STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. versus SUBHASH ARJUNDAS KATARIA

Citation: [2011] 10 S.C.R. 708 · Decided: 26-08-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011] 10 S.C.R. 708 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
V. 
SUBHASH ARJUNDAS KATARIA 
(Civil Appeal No.1117 of 2010) 
AUGUST 26, 2011 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] 
Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 - s.2(b) 
- "Commodity in packaged form" - "Pre-packed commodity" 
C - In *Whirlpool case, it was held that refrigerator is covered 
under the term "pre-packed commodity - Placing reliance 
upon the *Whirlpool case, the appellant-State contended that 
the products in question (i.e. sun glasses, watches, fixed 
wireless phones, electrical goods, home appliances, 
D consumer electronics and Microwave Oven) could also be 
considered as "pre-packed commodity" within the meaning of 
the Act and the Rules - Respondent however disputed the 
applicability of the *Whirlpool case on grounds that the issue 
in that case was in the context of Central Excise Act, and that 
E the judgment was sub silentio as the provisions of the Act were 
not taken into consideration in the said case - Held: Though 
the decision in *Whirlpool case was made in the context of 
the Central Excise Act, it cannot be claimed that the judgment 
in *Whirlpool case has no bearing on the issues in the instant 
F appeals - Inasmuch as the said decision was rendered by a 
bench of three Hon'ble Judges with reference to the very same 
Act and Rules, the issue raised in all these appeals have to 
be heard by a larger Bench - Standards of Weights and 
Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 - r. 2(1). 
G 
·The question which arose in the present appeals 
was as to what is the true scope and correct purport of 
the expression "commodity in packaged form" under 
Section 2(b) of the Standards of Weights and Measures 
Act, 1976. In the main Civil Appeal, the specific question 
H 
708 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. v. SU~HASH 709 
ARJUNDAS KATARIA 
' 
was whether the sun glasses can be considered 
11pre· A 
packed commodity" under Rule 2(1) of the Standards of 
Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, · 
1977. In the connected appeals, the product includes 
Titan watches, fixed wireless phones, sun glasses, 
electrical goods, home appliances, consumer electronics 
B 
and Samsung Microwave Oven. The High Court allowed 
the writ petition filed by the respondent holding that the 
sun glasses, whether it be a frame or glass is not a "pre-
pac ked commodity" within the definition of the 
expression "pre-packed commodity" under Rule 2(1) of c 
the Rules. The State of Maharashtra is the appellant in all 
these appeals. 
The appellant-State submitted that the said Rules fell 
for interpretation before this Court in the case of 
*Whirlpool wherein it was held that the refrigerator is 
D 
covered under the term "pre-packed commodity". 
Placing reliance upon the said decision, the appellant-
State submitted that sun glasses are also "pre-packed 
commodity" within the meaning of the Act and the Rules 
and that the other products also would come within the 
E 
above mentioned definition and by applying the ratio in 
that decision prayed for setting aside the impugned order 
of the High ,Court. 
/ 
The respondent, on the other hand, submitted that 
1 the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 brings 
F 
in its purview not all the items which are kept in the 
package to protect or for other reasons but is limited to 
packaged commodity as defined under the Act, which are 
being sold by weights or measures or numbers, and 
which are being sold in a packed form without unpacking 
G 
such packaged commodities at the time of sale and the 
sun glasses do not come within the ambit of definition 
of "commodity in packaged form" in terms of Section 2(b) 
of the Act nor under the purview of "pre-packed 
commodity" under Rule 2(1) of the Rules. It was also 
H 
710 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011) 10 S.C.R. 
A highlighted that sunglasses cannot be sold in the 
packaged condition without opening the packaging since 
.the customer will buy only after comparing, trying it 'Out 
for size and after checking its aesthetic value, the quality 
of glass and vision, looks etc and therefore, the sun 
B glasses can never be and are not sold in packaged 
condition. The respondent further submitted that the ratio 
of the judgment in *Whirlpool was not at all applicable to 
the instant case. 
c 
\, 
Referring the matter to larger Bench, the Court 
HELD:1.1. Considering the definition of "commodity 
in packaged form" as in Section 2(b) of the Standards of 
Weights and Measu

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.