{"id":12190,"date":"2008-10-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-10-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parekh-vs-industrial-on-20-october-2008"},"modified":"2017-11-04T15:15:41","modified_gmt":"2017-11-04T09:45:41","slug":"parekh-vs-industrial-on-20-october-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parekh-vs-industrial-on-20-october-2008","title":{"rendered":"Parekh vs Industrial on 20 October, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Parekh vs Industrial on 20 October, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: Jayant Patel,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/9945\/2008\t 6\/ 6\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 9945 of 2008\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\nPAREKH\nPLATINUM LIMITED - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nINDUSTRIAL\nFINANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA & 15 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nRAHUL K PANDYA for Petitioner(s) : 1, \nMR ANIP\nA GANDHI for Respondent(s) : 1, \nMR MAULIK G NANAVATI for\nRespondent(s) : 1, 4, \nNone for Respondent(s) : 2, \nSINGHI &\nCO for Respondent(s) : 3, \nNOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) :\n5, 7, 10, 12,15 - 16. \nMR NR PARIKH for Respondent(s) : 6, \nMR\nDHARMESH V SHAH for Respondent(s) : 6, \nMR CZ SANKHLA for\nRespondent(s) : 8, \nNOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 9, 11, \nMR\nSS PANESAR for Respondent(s) : 9, \nMR ASPI M KAPADIA for\nRespondent(s) : 11, \nDS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for Respondent(s) :\n13, \nMR MAULIK J SHELAT for Respondent(s) :\n14, \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 JAYANT PATEL\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 20\/10\/2008 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n
The
\n\tpetitioners by this petition have challenged the action of the
\n\trespondent No.1 under Section 13(4) read with Section 14 of the
\n\tSecuritisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
\n\tEnforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘the Act’ for short) and
\n\tthe consequent notice dated 23.07.2008 issued by the respondent
\n\tNo.2.\n<\/p>\n
Heard
\n\tMr.Kavina for Mr.Gandhi for the petitioners. Mr.Kamal Trivedi,
\n\tlearned Counsel for Mr. Nanavati for respondents Nos. 1 & 4,
\n\tMr.Singhi for respondent No.3,  and Mr. Shelat for respondent No.4.\n<\/p>\n
Upon
\n\thearing the learned advocate appearing for both the sides, it
\n\tappears that it is an admitted position that the notice under
\n\tSection 13(2) of the Act was issued on 29.04.2003 and the present
\n\taction in furtherance thereto under Section 13(4) is in the year
\n\t2008 and there is a gap of about 5 years period for the action under
\n\tSection 13(2) and Section 13(4) of the Act. It is not the case of
\n\tthe respondent secured creditor that the proceeding under Section
\n\t13(2) of the Act were stayed by any competent forum known to law
\n\texcept that there was a talk of one time settlement or the pendency
\n\tof the proceedings before the BIFR etc.<\/p>\n
Similar
\n\tissue came to be considered by this Court (Coram:D.A.Mehta, J.) in
\n\tSpecial Civil Application No. 13426 of 2007 in the case of Ghanshyam
\n\tForms Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bank of Baroda decided on 20.09.2007 and it was
\n\tobserved by the Court from paras 2 to 4 as under:\n<\/p>\n
 2.\t\tThe
\nundisputed facts are that a Notice under Section 13(2) of the
\nSecuritisation Act came to be
\nissued on 20.06.2005. The petitioners tendered their reply thereto on
\n16.07.2005 as required by provisions of Section 13(3A) of the
\nSecuritisation Act. On 28.07.2005, the respondent-Bank rejected the
\nobjections as required by Section 13(3A) of the Act. Thereafter, it
\nappears the parties entered into prolonged correspondence on various
\ndates in relation to the recovery of the outstanding dues and the
\nvarious proposals for settlement mooted by the petitioners.
\nUltimately, it appears that once again on 09.04.2007, the
\nrespondent-Bank informed the petitioners that the objection \/
\nrepresentation of the petitioners were not acceptable and thereafter,
\nissued the impugned Notice dated Nil which was received by the
\npetitioners on 07.05.2007. The Notice called upon the petitioners
\nthat in the event the petitioners failed to discharge their liability
\npossession of the secured assets shall be taken over on 29th
\nMay, 2007. Thereupon the petitioners have approached this Court.\n<\/p>\n
3.\t\tThe
\naforestated facts make it apparent that for a period of almost two
\nyears after issuance of Notice under Section 13(2) of the
\nSecuritisation Act and rejection of the objections \/ representation
\nunder provision of Section 13(3A) of the Securitisation Act the
\nrespondent-Bank did not take any steps pursuant to such rejection of
\nobjections raised by the petitioners. The position in law is well
\nsettled that any action wherein limitation is not provided has to be
\ninitiated within reasonable period. Thus action under Section 13(4)
\nof the Act has to be initiated within a reasonable period from the
\ndate of rejection of the objections \/ representation under Section
\n13(3A) of the Securitisation Act.\n<\/p>\n
4.\t\tThus,
\nthe respondent-Bank cannot be permitted to take possession of the
\nsecured assets on the basis of Notice dated 20.06.2005 issued under
\nSection 13(2) of the Securitisation Act. However, that by itself does
\nnot mean that there is any prohibition in so far as respondent-Bank
\nis concerned to initiate fresh action in accordance with the
\nprovisions of the Act and it is always open to the respondent-Bank to
\nundertake such an exercise by issuance of fresh Notice under Section
\n13(2) of the Securitisation Act, if the facts and circumstances so
\nwarrant.\n<\/p>\n
\tUltimately,
\nthe said petition was allowed.\n<\/p>\n
As
\n\tthe action under Section 13(2) of the Act is after a long period of
\n\t5 years, and in view of the above referred decision of this Court,
\n\tthe present action would not survive, but at the same time, it would
\n\tbe open to the lead secured creditor to initiate the action afresh
\n\tunder Section 13(2) of the Act and thereafter to proceed in
\n\taccordance with law under the Securitisation Act.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.Trivedi,
\n\tlearned counsel appearing for Mr.Nanavati for the secured creditor
\n\tBank voiced the grievance that if fresh action is taken under
\n\tSection 13(2) of the Act, the petitioners may transfer the mortgaged
\n\tproperty and it may create irreversible situation.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.Kavina,
\n\tlearned counsel appearing for the petitioners has not been able to
\n\tmake any statement as to whether the petitioners are desirous to
\n\ttransfer the property or otherwise.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.Trivedi,
\n\tlearned counsel appearing for the lead creditor Bank attempted to
\n\tsubmit that no further purpose would be served in initiating afresh
\n\taction under Section 13(2) of the Act since there is no change in
\n\tthe circumstance and the respondent Bank is still holding the
\n\tconsent  of the creditors representing 75% and more over the secured
\n\tassets.\n<\/p>\n
Whereas,
\n\tsuch aspect is not admitted by Mr.Kavina, learned counsel appearing
\n\tfor the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tmy view, as per the above referred decision of this Court, since
\n\taction is not taken within reasonable time, the notice under Section
\n\t13(2) of the Act, which is the basis of the action under Section
\n\t13(4) of the Act can be said as beyond reasonable period and a stale
\n\taction. Therefore, whether there is any change in the circumstance
\n\tor not would have mattered after the period from the period under
\n\tSection 13(2) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tthe present case, the period is more than 5 years and therefore, I
\n\tfind it proper not to take a different view than the view taken by
\n\tthe coordinate bench of this Court, referred to hereinabove and
\n\ttherefore, the attempt on the part of learned counsel for the
\n\trespondents cannot be countenanced.\n<\/p>\n
Under
\n\tthese circumstances, except for routine business purpose, period of
\n\t60 days from today, the petitioners shall not transfer or alienate
\n\tthe property over which the security interest is created of the
\n\trespondent Bank.\n<\/p>\n
Subject
\n\tto the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of with the
\n\tclarification that the action under Section 13(4) of the Act,  shall
\n\tnot survive.\n<\/p>\n
  (JAYANT PATEL, J.)<\/p>\n
*bjoy<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Parekh vs Industrial on 20 October, 2008 Author: Jayant Patel,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/9945\/2008 6\/ 6 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9945 of 2008 ========================================================= PAREKH PLATINUM LIMITED – Petitioner(s) Versus INDUSTRIAL FINANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA & 15 – Respondent(s) […]<\/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-12190","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nParekh vs Industrial on 20 October, 2008 - 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\/parekh-vs-industrial-on-20-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Parekh vs Industrial on 20 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parekh-vs-industrial-on-20-october-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-10-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-04T09:45:41+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parekh-vs-industrial-on-20-october-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parekh-vs-industrial-on-20-october-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Parekh vs Industrial on 20 October, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-04T09:45:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parekh-vs-industrial-on-20-october-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1004,\"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\\\/parekh-vs-industrial-on-20-october-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parekh-vs-industrial-on-20-october-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parekh-vs-industrial-on-20-october-2008\",\"name\":\"Parekh vs Industrial on 20 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-04T09:45:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parekh-vs-industrial-on-20-october-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parekh-vs-industrial-on-20-october-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parekh-vs-industrial-on-20-october-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Parekh vs Industrial on 20 October, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Parekh vs Industrial on 20 October, 2008 - 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\/parekh-vs-industrial-on-20-october-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Parekh vs Industrial on 20 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parekh-vs-industrial-on-20-october-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-10-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-04T09:45:41+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parekh-vs-industrial-on-20-october-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parekh-vs-industrial-on-20-october-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Parekh vs Industrial on 20 October, 2008","datePublished":"2008-10-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-04T09:45:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parekh-vs-industrial-on-20-october-2008"},"wordCount":1004,"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\/parekh-vs-industrial-on-20-october-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parekh-vs-industrial-on-20-october-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parekh-vs-industrial-on-20-october-2008","name":"Parekh vs Industrial on 20 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-10-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-04T09:45:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parekh-vs-industrial-on-20-october-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parekh-vs-industrial-on-20-october-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parekh-vs-industrial-on-20-october-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Parekh vs Industrial on 20 October, 2008"}]},{"@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\/12190","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=12190"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12190\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12190"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12190"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12190"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}