{"id":12267,"date":"2000-07-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-07-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahavir-woollen-mills-assessee-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-11-july-2000"},"modified":"2015-07-12T21:12:05","modified_gmt":"2015-07-12T15:42:05","slug":"mahavir-woollen-mills-assessee-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-11-july-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahavir-woollen-mills-assessee-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-11-july-2000","title":{"rendered":"Mahavir Woollen Mills Assessee vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 11 July, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Mahavir Woollen Mills Assessee vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 11 July, 2000<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: (2000) 162 CTR Del 267, 2000 245 ITR 297 Delhi<\/div>\n
Author: C Arijit Pasayat<\/div>\n
Bench: P . Arijit, D Jain<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
Arijit Pasayat, C. J.<\/p>\n
1.  This  is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961  (in
\nshort,  the Act) challenging an order of the Income-tax Appellate  Tribunal Delhi  Bench-C  (in short, the Tribunal). According to  the  assessee,  the following question needs to be adjudicated:\n<\/p>\n
       “Whether the seized papers, in question constituted to be  “books
\n     of  account” or “document” for the purpose of Section 158(b) of      the Income-tax Act, 1961 which defined, “undisclosed income.”\n<\/p>\n
2.   Factual position as noticed by the Tribunal is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     On 16.11.1995, search operations were carried out under section 132(1) of  the  Act at the business premises of the concerns of a group  known  as Mahavir Woollen Group which included four assessees including the appellant and at the residential premises of the partners also. During the course  of search, certain incriminating documents were found and seized. In  response to  notices under Section 158BC of the Act, all the four  assessees  filed returns  declaring that there was no undisclosed income.  Assessments  were
\nconcluded on positive income after considering the seized documents by  the Deputy  Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range-36, New Delhi (in  short, the D. C.) <\/p>\n
3.   Four  appeals were filed by the four assessees. Appeal IT (SS)  A  No. 32\/Del\/96 relates to the present appellant. During the course of search and seizure proceedings certain slips were found, which, the Assessing  Officer concluded,  contained  details of payment beyond those which were  made  by cheques  and drafts and were duly reflected in the books of  accounts.  The assessee’s  stand  before the Tribunal was that the  documents  were  “dumb documents”  which did not contain full details about the dates  of  payment and  its  contents were not corroborated by any material and could  not  be relied upon and made basis of an addition. Tribunal considered this  aspect and observed that on comparison of the seized documents and ledger accounts of the parties, seized documents could not be regarded as `dumb  document’. Basis for coming to such a conclusion was that some of the entries reflected  in the seized document tallied with the entries in the Ledger  Accounts
\nmaintained  by  the assessee. It also noticed that there was no  denial  of fact  about the seizure of the documents. Merely because a denial was  made by  the assessee that no cash payments were made or regular  account  books should be taken to reflect the true state of affairs, the seized  documents could  not  be ignored A positive finding was recorded that  there  was  no denial of the position that the documents were seized during the course  of search and its ownership was not isputed. It did not also accept the stand that the writer of the document was under some misconception about the mode of  payment. It was the sole and exclusive knowledge of the assessee as  to who was the person who had written the document and therefore the onus  was on  the assessee to bring some material on record to rebut  and  contradict the  correctness of the entries about cash payments. Consequently,  it  was observed  that assessee has miserably failed to discharge the onus.  Therefore  the  Assessing  Officer’s conclusion that  cash  payment  represented unexplained  investment  of the assessee which was liable  to  be  assessed under Section 69 of the Act in the ssessment year 1996-97. Accordingly the assessee’s appeal on that score was not entertainable.\n<\/p>\n
4.   Learned  counsel for the assessee-appellant submitted that the  seized paper  cannot be construed to be books of account or document for the  purpose of section 158B(b) of the Act, which defined undisclosed income.\n<\/p>\n
     According  to him, document lacks particulars, details and  therefore, was dumb document as was contended before the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
5.   As  indicated above, the Tribunal has come to certain factual  conclusion about the nature of paper seized. On the question whether the document did  or did not contain the particulars Tribunal observed that it did  contain certain materials which were sufficient to come to a conclusion  about cash  payments  having been made in addition to those made by  cheques  and drafts. The conclusion is essentially factual.\n<\/p>\n
     Section 260A(1) of the Act reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        “An appeal shall lie to the High Court from every order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal, if the High Court is  satisfied  that the case involves a substantial question of law”\n<\/p>\n
6.   The  issue  raised  by the assessee in the appeal cannot  be  said  to involve  any  question of law, much less a substantial question of  law.  A question of fact becomes a question of law, if the finding is either  without  any  evidence or material, or if the finding is contrary to  the  evidence,  or  is perverse or there is no direct nexus between  conclusion  of fact  and the primary fact upon which that conclusion is based. But, it  is not possible to turn a mere question of fact into question of law by  seeking  whether as a matter of law the authority came to a correct  conclusion
\nupon a matter of fact.\n<\/p>\n
7.   In  Edward  Vs.  Bairstow, (1955) 28 ITR 579, (H.  L.),  Lord  Simonds observed that even a pure finding of fact may be set aside by the Court  if it  appears that the Commissioner has acted without a any evidence or on  a view of the facts which could not be reasonably entertained. Lord Radcliffe stated that no misconception may appear on the face of the case, but it may be  that  the  facts found are such that no person  acting  judicially  and properly instructed as to the relevant law could have come to the  determination under appeal. In those circumstances the Court may intervene.\n<\/p>\n
8.   The words “substantial question of law” has not been defined. But  the expression has acquired a definite connotation through a catena of judicial pronouncements. Usually five tests are used to determine whether a substantial question of law is involved. They are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     1. Whether, directly or indirectly, it affects substantial rights of the parties, or<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     2. the question is of general public importance, or<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     3. Whether it is an open question in the sense that the issue has not  been settled by pronouncement of the Supreme Court or  Privy   Council or by the Federal Court, or<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     4. The issue is not free from difficulty, and<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     5. It calls for a discussion for alternative view.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n     Considering in the above background, it cannot be said that any  ques-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
tion of law is involved which needs adjudication. Appeal is, therefore, not
\nentertained and is dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Mahavir Woollen Mills Assessee vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 11 July, 2000 Equivalent citations: (2000) 162 CTR Del 267, 2000 245 ITR 297 Delhi Author: C Arijit Pasayat Bench: P . Arijit, D Jain ORDER Arijit Pasayat, C. J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 […]<\/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-12267","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMahavir Woollen Mills Assessee vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 11 July, 2000 - 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\/mahavir-woollen-mills-assessee-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-11-july-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mahavir Woollen Mills Assessee vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 11 July, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahavir-woollen-mills-assessee-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-11-july-2000\" \/>\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=\"2000-07-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-12T15:42:05+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\\\/mahavir-woollen-mills-assessee-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-11-july-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahavir-woollen-mills-assessee-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-11-july-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mahavir Woollen Mills Assessee vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 11 July, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-07-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-12T15:42:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahavir-woollen-mills-assessee-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-11-july-2000\"},\"wordCount\":1101,\"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\\\/mahavir-woollen-mills-assessee-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-11-july-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahavir-woollen-mills-assessee-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-11-july-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahavir-woollen-mills-assessee-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-11-july-2000\",\"name\":\"Mahavir Woollen Mills Assessee vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 11 July, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-07-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-12T15:42:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahavir-woollen-mills-assessee-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-11-july-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahavir-woollen-mills-assessee-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-11-july-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahavir-woollen-mills-assessee-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-11-july-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mahavir Woollen Mills Assessee vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 11 July, 2000\"}]},{\"@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":"Mahavir Woollen Mills Assessee vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 11 July, 2000 - 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\/mahavir-woollen-mills-assessee-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-11-july-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mahavir Woollen Mills Assessee vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 11 July, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahavir-woollen-mills-assessee-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-11-july-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-07-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-12T15:42:05+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\/mahavir-woollen-mills-assessee-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-11-july-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahavir-woollen-mills-assessee-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-11-july-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mahavir Woollen Mills Assessee vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 11 July, 2000","datePublished":"2000-07-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-12T15:42:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahavir-woollen-mills-assessee-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-11-july-2000"},"wordCount":1101,"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\/mahavir-woollen-mills-assessee-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-11-july-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahavir-woollen-mills-assessee-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-11-july-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahavir-woollen-mills-assessee-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-11-july-2000","name":"Mahavir Woollen Mills Assessee vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 11 July, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-07-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-12T15:42:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahavir-woollen-mills-assessee-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-11-july-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahavir-woollen-mills-assessee-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-11-july-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahavir-woollen-mills-assessee-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-11-july-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mahavir Woollen Mills Assessee vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 11 July, 2000"}]},{"@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\/12267","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=12267"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12267\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12267"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12267"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12267"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}