SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(Del) 1102

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J.
SHRIRAM COCONUT PRODUCTS (P) LTD. - Petitioner
Versus
UOI & ORS. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 19975/2005
Decided On : 03.09.2013

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Yash Srivastava, Mr. Milanka Chaudhary, Mr. Sarojawand Jha, Advocates
Advocate for Mr. Gourang Kanth, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 & 3.
Mr. Neeraj Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent No.1/UOI. Ms. Biji Rajesh,

Interpretation of terms in the layman's language and avoiding strained interpretations unless indicated by the legislature.

Headnote:

coconut - Industry Classification - Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - Schedule-I - Summary: The court examined whether the petitioner's industry, which processes dry coconut, falls under the entry 'Fruit and Vegetable Preservation Industry' in the EPF Act. The court referred to various interpretations of 'coconut' in different statutes and held that, in the layman's language, dry brown coconut cannot be considered a fruit. The court emphasized that interpretations causing strained meanings should be avoided unless indicated by the legislature. The impugned order was quashed, and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were restrained from taking coercive action against the petitioner under the EPF Act.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the order of the Employees’ Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal, which classified the petitioner's industry processing dry coconut under the entry 'Fruit and Vegetable Preservation Industry' in the EPF Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the industry in question does not fall under the 'Fruit and Vegetable Preservation Industry' as dry brown coconut cannot be considered a fruit in the layman's language.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's industry processing dry coconut falls under the entry 'Fruit and Vegetable Preservation Industry' in the EPF Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized interpreting terms in the layman's language and avoiding strained interpretations unless indicated by the legislature. It also highlighted the need for a wide interpretation of the EPF Act only if indicated by the Supreme Court's ratio.

Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order was quashed. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were restrained from taking coercive action against the petitioner under the EPF Act.

JUDGMENT : -

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. By this petition, challenge is laid by the petitioner to the impugned order of the respondent No. 2-Employees’ Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal dated 27.7.2005. The Appellate Tribunal by the impugned order has held that petitioner’s industry which makes products from desiccated or dry/brown coconuts is covered under the entry “Fruit and Vegetable Preservation Industry” as found in Schedule-I of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short the “EPF Act”).

2. The only issue before this Court is as to whether coconut is or is not a fruit. Before adverting to this aspect, it must be noted that coconut is sold in various forms. As a green coconut it is sold for its water and its kernel, as a dry coconut it is used as an offering to God as also for using as supplement or addition to various cooked dishes. Coconut so far as the petitioner’s industry is concerned is being used in desiccated form i. e dry/dehydrated coconut and converted to either shredded form or grinded/powdered form. The issue is whether this work and industry falls within the expression “fruit” industry as found in the relevant entry under Schedule I of the EPF Act.

3. The expression “coconut” has been interpreted differently with respect to different statutes i. e Sales Tax or Commercial Tax etc. etc. We are concerned with EPF Act in this case, and with respect to which Act, this aspect has not been decided before as to whether dry coconut is or is not a fruit.

4. In my opinion, so far as the industry in which the petitioner is engaged, the same cannot be said to be a fruit industry as coconut is not a fruit. Useful reference in this behalf can be drawn to para 5 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shri Bharuch Coconut Trading Co. And Ors. vs. The Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and Ors, AIR 191 SC 494 which reads as under:

5. In P.A. Thillai Chidambara Nadar v. Addl. Appellate Asstt. Commissioner, Madurai and Anr. [1985] 60 STC 80this Court was to consider whether ripend coconut which is none other than watery coconut is an exempted article as vegetable under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act (1 of 1959). This Court held that fresh fruits and vegetables being household articles of everyday use for the table, these will have to be construed in the popular sense, meaning the sense in which every householder will understand them. Viewed from this angle, the most apposite test would be an answer to a simple question: Would a householder when asked to bring home some 'fresh fruits' and some 'vegetables' for the evening meal, bring coconut too? Obviously the answer is in the negative. Accordingly this Court held that ripend coconut is neither a fresh fruit nor vegetable. The watery coconut is no doubt a ripend coconut used for several purposes like offerings to a deity in a Hindu temple being broken or used on auspicious occasions or used in preparation of the daily table food or in confectionary like biscuits or in the extraction of oil when it is fresh or dried kernel. When a person in the commercial market goes and asks for coconut no one will consider brown coconut to be vegetable or fresh fruit, much less a green fruit. No householder would purchase it as a fruit. No doubt in some English Dictionary, coconut is called a fruit or nut but it is to be understood in its ordinary commercial parlance. In Sri Krishna Coconut Co. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Amalapuram, [1965] 16 STC 511 the Andhra Pradesh High Court was to consider whether fully grown coconut with well developed kernel containing water i.e. watery coconut could be called tender or dried coconut. In that context considering the scope of an explanation to Schedule III of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957 which exempted tender coconut from the sales tax under the Act, it was held that in a tender coconut, the kernel is hardly formed or is only in the initial stages of formation. In







Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top