchy as it was
existing in the erstwhile
UPSEB is still continuing. I
he respondents, it appears,
have not been able to
716 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
accept and adopt the legal
changes which have taken
place in the last 6 or 7
years. The issuance of
letter dated 24.07.2007 by
Chief
Engineer
(Commercial). UPPCL to
various Discoms is an
illustration of the aforesaid
continuing understating of
the respondents. It cannot
be
disputed
that
even
shareholders of company
cannot interfere in the day
to day functioning of the
company which has to be
managed by the Board of
Directors of that company.
In these circumstances, the
officials of UPPCL, in our
view. neither in any law nor
under the provisions of
Article of Association nor
otherwise can have any
power or authority to issue
any direction to various
other
companies
like
respondent No. 1 to act and
function in a particular
manner. Issue No. 4 is
answered accordingly."

(iii) Mr. Kumar has also
placed before this Court, Clause 1.2
of the Manual which relates to
scope and applicability of the
Manual.
The
said
clause
is
provided below:-

"1.2 These
rules
are
applicable to the
procurement
of
goods
by
the
procuring
entities
of all Government
departments, their
attached
and
subordinate offices.
Provided that the
provisions of this
manual, in so far
as
they
are
inconsistent
with
the
procedure
specified in respect
of
the
schemes/projects
funded
by
the
Central
Government,
International
Financial Agencies
or schemes/projects
covered
under
International
Agreements,
shall
not
apply
to
procurement
of
goods
for
such
schemes/projects."

(iv)
Mr.
Kumar
has
submitted that even though the
respondent
Nos.2
and
3
are
independent companies under the
Companies
Act,
1956,
the
provisions of the Manual would
apply
to
the
same
as
the
Government is 100% share holder
in these companies. He has further
submitted that the proviso to
Clause 1.2 assists his arguments as
the said proviso reads that unless
the provisions in the Manual are
inconsistent with the procedure
prescribed
in
respect
of
schemes/projects funded by the
Central Government, International
Financial
Agencies
or
12 All. M/s Sandeep Entp., Varanasi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
717
schemes/projects covered under the
International agreements, they shall
not apply to procurement of goods
for
such
scheme/projects.
He
argued that since there is no
specific direction/decision taken by
the Board of Directors of the
respondent Nos.2 and 3 with regard
to non-exemption of the micro and
small enterprises, the provisions in
the Manual especially Clause 9.17
would apply.

ARGUMENTS
OF
THE
RESPONDENTS

6. Mr. Krishna Agrawal, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent No.2 has raised the following
submissions:-

(i) Firstly, Mr. Agrawal
relies on a letter written by the
Managing
Director
of
Uttar
Pradesh
Power
Corporation
Limited to all the distribution
companies informing them of the
tender that is being floated and the
conditions attached to the same. In
the particular letter, Clause 3 of the
standard bidding documents for etender
specifically
mentions
a
contract performance guarantee for
an amount of 10% of the contract
value is to be furnished by the
successful bidder. He, thereafter,
relies on Clause 1.2 of the Manual
and submits that by no stretch of
imagination can the Uttar Pradesh
Power Corporation Limited and the
respondent No.3 be termed as
Government
departments
or
ancillaries thereof. Mr. Agrawal
thereafter relies on two coordinate
Bench judgments of this Court in
the
case
of
Rajeev
Kumar
Jauhari and others Vs. State of
U.P. and others reported in 2006
10 ADJ 729 and Maa Vind Vasini
Industries (supra). He places
reliance on the extract of the
judgment
in
Rajeev
Kumar
Jauhari (supra) that is provided
below:-

"31. ... Merely for the
reason that the State Government is
100% share holder of the company
does not identify the company itself
with the State Government. In
Shrikant v. Vasant Rao , the Court
held in para 24 that in the matter of
a company where the entire share
capital is held by the State
Government, yet it cannot be
identified
with
the
State
Government and is always entitled
to act and proceed in a manner a
company function. This principle
was recognized as long back as in
1970 also by a Constitution Bench
in R.C. Cooper v. Union of India ,
and at page 584, the Apex Court
held- "A company registered under
the Companies Act is a legal
person, separate and distinct from
its individual members. Property of
the Company is not the property of
the shareholders. A shareholder
has merely an interest in the
Company arising under its Article
of Association measured by a sum
of money for the purpose of
liability, and by a share in the
profit.
***
33. The aforesaid view was
reiterated in Heavy Engineering
Mazdoor Union v. State of Bihar
and Ors., Andhra Pradesh State
718 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Road Transport Corporation v.
Income Tax Officer , Western
Coalfields Ltd. v. Special Area
Development
Authority
.
A
Constitution Bench of the Apex
Court in Electronics Corporation
of India Ltd. v. Secretary, Revenue
Department, Government of A.P. ,
in Para-15 of the judgment held as
under:
"A clear distinction must
be drawn between a company and
its shareholder, even though that
shareholder may be only one and
that the Central or a State
Government. In the eye of the law,
a company registered under the
Companies Act is a distinct legal
entity other than the legal entity or
entities that hold us shares."
34. Thus we hold that a
Company can determine terms and
conditions of its employees as
provided
under
Article
of
Association but since the Article of
Association of a Company is
neither a Rule nor Regulation and
has
no
statutory
force
the
conditions determined thereunder
would also be not statutory. The
UPRVUNL thus have the power to
determine terms and conditions of
its employees by making provisions
in
exercise
of
powers
under
provisions of Article of Association
read with Companies Act."

(ii)
Mr.
Agrawal
relies
on
paragraphs 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38 of
the judgment in Maa Vind Vasini
Industries (supra), which are
provided below:-

"34. Another interesting
aspect has been raised, inasmuch
as UPPCL and various Discoms
are
admittedly,
independent
companies incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956. Though
100% share holding of UPPCL is
owned by State Government and
various Discoms and supplier i.e.
respondent No. 1 are subsidiary
companies of UPPCL but the fact
remains that each company is an
independent
juristic
personality
having
its
own
independent
identity. That being so, whether an
official of one company can issue
an order to other companies having
binding effect and, if so, in what
capacity, is an incidental question
needs to be answered to consider
the validity and authority of the
letter dated 24.02.2007 issued by
the Chief Engineer (Commercial),
UPPCL. The concept of subsidiary
company only implies that the
newly incorporated company which
is a subsidiary company has its
share
holding
owned
by
the
promoting company hut neither it
dilutes, in any manner the concept
of conferment of legal personality
nor
the
independence
of
the
companies
is
effected.
The
distinction between the company
and its share holder has been
pointed out by the Apex Court in
R.C. Cooper v. Union of India the
Apex Court held as under:
A
company
registered
under the Companies Act is a legal
person, separate and distinct from
its individual members. Property of
the Company is not the property of
the shareholders. A shareholder
has merely an interest in the
Company arising under its Article
of Association measured by a sum
12 All. M/s Sandeep Entp., Varanasi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
719
of money for the purpose of
liability, and by a share in the
profit.
35. The aforesaid view was
reiterated in Heavy Engineering
Mazdoor Union v. State of Bihar
and Ors. , Andhra Pradesh State
Road Transport Corporation v.
Income Tax Officer , Western
Coalfields Ltd. v. Special Area
Development
Authority
.
A
Constitution Bench of the Apex
Court in Electronics Corporation
of India Ltd. v. Secretary, Revenue
Department, Government of A.P. of
the judgment held as under:
A clear distinction must be
drawn between a company and its
shareholder,
even
though
that
shareholder may be only one and
that the Central or a State
Government. In the eye of the law,
a company registered under the
Companies Act is a distinct legal
entity other than the legal entity or
entities that hold its shares.
36. The company where
shareholding is owned by the
Government can never be treated to
be a department of the Government
and it has a separate legal
existence for all purposes, and, has
to function in accordance with the
Article of Association and the
provision of the Companies Act.
37.
In
(Praga
Tools
Corporation v. C.V. Imanual) it was
held though 80% of the capital of
the said company was subscribed
by the Union Government and State
Government, even then it cannot be
regarded
as
equivalent
to
government department, since, it is
registered under the companies act.
It has a separate legal existence
and could not be a government
concern run by or under the
authority of the Union Government.
38. Thus it is evident that
once independent companies have
come
into
existence,
rights,
property and obligations have also
vested therein separately, they are
all totally separate and individual
bodies and have to function in an
autonomous manner without any
influence from any third party
except to the extent the statutory
provisions otherwise require. We
have not been shown any provision
under which an officer of UPPCL
can issue binding orders to other
companies like various Discerns
including the respondent No. 1. It
appears to us that though the
UPSEB has been disbanded and its
entire functions and obligations etc.
have been decentralised in various
companies yet the authorities of
erstwhile UPSEB who have now
been transferred and absorbed in
newly incorporated companies are
yet working in the same old
atmosphere as if the hierarchy as it
was existing in the erstwhile
UPSEB is still continuing. I he
respondents, it appears, have not
been able to accept and adopt the
legal changes which have taken
place in the last 6 or 7 years. The
issuance of letter dated 24.07.2007
by Chief Engineer (Commercial).
UPPCL to various Discoms is an
illustration
of
the
aforesaid
continuing understating of the
respondents. It cannot be disputed
that even shareholders of company
cannot interfere in the day to day
functioning of the company which
has to be managed by the Board of
720 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Directors of that company. In these
circumstances,
the
officials
of
UPPCL, in our view. neither in any
law nor under the provisions of
Article
of
Association
nor
otherwise can have any power or
authority to issue any direction to
various
other
companies
like
respondent No. 1 to act and
function in a particular manner.
Issue
No.
4
is
answered
accordingly."

ANALYSIS

7. Upon perusal of the
materials on record and after
hearing learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the parties, it is clear
that the only issue in the present
writ petition relates to whether the
petitioner is required to pay the
10%
performance
security
guarantee
as
per
the
tender
documents. The argument of the
petitioner that it being a micro and
small enterprise, Clause 9.17 of the
Manual shall apply in the present
tender bid appears to be far fetched.
In our view, the scope and
applicability of the Manual has
been clearly culled out in Clause
1.2 that specifically states that the
provisions of the Manual is to
apply to Government departments
and its ancillaries. As seen in both
the judgments cited by learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents, one cannot in any
manner treat companies enacted
under the Electricity Act, 2003 and
governed by the Companies Act,
1956
to
be
a
part
of
the
Government departments. In fact
paragraph 36 of the judgment in
Maa
Vind
Vasini
Industries
(supra) categorically states that
even though 100% share holding is
owned by the State Government,
the company can never be treated
as a department of the Government
as the company has a separate legal
existence
for
all
intents
and
purposes. In the present case, we
find that the tender was issued after
the Board of Directors finalised the
same. The conditions in the tender
have been decided in the Board
meeting, and thereafter, letter was
issued on 25.8.2019 by the U.P.
Power Corporation Limited to the
other distribution companies. As
the
U.P.
Power
Corporation
Limited and the respondent No.3
are not part of the any Government
department,
the
person
who
participated in the tender issued by
the above companies cannot seek to
take the benefits of the provisions
of the Manual. In fact, it is clear
that the petitioner first applied for
the tender and thereafter raised the
objection
with
regard
to
the
performance security deposit.

8. In any case, we are of
the view that contracts given for
supply
of
materials
by
infrastructure companies such as
the respondent Nos.2 and 3, that are
independent companies, cannot be
subject to any of the conditions in
the Manual unless the companies
themselves agree to the same.

9. In light of the above
findings and the judgments cited,
we do not find any merit in the
arguments
raised
by
the
petitioner.
12 All. M/S Kingswood Hotel Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
721
10. This Court thanks both
counsel appearing on behalf of the
parties
for
their
ingenious
arguments made before this Court.

11.

With
the
above
observations, this writ petition is
dismissed.
----------
(2024) 12 ILRA 721
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.12.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.

Writ -C No. 28403 of 2024

M/S Kingswood Hotel Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Shiv Sagar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

(A) Civil Law - Stamp Duty & Registration -
Registration of Correction Deed - Indian
Stamp Act, 1899 - Article 34-A of Schedule
1-B - Sections 2(10), 2(16)- Section 4-
Several
instruments
used
in
single
transaction of sale, mortgage or settlement,
Registration Act, 1908 - Section 17 -
Compulsory registration of documents -
Constitution of India - Article 12 -Noida as
well as the stamp authorities are the
instrumentality
of
the
State
-
State
instrumentality cannot speak in two voices -
By the correction deed, no fresh stamp duty
can be levied treating it to be a new
conveyance or instrument liable for stamp
duty - Correction deed cannot be treated as
a fresh deed, if there is no transfer of right -
If no right is created, then it has to be
stamped as correction deed and not a fresh
deed.(Para -29,32)
(B) Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - Section 4 -
when multiple instruments are executed
to complete a transaction, only the
principal instrument should attract full
duty, while the subsequent instrument
should be charged nominal duty - In order
to complete the transaction between the
parties, section 4 of the Stamp Act will
come into play and subsequent correction
deed will not be chargeable to stamp duty
as a fresh deed, but only charged as per
the provision of section 4 of the Stamp
Act. (Para - 36, 39)

Commercial plot was allotted to a consortium
under a NOIDA scheme - lease deed was to be
executed in favor of a Special Purpose Company
(SPC) - inadvertent clerical error by NOIDA - lease
was executed in favor of another entity - Years
later, NOIDA admitted mistake and executed
correction deed - Stamp Authorities refused to
register it under Article 34-A - demanded full
stamp duty under Articles 23 & 35 - treated as a
new transfer deed - hence petition - seeking a
mandamus for registration of correction deed with
nominal stamp duty . (Para - 2 to 10)
HELD: - Respondents were directed to register
the correction deed upon presentation by the
parties within 10 days without treating it as a
fresh conveyance deed for stamp duty purposes.
Correction deed falls within the purview of Article
34-A of Schedule 1-B of the Indian Stamp Act,
1899 and must be registered accordingly. (Para -
42)
Petition allowed. (E-7)
List of Cases cited:

1. C.W.C. Vs Adani Ports & S.E.Z. Ltd. & ors.,
(2022) 15 SCC 110

2. Jayalakshmi COELHO Vs Oswald Joseph
COELHO,(2001) 4 SCC 181

3. Srihari (Dead) through L.R. Ch. Niveditha
Reddy Vs Syed Maqdoom Shah & ors., (2015) 1
SCC 607

4. Kishore Singh Ravinder Dev & ors. Vs St. of
Raj.,(1981) 1 SCC 503