{"id":123793,"date":"2011-03-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-03-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/texspin-vs-unknown-on-30-march-2011"},"modified":"2018-04-08T08:38:07","modified_gmt":"2018-04-08T03:08:07","slug":"texspin-vs-unknown-on-30-march-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/texspin-vs-unknown-on-30-march-2011","title":{"rendered":"Texspin vs Unknown on 30 March, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Texspin vs Unknown on 30 March, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Anant S. Dave,&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\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCOMP\/92\/2010\t 5\/ 5\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCOMPANY\nPETITION No. 92 of 2010\n \n\nIn\nCOMPANY APPLICATION No. 91 of 2010\n \n\nwith\n \n\nCOMPANY\nPETITION No. 93 of 2010\n \n\nIn\nCOMPANY APPLICATION No. 92 of 2010\n \n\n \n=================================================\n\n\n \n\nTEXSPIN\nBEARINGS LIMITED - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\n.\n- Respondent(s)\n \n\n=================================================\n \nAppearance : \nMRS\nSWATI SOPARKAR for Petitioner(s) : 1, \nMR PS CHAMPANERI for\nRespondent(s) : 1, \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 ANANT S. DAVE\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 30\/03\/2011 \n\n \n\nCOMMON\nORAL ORDER<\/pre>\n
\t These are the
\n\t petitions filed by two companies viz.  Texspin Bearings Limited and
\n\tRMP Bearings  Limited, for the purpose of obtaining the sanction of
\n\tthis court to a Scheme of Arrangement in the nature of simultaneous
\n\tDe-merger and Transfer of Treasury Divisions between  the two
\n\tcompanies and consequential Reduction of
\n\tcapital of both the companies, proposed under section 391 and
\n\t394 read with Sections 100 to 104 of the Companies Act, 1956.\n<\/p>\n
\t It has been
\n\tsubmitted that both the companies are closely held limited companies
\n\tand are engaged in manufacturing of Automotive and Industrial
\n\tBearings. They  were promoted by and belong to Texspin group and to
\n\tthe same family. Hence there are inter se investments in both
\n\tthe companies. The present scheme of Arrangement proposes
\n\tsimultaneous demerger and transfer of the respective Treasury
\n\tDivisions of both the De-merged companies to the respective
\n\tResulting Companies, with a view to eliminate  the cross holdings.
\n\tThe petitions give in detail the advantages that would flow by
\n\tvirtue of the proposed demerger.\n<\/p>\n
\tUpon the
\n\tscheme being effective, both the companies propose to adjust the
\n\tamount representing the surplus of assets over the liabilities on
\n\tthe transfer of the respective demerged undertakings, partly by
\n\treducing its Issued, Subscribed and Paid up Equity Share Capital and
\n\tpartly adjusting the same against its Profit and Loss and Reserves &
\n\tSurplus Account. This will amount to Reduction of Issued, Subscribed
\n\tand Paid Up  Equity Share Capital as per the provisions of  Sec. 100
\n\tof the Companies Act, 1956. However, this being consequential in
\n\tnature is proposed as an integral part of the proposed scheme of
\n\tarrangement.\n<\/p>\n
\t  It has been
\n\tsubmitted that vide order dated 12th April 2010 passed in
\n\tCompany Application No. 91 of 2010, the meeting of the Equity
\n\tShareholders of the De-merged Company No.1 were dispensed with in
\n\tlight of the consent letters from all of them being placed on
\n\trecord. Similarly, vide order dated 12th April 2010
\n\tpassed in Company Application No. 92 of 2010, the meetings of the
\n\tEquity and Preference Shareholders of the De-merged Company were
\n\tdispensed with in light of the consent letters from all of them
\n\tbeing placed on record. It has been further pointed out that vide
\n\tthe aforesaid orders, separate meetings of the Secured creditors and
\n\tUnsecured Creditors of both the petitioner companies were directed
\n\tto be convened for the purpose of seeking the approval from the said
\n\tcreditors to the proposed scheme. Pursuant to the directions, issued
\n\tin this regard, after the due notices to the concerned parties as
\n\twell as the public notice,  the said meetings were duly convened on
\n\t1st June 2010 and the proposed scheme was duly approved
\n\tunanimously at all the meetings respectively by Secured and
\n\tUnsecured Creditors of both the companies, present and voting at the
\n\trespective meetings. The result of the said meetings were duly
\n\treported to this court vide the report dated 17th June
\n\t2010. It has been further pointed out that vide the aforesaid orders
\n\tdated 12th April 2010, separate procedure for Reduction
\n\tof Capital and the procedure under Sec. 101 (2) read with Rules 48
\n\tto 65 of the Company Court Rules were dispensed with for both the
\n\tcompanies.\n<\/p>\n
\t The
\n\tsubstantive petitions for the sanction of the scheme were filed by
\n\tboth the companies which were admitted on 6th July 2010.
\n\tThe notice for the hearing of the petitions were duly advertised in
\n\tthe newspapers being ‘Indian Express’ dated 17th
\n\tJuly 2010 and ‘Sandesh’, dated 16th July
\n\t2010, both Ahmedabad editions and the publication in the Government
\n\tgazette was dispensed with as directed in the said orders. No one
\n\thas come forward with any objections to the said petitions even
\n\tafter the publication. The said fact has been confirmed vide the
\n\tadditional affidavit dated 14th March  2011.\n<\/p>\n
\t  Notice of
\n\tthe petitions have been served upon the Central Govt. and Shri Y. V.
\n\tWaghela, Standing Counsel appear for the Central Govt. An affidavit
\n\tdated 10th February 2011 has been filed by Mr. Uttam
\n\tChand Nahta, the Regional Director, North-Western Region, Ministry
\n\tof Corporate Affairs, whereby  several observations are made. The
\n\tsame pertain to – (a) compliance of Accounting Standard-14 for
\n\tthe accounting entries (b) possibility of fractional entitlements
\n\tand absence of clarity on the same in the scheme and (c) the absence
\n\tof details of assets and liabilities of the demerged undertakings in
\n\tthe scheme.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe attention
\n\tof this court is drawn to the Additional Affidavit dated 14th
\n\tMarch 2011, whereby all the above issues have been dealt with as
\n\tfollows:\n<\/p>\n
  (a)  With
\nregard to the observation of the Regional Director on the issue of
\nCompliance of Accounting standard-14, my attention is drawn to the
\nseries of judgments of several high courts including Gujarat High
\nCourt in the matter of Gallops Realty P. Ltd. 150 Company cases 596,
\nconfirming that the said standard is applicable only to scheme of
\namalgamation. Since the present petition envisages a scheme of
\ndemerger, the same is not required to be complied with. (b) With
\nregard to the second observation, it has been submitted that since
\nboth the companies belong to the same family, rounding up of shares
\ncan be internally worked out, if needed. (c)  With regard to the
\nthird observation, it has been pointed out that the details of the
\nassets and liabilities of the de-merged undertaking have been already
\nfurnished by petitioners to the satisfaction of the Regional Director
\nand hence the said observations do not survive. I have considered the
\nsaid submissions and come to the conclusion that the issues raised by
\nthe Regional Director have been sufficiently explained and hence the
\nscheme, being in the interest of the shareholders and creditors is
\nrequired to be sanctioned.\n<\/p>\n
\t   I have
\n\theard Smt. Swati Soparkar, Advocate appearing for the petitioner
\n\tCompanies. Prayers in terms of paragraph 24(a)  and 24 (b) of the
\n\tCo. Petition No. 92 of 2010 as well as Co. Petition No. 93 of 2010
\n\tare hereby granted. The minutes as under Sec. 103 in terms of
\n\tParagraph 20 of Co. Petition No. 92 of 2010 as well as Co. Petition
\n\tNo. 93 of 2010 are also specifically hereby approved.\n<\/p>\n
\t  The
\n\tpetitions are disposed of accordingly. So far as the costs to be
\n\tpaid to the Central Govt. Standing Counsel is concerned, I quantify
\n\tthe same at Rs. 5,000\/- per petition. The same may be paid to the
\n\tlearned advocate Shri Y. V. Waghela, the Counsel appearing for the
\n\tCentral Govt.\n<\/p>\n
[Anant
\nS. Dave, J.]<\/p>\n
*pvv<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Texspin vs Unknown on 30 March, 2011 Author: Anant S. Dave,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print COMP\/92\/2010 5\/ 5 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD COMPANY PETITION No. 92 of 2010 In COMPANY APPLICATION No. 91 of 2010 with COMPANY PETITION No. 93 of 2010 In COMPANY […]<\/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-123793","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nTexspin vs Unknown on 30 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/texspin-vs-unknown-on-30-march-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Texspin vs Unknown on 30 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/texspin-vs-unknown-on-30-march-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-03-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-08T03:08:07+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\/texspin-vs-unknown-on-30-march-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/texspin-vs-unknown-on-30-march-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Texspin vs Unknown on 30 March, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-08T03:08:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/texspin-vs-unknown-on-30-march-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1056,\"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\/texspin-vs-unknown-on-30-march-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/texspin-vs-unknown-on-30-march-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/texspin-vs-unknown-on-30-march-2011\",\"name\":\"Texspin vs Unknown on 30 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-08T03:08:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/texspin-vs-unknown-on-30-march-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/texspin-vs-unknown-on-30-march-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/texspin-vs-unknown-on-30-march-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Texspin vs Unknown on 30 March, 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":"Texspin vs Unknown on 30 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/texspin-vs-unknown-on-30-march-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Texspin vs Unknown on 30 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/texspin-vs-unknown-on-30-march-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-03-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-08T03:08:07+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\/texspin-vs-unknown-on-30-march-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/texspin-vs-unknown-on-30-march-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Texspin vs Unknown on 30 March, 2011","datePublished":"2011-03-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-08T03:08:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/texspin-vs-unknown-on-30-march-2011"},"wordCount":1056,"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\/texspin-vs-unknown-on-30-march-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/texspin-vs-unknown-on-30-march-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/texspin-vs-unknown-on-30-march-2011","name":"Texspin vs Unknown on 30 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-03-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-08T03:08:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/texspin-vs-unknown-on-30-march-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/texspin-vs-unknown-on-30-march-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/texspin-vs-unknown-on-30-march-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Texspin vs Unknown on 30 March, 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\/123793","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=123793"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/123793\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=123793"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=123793"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=123793"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}