{"id":110176,"date":"1999-11-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1999-11-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lal-khemani-vs-union-of-india-on-19-november-1999"},"modified":"2016-01-23T01:48:48","modified_gmt":"2016-01-22T20:18:48","slug":"lal-khemani-vs-union-of-india-on-19-november-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lal-khemani-vs-union-of-india-on-19-november-1999","title":{"rendered":"Lal Khemani vs Union Of India on 19 November, 1999"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Lal Khemani vs Union Of India on 19 November, 1999<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 2000 IAD Delhi 246, 82 (1999) DLT 641, 1999 (51) DRJ 736<\/div>\n
Author: S Agarwal<\/div>\n
Bench: D Gupta, S Agarwal<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
S.K. Agarwal, J.<\/p>\n
1. This is a petition seeking quashing of detention order dated 9th April, 1999 No. F. 5\/42\/98 passed by respondent No. 2 under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short the Act) with a view to preventing petitioner from smuggling goods.\n<\/p>\n
2. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are : that the petitioner was intercepted at the IGI Airport by the Customs Preventive Officers when he arrived from Singapore on 20th July, 1998 while he was just going through the Green Channel after collecting his luggage. At the Green Channel petitioner was asked whether he had any dutiable goods to which he replied in negative. Search of his baggage resulted in recovery of 30 pieces of Hard Disc made in China, valued at Rs. 2,10,000\/-. Subsequently, two more checked in baggages belonging to the petitioner having foreign made goods were recovered from the conveyor belt having different tags. The goods recovered from the petitioner were valued at Rs. 4,92,500\/-. He was arrested and was sent to judicial custody on 21st July, 1998 and subsequently on 5th November, 1998 he was granted bail by the Learned Single Judge on his furnishing two local sureties in the sum of Rs.1 lac each with other conditions. On 9th April, 1999, the impugned order of detention was passed against the petitioner, in pursuance of the which the petitioner was detained on 10th April, 1999.\n<\/p>\n
3. We have heard Mr. Harjinder Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.C. Mittal, learned counsel for Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Mr.  H.S. Phoolka, learned counsel for the Union of India and have been taken through the record.\n<\/p>\n
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there is an inordinate delay of eight months and twenty days in passing the order of detention, the petitioner was arrested on 20th July, 1998 and the impugned order of detention was passed on 9th April, 1999. Thus, the live nexus between the alleged criminal activities and the purpose of detention was broken. Because of this inordinate and unexplained delay the  detention order is liable to be quashed. Mr. K.C. Mittal, learned counsel for the detaining authority, on the other hand, argued that the seizure was effected on 20th July, 1998, proposal to detain the petitioner was received by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi only on 14th October, 1998, the case was processed thereafter and documents were also collected. Thus, the delay is not unexplained. The explanation offered in the counter affidavit runs as under :-\n<\/p>\n
 In reply of ground C, it is submitted that the proposal from the sponsoring authority was received on 14.10.98 alongwith the relied upon documents made with sponsoing authority to supply the generated documents. The details of the correspondence with the sponsoring authority are as under:-\n<\/p>\n
  Date Action\/Incident 20.07.98 Date of Seizure. 14.10.98 Proposal received by the Government of NCT’ of Delhi with documents.\n<\/p>\n
 27.10.98 Letter sent to Customs regarding documents\/ information of subsequent development made in the case of translation of documents, if any. 28.10.98 Additional documents generated in the branch from seizing officer.\n<\/p>\n
 29.10.98 Letter sent to Govt. of NCT of  Delhi by Customs regarding  additional documents:  (i) Case proceedings dated 18.9.98, 8.9.98, 07.10.98, 3.10.98,13.10.98,  16.10.98, 22.10.98 and 26.10.98  in the court of ACMM and ACMM had  fixed 29.10.98 as the date of
\n arguments on 2nd bail application  of Umesh Menon.  (ii) Case proceedings dated 14.9.98,  18.9.98 and 24.9.98 in the court of
\n ASJ, New Delhi.  (iii) Copy of bail application dated  3.10.98 filed in the court of ACMM  in respect of Shri Umesh Menon and  reply filed by SPP on 13.10.98 in  the court’s notice dated 5.10.98 in  the court of ACMM.  (iv) Copy of High Court notice  dated 15.10.98 alongwith bail  Petition No.2895 filed by the  Advocate of Shri Lal Khemani.  The case was fixed for 2.11.98. 02.11.98 Letter sent to translator by the  Customs alongwith a documents  for translation from Hindi Arabi into English. 09.11.98 Additional documents generated in  the case received in the branch  of Customs from seizing officer. 09.11.98 Letter sent to Government of  NCT of Delhi by the Customs  regarding additional documents:  (i) Hon’ble High Court of Delhi’s  Order dated 05.11.98 granting  bail to Shri Lal Khemani.  (ii) Notes of proceedings  dated 29.10.98, 31.10.98 and 6.11.98 in the court of ACMM in respect of Shri Umesh Menon and  (iii)) Notes of proceedings  dated 3.11.98 in the court of  ACMM in respect of  Shri Lal Khemani. 13.11.98 Screening Committee Meeting held  at NCT Delhi. 20.11.98 Additional documents generated in  the case received in the branch  of customs from seizing officer. 20.11.98 Letter sent to Govt. of NCT of  Delhi by Customs Deptt. regarding  additional documents generated:  (i) reply of bail application of  Lal Khemani in High Court on 02.11.98,  (ii) Order of ACMM dated 11.11.98  rejecting bail of Umesh Menon. 1999,  2nd bail applications of Umesh Menon  filed in the court of ASJ, New Delhi  dated 12.11.98 and reply to 2nd  bail application of Umesh Menon  in the court of ASJ dated 17.11.98  granting bail to Umesh Menon and  (v) photocopy of bank transaction  of Umesh Menon. 02.12.98 Translated documents sent to NCT  Delhi by Customs Department. 21.12.98 Letter sent to Govt. of NCT Delhi  by Customs Deptt. regarding  additional documents generated:  (i) court order dated 13.11.98 of  ASJ, New Delhi and Court Order  dated 02.12.98 of ACMM, New Delhi,  (ii) certificate from A.C.O. (P). 05.01.99 Additional documents generated  i.e., copy of show cause notice  dated 30.12.98 forwarded to Govt.  of NCT Delhi by the Customs Deptt. 14.01.99 A letter sent to Customs Deptt. by  the Government of NCT of Delhi  regarding parawise comments on  representation dated 27.11.98 of  Shri Umesh Menon. 18.01.99 Reply sent to Govt. of NCT Delhi by  the Customs Deptt. regarding  representation dated 27.11.98 of Shri Umesh Menon. 01.03.99 Letter to Govt. of NCT Delhi by the  Customs Deptt. regarding additional  documents i.e., copy of case  proceedings dated 09.02.99 in the  court of ACMM, New Delhi. 04.03.99 Letter sent to Customs Deptt. regarding  additional documents i.e. reply to show  cause notice by Shri Lal Khemani. 10.03.99 Letter sent to Customs Deptt. by the  Govt. of NCT Delhi seeking documents\/ clarifications of ten points. 16.03.99 Reply from seizing officer received  by the Customs Deptt. regarding  letter of Govt. of NCT Delhi  dated 10.3.99. 24.03.99 Reply received from the Customs in  response to letter dated 10.3.99. 04.04.99 Letter to Govt. of NCT of Delhi by  the Customs Deptt. forwarding there  under English translation of D.R. No. 37996 dated 08.04.99 (in Hindi). 09.04.99 Detention Order issued. 10.04.99 Detention order served on Shri Lal Khemani.”\n<\/p>\n
5. Law with regard to the delay in passing the order of detention is well-settled. There can be no mechanical test for counting the period of delay. It will depend upon the nature of allegations relied on by the detaining authority and the length of the gap and also on the reason for
\nthe delay in taking the preventive action.\n<\/p>\n
6. In Ahamed Mohadeen Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. 1999 Vol. 2 AD (Crl.) SC 315, Supreme Court, while quashing the detention order passed after 11 months and 15 days of the criminal activity of the detenu, observed that the delay in passing the order of detention was unreasonable. It was held:-\n<\/p>\n
 “No other explanation has been given by the State Government for not passing the detention order earlier. The State Government has not explained why it thought it necessary to wait till the adjudication proceedings before the Customs Authorities were over since that was not necessary for exercising the power under the COFEPOSA Act. In absence of any satisfactory explanation as to why the State Government did not exercise the power earlier, it has to be held that delay in passing the order of detention was unreasonable. It will also have to be held that the explanation of the detaining authority as regards immediate need of detaining the detenu was not genuine.”\n<\/p>\n
 In Anand Prakash Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1990 SCC (Crl.) 96, Supreme Court, while taking into consideration that recovery was effected on 3rd March, 1989, and no action was taken till May 3,1989, held that delay was not specifically explained in the counter affidavit and detention order was quashed. It was held:-\n<\/p>\n
  “Though bail was granted, in view of the detention order he could not be released from jail. In spite of the fact that the recovery statement itself was made as early as on March 3, 1989 no action was taken till May 3, 1989. Nothing more is stated in the
\ndetention order. The delay has also not been satisfactorily explained in the counter-statement of the respondents. The ground instance, therefore, could not be a proximate cause for a sudden decision to take action under the National Security Act and this also vitiates the order.”\n<\/p>\n
7. In Pradeep Nilkanth Patarkar Vs. Shri. S. Ramamurthi & Ors.  Supreme Court, while considering the delay of 5 months 8 days from the date of registration of the last case and delay of 4 months from the submission of the proposal, quashed the detention order observing “A perusal of the various decision of this court, on this legal aspect shows that each case is to be decided on the facts and circumstances appearing in that particular case”.\n<\/p>\n
8. In the above decision itself reference was also made to Hemlata Kantinal Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra , in which Supreme Court observed:-\n<\/p>\n
  “Delay ipso facto in passing an order of detention after an incident is not fatal to the detention of a person, for, in certain cases delay may be unavoidable and reasonable. What is required by law is that the delay must be satisfactorily examined by the detaining authority”.\n<\/p>\n
9. A perusal of the explanation offered by the Department shows that the proposal itself was received by the Government of NCT of Delhi on 14th October, 1998, with documents, and thereafter, from 27th October, 1998 to 10th March, 1999 six letters were written by the Government of NCT of Delhi to the Customs Department on different dates calling upon them to sent additional documents\/information regarding subsequent developments, if any. On seven occasions documents were sent by the Customs Department to the Government of NCT of Delhi. On 5th January, 1999, after some additional documents were received, from the Customs Department, a letter was sent by
\nthe Government of NCT of Delhi regarding parawise comments on the representations one Umesh Menon. We fail to understand that how the parawise comments on the representation of ‘Umesh Menon’ could be relevant for the purposes of deciding whether the detention order has to be passed against the petitioner or not. Thereafter, from 18th January, 1999 to 1st March, 1999 there was no action on the part of the Government of NCT of Delhi with regard to the said proposal. All this only suggests the leisurely manner in which the proposal was dealt with, processed and considered. It is true that the test of expeditious disposal, which is applicable while considering the representation of a detenu under the preventive detention may not be applicable while considering the delay in passing of the detention order but the explanation for delay should be reasonable and satisfactory. The delay of about eight months and a half in passing the detention order has not been satisfactorily explained. Due to the inordinate delay the order of detention is vitiated.\n<\/p>\n
10. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. The order of detention of the petitioner is hereby quashed. He be released if not required to  be detained in any other case.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Lal Khemani vs Union Of India on 19 November, 1999 Equivalent citations: 2000 IAD Delhi 246, 82 (1999) DLT 641, 1999 (51) DRJ 736 Author: S Agarwal Bench: D Gupta, S Agarwal ORDER S.K. Agarwal, J. 1. This is a petition seeking quashing of detention order dated 9th April, 1999 No. F. […]<\/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-110176","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nLal Khemani vs Union Of India on 19 November, 1999 - 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\/lal-khemani-vs-union-of-india-on-19-november-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Lal Khemani vs Union Of India on 19 November, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lal-khemani-vs-union-of-india-on-19-november-1999\" \/>\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=\"1999-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-22T20:18:48+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lal-khemani-vs-union-of-india-on-19-november-1999#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lal-khemani-vs-union-of-india-on-19-november-1999\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Lal Khemani vs Union Of India on 19 November, 1999\",\"datePublished\":\"1999-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-22T20:18:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lal-khemani-vs-union-of-india-on-19-november-1999\"},\"wordCount\":1893,\"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\\\/lal-khemani-vs-union-of-india-on-19-november-1999#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lal-khemani-vs-union-of-india-on-19-november-1999\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lal-khemani-vs-union-of-india-on-19-november-1999\",\"name\":\"Lal Khemani vs Union Of India on 19 November, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1999-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-22T20:18:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lal-khemani-vs-union-of-india-on-19-november-1999#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lal-khemani-vs-union-of-india-on-19-november-1999\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lal-khemani-vs-union-of-india-on-19-november-1999#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Lal Khemani vs Union Of India on 19 November, 1999\"}]},{\"@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":"Lal Khemani vs Union Of India on 19 November, 1999 - 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\/lal-khemani-vs-union-of-india-on-19-november-1999","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Lal Khemani vs Union Of India on 19 November, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lal-khemani-vs-union-of-india-on-19-november-1999","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1999-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-22T20:18:48+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lal-khemani-vs-union-of-india-on-19-november-1999#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lal-khemani-vs-union-of-india-on-19-november-1999"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Lal Khemani vs Union Of India on 19 November, 1999","datePublished":"1999-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-22T20:18:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lal-khemani-vs-union-of-india-on-19-november-1999"},"wordCount":1893,"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\/lal-khemani-vs-union-of-india-on-19-november-1999#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lal-khemani-vs-union-of-india-on-19-november-1999","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lal-khemani-vs-union-of-india-on-19-november-1999","name":"Lal Khemani vs Union Of India on 19 November, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1999-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-22T20:18:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lal-khemani-vs-union-of-india-on-19-november-1999#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lal-khemani-vs-union-of-india-on-19-november-1999"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lal-khemani-vs-union-of-india-on-19-november-1999#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Lal Khemani vs Union Of India on 19 November, 1999"}]},{"@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\/110176","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=110176"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/110176\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=110176"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=110176"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=110176"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}