{"id":104630,"date":"1998-10-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1998-10-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sat-pal-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-26-october-1998"},"modified":"2015-09-23T20:50:47","modified_gmt":"2015-09-23T15:20:47","slug":"sat-pal-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-26-october-1998","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sat-pal-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-26-october-1998","title":{"rendered":"Sat Pal vs Delhi Development Authority & … on 26 October, 1998"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Sat Pal vs Delhi Development Authority & … on 26 October, 1998<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1998 VIIAD Delhi 724, 1999 (1) ARBLR 223 Delhi, 77 (1999) DLT 33, (1999) 121 PLR 74, 1999 (1) RLR 577<\/div>\n
Author: M Shamim<\/div>\n
Bench: M Shamim<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
Mohd. Shamim, J.<\/p>\n
1. This  is a petition under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940  for issue  of  a direction to the arbitrator i.e. respondent No. 3  herein,  to file the award dated May 25, 1995.\n<\/p>\n
2.   In  pursuant to the said prayer a direction was issued to the  learned arbitrator to file the award. The award was filed in pursuance to the  said direction  as is manifest from the order dated September 10, 1996.  Notices were  issued  to both the parties with regard to the filing of  the  award. Respondents  Nos. 1 and 2 filed objections to the said award (vide  IA  No. 258\/97) while the petitioner did not choose to file any objections thereto.\n<\/p>\n
3.   A  perusal  of the objections filed by the respondents Nos.  1  and  2 reveals that the respondents have confined their objections to claims  Nos. 1,3,4,7,8 and counter claim.\n<\/p>\n
     FINDINGS:\n<\/p>\n
     Claims Nos. 3 & 4 <\/span><\/p>\n
4.   Learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Sharma has vehemently contended  that  the claimant herein did not complete the work within time  and  a penalty of Rs. 4,000\/- was imposed on him by the Superintending Engineer on account of inefficiency shown in the completion of the work which  resulted in the delay as he could not complete the work within the stipulated  period. However, the learned arbitrator instead of penalising the claimant  for the delay in the completion of the work put premium on his delay and latches and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,17,173\/- against claims Nos. 3 and 4. This is
\nall the more unreasonable in the circumstances of the present case inasmuch as  there is a finding by the learned arbitrator that both the parties  are responsible for the delay.\n<\/p>\n
5.   The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the  respondents is  that both the claims have been decided together and a consolidated  sum of Rs. 1,17,173\/- has been awarded to the claimant. This was not proper. No reason,  much  less a cogent reason, was given out as to  how  the  learned arbitrator  arrived at the above-mentioned conclusion and awarded a sum  of Rs.  1.17.173\/- against the said claims, though he was under an  obligation to give out a reasoned award.\n<\/p>\n
6.   Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged to the contrary.\n<\/p>\n
7.   I  have heard the learned counsel for both the parties  at  sufficient length  and have very carefully examined their rival contentions  and  have given my anxious thoughts thereto.\n<\/p>\n
8.   The  first and the foremost contention raised by the  learned  counsel for the objectors is that the impugned award is not a reasoned award though the learned arbitrator was under an obligation (vide 25) to give a reasoned award and as per terms of reference which cast an obligation on the  shoulders  of  the arbitrator to give out reasons in support  of  his  findings. Learned counsel for the objectors in this connection has led me through the terms of the reference which are in the following words.\n<\/p>\n
      “Whether the claim of the claimant is justified as per terms  and      conditions of the agreement, if so, to what extent ?”\n<\/p>\n
9.   The  learned counsel inspired by the words of cl. 25 and the terms  of reference  has vehemently contended that the impugned award is no award  in the  eye of law inasmuch as it is not a reasoned award and as such,  it  is liable to be set aside on this short ground alone.\n<\/p>\n
     Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged to the contrary.\n<\/p>\n
10.  It is a well established principle of law that an arbitrator is  under no obligation to give out detailed reasons for arriving at his conclusions. It is sufficient enough if he gives out reasons which may be considered  to be  sufficient enough in the circumstances of a given case. The  Court  has got no power to re-appreciate the evidence which was before an  arbitrator. It  is  beyond his forte. An award cannot be set aside simple  because  the Court  on the basis of the evidence which was before the  arbitrator  could come  to a different finding. Thus an award can be set aside only in  those
\ndiscerning  few  cases which fall within the domain of Section  30  of  the Arbitration Act i.e., (a) when an arbitrator had mis-conducted himself  and the proceedings; (b) an award has been made after the issue of an order  by the  Court superseding the arbitration and (c) when an award has  been  improperly procured or is otherwise invalid.\n<\/p>\n
11.  I  am  supported in my above view by the observations  of  a  Division Bench  of  this  Court which were given vent to in  College  of  Vocational Studies  Vs.  S.S. Jaitley (AIR 1987 Delhi 134,  para  18),…..”There  are limits for judicial reviewability and the Courts exercise limited jurisdiction in the proceedings for setting aside an award under Section 30 of  the Arbitration  Act, 1940. The Courts do not exercise  appellate  jurisdiction over the verdict of an arbitrator and as such cannot go into the merits  of
\nthe  case  nor the Courts can reappraise and re-examine  the  evidence  led before the arbitrator. Unless it is specifically agreed between the parties by  means of an arbitration agreement, the arbitrator is not bound to  give reasons  for  his verdict, in other words, the arbitrator can  give  a  non speaking  award unless he is required by means of an agreement or terms  of reference  to give reasons for his award. The Courts also cannot look  into the  insufficiency  of  the evidence led before the  arbitrator.  When  the arbitrator is required to give reasons, it is not for the Courts to see the
\nreasonableness of the reasons given by the arbitrator or sufficiency of the reasons.  However, what reasons are required, it depends upon the facts  of each case”.\n<\/p>\n
12.  To  the same effect are the observations of another Division Bench  of this Court as reported in Delhi Development Authority Vs. M\/s. Uppal  Engineering Construction Co., New Delhi, , and M\/s. Hindustan Tea  Co. Vs. M\/s. K. Shashikant & Co. and another, .\n<\/p>\n
13.  The learned arbitrator while deciding the said claim has given out the reasons  for arriving at his conclusions at page 2 of the award as well  as while  deciding  the same. He has in this connections referred  to  several documents relied upon by the claimant as well as by the respondents. He has also  referred  to  certain authorities. Thus the learned  counsel  is  not justified in saying that the arbitrator has not given out the reasons while awarding the claimant a sum of Rs. 1,17,173\/-. This Court is incompetent to go into the reasonableness of the reasons given out by the learned arbitrator.\n<\/p>\n
14.  Learned  counsel  for the petitioner has led me through Cl. 5  of  the arbitration agreement which deals with the extension of time & Exh. R-4. It goes to show that there was a total delay of 445 days and out of the same a delay of 432 days has been condoned (vide Exh. R-4). Hence, the  contention of  the  learned  counsel that there was a delay on the part  of  both  the parties, the arbitrator should not have allowed the claim of the  petitioner\/claimant  is without any substance in the circumstances of  the  present case  inasmuch as the delay on the part of the claimant was condoned as  is
\nmanifest from above.\n<\/p>\n
15.  The  next  contention that both the claims. i.e., claims Nos. 3  &  4, were decided together and a consolidated sum of Rs. 1,17,173\/- was  awarded without any indication as to how much amount was awarded under which claim, hence  the award is not a reasoned award, is without any substance. I  have already  held above that reasons have been given for the findings given  by the arbitrator.\n<\/p>\n
     Claim No.1 & counterclaim.\n<\/p>\n
16.  The claimant claimed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000\/- on account of the earnest money and security deposit. The claimant admittedly after the completion of the work was entitled to the return of the security amount and the  earnest money.  The only objection raised from the side of the respondent was  that the said amount could have been refunded when the claimant paid the sum  of Rs. 2,02,215\/- which is the amount of minus final bill. The respondent  has claimed the said amount.\n<\/p>\n
17.  The learned arbitrator while dealing with the counter claim awarded  a sum  of Rs.18,724\/- only and he has given out good reasons for arriving  at the  said conclusion. Thus no interference is called for from the  side  of this court on the said finding.\n<\/p>\n
     Claim Nos. 7 & 8.\n<\/p>\n
18.  The learned arbitrator has awarded simple interest at the rate of  12% per annum from May 23, 1991 to the date of the award i.e. May 25, 1995.  He has then awarded interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of the award  to the date of actual payment. I do not find any thing wrong  therewith.\n<\/p>\n
19.  The  arbitrator has awarded a sum of Rs. 100,000\/- by way of costs  of arbitration proceedings. There is nothing wrong about it. It is quite  just and proper in the circumstances of the present case. Moreover, the  learned counsel for the objectors has also not argued anything on the above points.\n<\/p>\n
20.  In the above circumstances the petitioner is entitled to succeed.  The petition  is hereby allowed with costs and the objections are  hereby  dismissed. The award dated May 25, 1995 is hereby made a rule of the court and a decree in terms of the same is hereby passed. The award shall form a part of the decree.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Sat Pal vs Delhi Development Authority & … on 26 October, 1998 Equivalent citations: 1998 VIIAD Delhi 724, 1999 (1) ARBLR 223 Delhi, 77 (1999) DLT 33, (1999) 121 PLR 74, 1999 (1) RLR 577 Author: M Shamim Bench: M Shamim JUDGMENT Mohd. Shamim, J. 1. This is a petition under Section […]<\/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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-104630","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSat Pal vs Delhi Development Authority & ... on 26 October, 1998 - 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\/sat-pal-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-26-october-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sat Pal vs Delhi Development Authority & ... on 26 October, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sat-pal-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-26-october-1998\" \/>\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=\"1998-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-23T15:20:47+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sat-pal-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-26-october-1998#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sat-pal-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-26-october-1998\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sat Pal vs Delhi Development Authority & … on 26 October, 1998\",\"datePublished\":\"1998-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-23T15:20:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sat-pal-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-26-october-1998\"},\"wordCount\":1580,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sat-pal-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-26-october-1998#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sat-pal-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-26-october-1998\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sat-pal-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-26-october-1998\",\"name\":\"Sat Pal vs Delhi Development Authority & ... on 26 October, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1998-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-23T15:20:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sat-pal-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-26-october-1998#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sat-pal-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-26-october-1998\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sat-pal-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-26-october-1998#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sat Pal vs Delhi Development Authority & … on 26 October, 1998\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Sat Pal vs Delhi Development Authority & ... on 26 October, 1998 - 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\/sat-pal-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-26-october-1998","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sat Pal vs Delhi Development Authority & ... on 26 October, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sat-pal-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-26-october-1998","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1998-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-23T15:20:47+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sat-pal-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-26-october-1998#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sat-pal-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-26-october-1998"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sat Pal vs Delhi Development Authority & … on 26 October, 1998","datePublished":"1998-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-23T15:20:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sat-pal-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-26-october-1998"},"wordCount":1580,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sat-pal-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-26-october-1998#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sat-pal-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-26-october-1998","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sat-pal-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-26-october-1998","name":"Sat Pal vs Delhi Development Authority & ... on 26 October, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1998-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-23T15:20:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sat-pal-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-26-october-1998#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sat-pal-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-26-october-1998"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sat-pal-vs-delhi-development-authority-on-26-october-1998#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sat Pal vs Delhi Development Authority & … on 26 October, 1998"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/104630","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=104630"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/104630\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=104630"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=104630"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=104630"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}