{"id":104860,"date":"2011-09-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-09-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-jain-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-30-september-2011"},"modified":"2015-12-09T07:43:01","modified_gmt":"2015-12-09T02:13:01","slug":"ramesh-kumar-jain-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-30-september-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-jain-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-30-september-2011","title":{"rendered":"Ramesh Kumar Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 September, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court<\/div>\n
Ramesh Kumar Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 September, 2011<\/div>\n
                                                               W.P. No. 5310.11\n\n\n              Writ Petition No. 5310 of 2011\n(Ramesh Kumar Jain v. Jal Sansadhan Vibhag,\nBhopal and another)\n30\/09\/2011\n       Shri Ashok Shrivastava, learned counsel for\nthe petitioner.\n       Heard.\n       Challenge        put    forth      by      petitioner     in     this\npetition under Article 227 of the Constitution of\nIndia is to an order dated 06- 12-2010 passed by\nthe    Labour      Court       No.2,      Bhopal;         wherein          an\napplication preferred by petitioner under section\n33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, has\nbeen rejected.\n       The claim vide said application put forth by\npetitioner before the Labour Court was to the tune\nof    Rs.    14,92,483.59        with     interest        @    18%       per\nannum        in   respect      of   medical         bills,    travelling\nallowance bills, monthly wages from 01-03-1984 to\n31- 03-1986,       city       compensatory           allowance,            an\namount       towards      zerox     copies         used      during      the\ndepartmental           enquiry      and      an    amount       towards\ntyping etc. The petitioner also claimed the amount\ntowards general provident fund from January 1995\nto    June    1995.     The    Labour          Court      rejected       the\napplication on the ground that it is beyond its\njurisdiction      to    compute        the     entitlement        of     the\n                                                    W.P. No. 5310.11\n\n\npetitioner and then direct execution thereof.\n     The question is as to whether the Labour\nCourt was justified in rejecting the application\nfiled by petitioner.\n     Section      33C(2)     of    the    Act    of      1947\nstipulates-\n       \"33C. Recovery of Money Due from an\n       Employer.\n       (2) Where any workman is entitled to receive\n       from the employer any money or any benefit\n       which is capable of being computed in terms\n       of money and if any question arises as to the\n       amount of money due or as to the amount at\n       which such benefit should be computed, then\n       the question may, subject to any rules that\n       may be made under this Act, be decided by\n       such Labour Court as may be specified in\n       this behalf by the appropriate Government\n       within a period not exceeding three months.\n              Provided that where the presiding\n       officer of a Labour Court considers it\n       necessary or expedient so to do, he may, for\n       reasons to be recorded in writing, extend\n       such period by such further period as he may\n       think fit.\"\n\n     In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh\nRajak: (1995) 1 SCC 235; it has been observed                   in\nparagraph 12 :-\n        \"12-    .......It   is   only   when    the\n        entitlement        has     been      earlier\n        adju dica ted or recognized by the\n        employer       and    thereafter   for  the\n        purpose        of     implementation      or\n        enforcement thereof some ambiguity\n        requires       interpretation    that   the\n        interpretation is treated as incidental\n                                                    W.P. No. 5310.11\n\n\n       to the Labour Court's power under\n       Section  33C( 2)  like that  of  the\n       Executing Court's power to interpret\n       the decree for the purpose of its\n       execution.\"\n     In State of Uttar Pradesh & another v.Brijpal\nSingh (2005) 8 SCC 58 it is observed :-\n       \" 10. It is well settled that the workman can\n       proceed under Section 33C(2) only after the\n       Tribunal has adjudicated on a complaint\n       under Section 33A or on a reference under\n       Section 10 that the order of discharge or\n       dismissal was not justified and has set aside\n       that order and reinstated the workman. This\n       Court in the case of Punjab Beverages Pvt.\n       Ltd. Vs. Suresh Chand, (1978) 2 SCC 144\n       held that a proceeding under Section 33C(2)\n       is a proceeding in the nature of execution\n       proceeding in which the Labour Court\n       calculates the amount of money due to a\n       workman from the employer, or, if the\n       workman is entitled to any benefit which is\n       capable of being computed in terms of\n       money, proceeds to compute the benefit in\n       terms of money. Proceeding further, this\n       Court held that the right to the money which\n       is sought to be calculated or to the benefit\n       which is sought to be computed must be an\n       existing one, that is to say, already\n       adjudicated upon or provided for and must\n       arise in the course of and in relation to the\n       relationship between the industrial workman,\n       and his employer. This Court further held as\n       follows:\n       \"It is not competent to the Labour Court\n       exercising jurisdiction under Section 33C(2)\n       to arrogate to itself the functions of an\n       industrial tribunal and entertain a claim\n       which is not based on an existing right but\n       which may appropriately be made the subject\n       matter of an industrial dispute in a reference\n       under Section 10 of the Act. \"\n                                                           W.P. No. 5310.11\n\n\n     In Krishnan and another v. Special Officer,\nVellore     Cooperative        Sugar     Mill    and    another          :\n(2008) 7 SCC 22; it is observed : -\n          \"12. ..................The fact that proceedings\n          under Section 33C(2) are in the nature of\n          execution proceedings is in no doubt, and\n          such      proceedings         presuppose    some\n          adjudication leading to the determination of a\n          right,    which         has   to   be   enforced.\n          Concededly there has been no such\n          adjudication in the present case. It will be\n          seen that the reliance         of   the appellant-\n          workmen is exclusively on documentary\n          evidence placed on record which consisted\n          primarily of the punch time cards and the\n          representations that had been filed from\n          time to time before the respondents. It is<\/pre>\n
          also true that the claim raised by the
\n          appellants had been hotly disputed by the
\n          respondents. The question that arises in this
\n          situation is whether reliance only on the
\n          documentary evidence was sufficient to prove
\n          the case.\n<\/p>\n
          13.    We are of the opinion that the
\n          reference to Municipal Corporation’s case
\n          (supra) is completely misplaced as in that
\n          matter, the fact that different categories of
\n          workers were doing identical kind of work
\n          was virtually admitted but different scales of
\n          pay were nevertheless being paid to them. It
\n          is also relevant that oral evidence had been
\n          adduced by the workmen to supplement the
\n          documentary evidence and it was in that
\n          situation that the Court felt that an
\n          application under section 33C(2 ) was
\n          maintainable.”\n<\/p>\n
     In the case at hand, admittedly, there is no
\nprior adjudication of the right of the petitioner in
\nrespect of the claim he had put forth before the
\n                                                         W.P. No. 5310.11<\/p>\n
Labour Court. The petitioner in order to maintain
\nan application under section 33C(2) has to first
\nget   his    entitlement      adjudicate,       then        only    an
\napplication under section 33C(2) of the Industrial
\nDisputes Act, 1947, is tenable.\n<\/p>\n
      In view of above we are of the considered
\nopinion that the Labour Court was justified in its
\napproach in rejecting the application filed by the
\npetitioner        as   in   absence    of      any     award        or
\nsettlement ignoring the pre-existing right of the
\npetitioner, the same could not have been allowed.\n<\/p>\n
      In    the    result   petition   fails   and     is    hereby
\ndismissed.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n      (SANJAY YADAV)                   (T.K.KAUSHAL)\n         JUDGE                              JUDGE\nSC\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court Ramesh Kumar Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 September, 2011 W.P. No. 5310.11 Writ Petition No. 5310 of 2011 (Ramesh Kumar Jain v. Jal Sansadhan Vibhag, Bhopal and another) 30\/09\/2011 Shri Ashok Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard. Challenge put forth by petitioner in this petition under […]<\/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":[8,24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-104860","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madhya-pradesh-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRamesh Kumar Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 September, 2011 - 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\/ramesh-kumar-jain-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-30-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramesh Kumar Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-jain-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-30-september-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-09T02:13:01+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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-kumar-jain-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-30-september-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-kumar-jain-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-30-september-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramesh Kumar Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 September, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-09T02:13:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-kumar-jain-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-30-september-2011\"},\"wordCount\":270,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madhya Pradesh High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-kumar-jain-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-30-september-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-kumar-jain-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-30-september-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-kumar-jain-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-30-september-2011\",\"name\":\"Ramesh Kumar Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-09T02:13:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-kumar-jain-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-30-september-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-kumar-jain-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-30-september-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-kumar-jain-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-30-september-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramesh Kumar Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 September, 2011\"}]},{\"@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:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"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":"Ramesh Kumar Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 September, 2011 - 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\/ramesh-kumar-jain-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-30-september-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramesh Kumar Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-jain-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-30-september-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-09T02:13:01+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-jain-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-30-september-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-jain-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-30-september-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramesh Kumar Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 September, 2011","datePublished":"2011-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-09T02:13:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-jain-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-30-september-2011"},"wordCount":270,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madhya Pradesh High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-jain-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-30-september-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-jain-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-30-september-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-jain-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-30-september-2011","name":"Ramesh Kumar Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-09T02:13:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-jain-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-30-september-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-jain-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-30-september-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-jain-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-30-september-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramesh Kumar Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 September, 2011"}]},{"@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:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","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\/104860","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=104860"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/104860\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=104860"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=104860"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=104860"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}