{"id":11068,"date":"2011-05-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-05-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/design-vs-we-on-11-may-2011"},"modified":"2018-02-21T08:27:31","modified_gmt":"2018-02-21T02:57:31","slug":"design-vs-we-on-11-may-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/design-vs-we-on-11-may-2011","title":{"rendered":"Design vs We on 11 May, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Design vs We on 11 May, 2011<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Akil Kureshi,&amp;Nbsp;Ms Gokani,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nTAXAP\/1231\/2009\t 3\/ 3\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nTAX\nAPPEAL No. 1231 of 2009\n \n\n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\nDESIGN\nBUILD - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nACIT\n- CIR-9 OR HIS SUCCESSOR - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\nAppearance : \nMR\nSN DIVATIA for\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nMRS MAUNA M BHATT for Opponent(s) :\n1, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 11\/05\/2011 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>(Per<br \/>\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)<\/p>\n<p>\t\tThe<br \/>\nassessee is in appeal against the judgment of the Tribunal dated<br \/>\n06\/02\/2009 raising several questions in the Tax Appeal.  We however<br \/>\nfind that the issue is common. Sole ground that the assessee raises<br \/>\nin this appeal is whether the Tribunal was justified in not granting<br \/>\nbenefit of deduction of Rs.6,80,087\/- during the year in question.<br \/>\nIn that view of the matter, ignoring other questions proposed, we<br \/>\nframe following question for the purpose of present Tax Appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Whether<br \/>\non the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate<br \/>\nTribunal was justified in reversing the order passed by CIT (A)<br \/>\ndeleting the addition of Rs.6,80,087\/- ?\t&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tWe<br \/>\nmay also notice that in view of the short controversy involved, on<br \/>\n08\/03\/2011 we had issued notice to the respondents. In response to<br \/>\nwhich learned Counsel, Ms.Bhatt appeared and argued on behalf of the<br \/>\nrevenue.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tThe<br \/>\nfacts are short. The assessee had claimed deduction of Rs.6,80,087\/-<br \/>\nas bad-debts.  Same was not accepted by the Revenue. Assessee carried<br \/>\nthe issue in appeal.  CIT (A) accepted the assessee&#8217;s case partly.<br \/>\nIssue was carried in appeal.  Tribunal was of the opinion that<br \/>\ndeduction was not justified. The Tribunal disallowed the claim on<br \/>\nfollowing ground.\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;6.4\t\tIn<br \/>\nthe light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case under<br \/>\nconsideration, the reliance on behalf of the assessee on the<br \/>\ndecisions in the case of Morgan Stanley, 292 ITR 331 (Del), Auto<br \/>\nMaker Ltd., 292 ITR 35 (Del), Brilliant Tutorials, 292 ITR 399 (Mad),<br \/>\nStar Chemicals, 11 DTR 331 (Bom), Punjab National Bank Vs. IAC, 30<br \/>\nitd 245 (Del) and Oman International Ltd., 100 ITD 285 (Mum) (SB), is<br \/>\ntotally misplaced, especially when the Hon&#8217;ble jurisdictional High<br \/>\nCourt in the case of Dhall Enterprises and Engineers P. Ltd., (supra)<br \/>\nhad tersely held that mere debiting the amount is not sufficient.<br \/>\nThe requirement is that the assessee should also prove that the debit<br \/>\nhas become bad in that particular year while the assessee has not<br \/>\nplaced before us any material, suggesting that the debts had become<br \/>\nirrecoverable as on 31.3.2001, when the assessee wrote off these<br \/>\namounts.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>  \t\tWe<br \/>\nnotice that it is not in dispute that the amount in question was<br \/>\noffered for tax in the previous year. This aspect is clearly and<br \/>\nunequivocally emerging from the record. That being the position, as<br \/>\nrightly pointed out by learned Counsel for the assessee, issue would<br \/>\nstand covered by the decision of the Apex court in case of T.R.F.<br \/>\nLtd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2010] 323 ITR 397 (SC)<br \/>\nwherein it was held and observed as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;This<br \/>\nposition in law is well-settled.  After April 1, 1989, it is not<br \/>\nnecessary for the assessee to establish that the debt, in fact, has<br \/>\nbecome irrecoverable.  It is enough if the bad debt is written off as<br \/>\nirrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee.  However, in the<br \/>\npresent case, the Assessing Officer has not examined whether the debt<br \/>\nhas, in fact, been written off in the accounts of the assessee.  When<br \/>\na bad debt occurs, the bad debt account is debited and the customer&#8217;s<br \/>\naccount is credited thus, closing the account of the customer.  In<br \/>\nthe case of of companies, the provision is deducted from sundry<br \/>\ndebtors.  As stated above, the Assessing Officer has not examined<br \/>\nwhether, in fact, the bad debt or part thereof is written off in the<br \/>\naccounts of the assessee.  This exercise has not been undertaken by<br \/>\nthe Assessing Officer.  Hence, the matter is remitted to the<br \/>\nAssessing Officer for de novo consideration of the abovementioned<br \/>\naspect only and that too only tot he extent of the write-off.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tThis<br \/>\nbeing the position of law, we are of the view that Tribunal committed<br \/>\nan error in not granting deduction of the bad debts claimed by the<br \/>\nassessee.  The question framed is thus answered in favour of the<br \/>\nassessee and against the revenue.  Judgment of the tribunal shall<br \/>\nstand modified accordingly. Tax appeal is disposed of in above terms.\n<\/p>\n<p>(AKIL<br \/>\nKURESHI, J.)<\/p>\n<p>(SONIA<br \/>\nGOKANI, J.)<\/p>\n<p>sompura<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Design vs We on 11 May, 2011 Author: Akil Kureshi,&amp;Nbsp;Ms Gokani,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print TAXAP\/1231\/2009 3\/ 3 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 1231 of 2009 ========================================================= DESIGN BUILD &#8211; Appellant(s) Versus ACIT &#8211; CIR-9 OR HIS SUCCESSOR &#8211; Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance [&hellip;]<\/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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11068","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Design vs We on 11 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/design-vs-we-on-11-may-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Design vs We on 11 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/design-vs-we-on-11-may-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-05-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-21T02:57:31+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=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/design-vs-we-on-11-may-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/design-vs-we-on-11-may-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Design vs We on 11 May, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-21T02:57:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/design-vs-we-on-11-may-2011\"},\"wordCount\":683,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/design-vs-we-on-11-may-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/design-vs-we-on-11-may-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/design-vs-we-on-11-may-2011\",\"name\":\"Design vs We on 11 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-21T02:57:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/design-vs-we-on-11-may-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/design-vs-we-on-11-may-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/design-vs-we-on-11-may-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Design vs We on 11 May, 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:\/\/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":"Design vs We on 11 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/design-vs-we-on-11-may-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Design vs We on 11 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/design-vs-we-on-11-may-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-05-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-21T02:57:31+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":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/design-vs-we-on-11-may-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/design-vs-we-on-11-may-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Design vs We on 11 May, 2011","datePublished":"2011-05-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-21T02:57:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/design-vs-we-on-11-may-2011"},"wordCount":683,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/design-vs-we-on-11-may-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/design-vs-we-on-11-may-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/design-vs-we-on-11-may-2011","name":"Design vs We on 11 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-05-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-21T02:57:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/design-vs-we-on-11-may-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/design-vs-we-on-11-may-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/design-vs-we-on-11-may-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Design vs We on 11 May, 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:\/\/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\/11068","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=11068"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11068\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11068"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11068"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11068"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}