{"id":130196,"date":"1992-05-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1992-05-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-l-rathi-steels-ltd-vs-income-tax-officer-on-14-may-1992"},"modified":"2015-11-02T17:52:26","modified_gmt":"2015-11-02T12:22:26","slug":"k-l-rathi-steels-ltd-vs-income-tax-officer-on-14-may-1992","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-l-rathi-steels-ltd-vs-income-tax-officer-on-14-may-1992","title":{"rendered":"K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer on 14 May, 1992"},"content":{"rendered":"
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal – Delhi<\/div>\n
K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer on 14 May, 1992<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1992 42 ITD 168 Delhi<\/div>\n
Bench: J Bengra, J Kathuria<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
 J. Kathuria, Accountant Member  <\/p>\n
 1. This appeal by the assessee for assessment year 1986-87 Is directed against the order dated 16-12-1988 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-X, New Delhi.\n<\/p>\n
2.  There are only twin issues raised in this appeal. The first issue is against the expenditure of Rs. 11,310 being the filing fee for additional shares being held as capital expenditure and hence disallowable as revenue expenditure.\n<\/p>\n
3.   Brief facts of the case are that the assessee increased its authorized capital from Rs. 25,00,000 to Rs. 1,00,00,000. For this purpose the assessee incurred expenditure of Rs. 11,310 on account of filing fees. The Assessing Officer negatived the claim of the assessee by holding that the expenditure was not admissible as business expenditure. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the expenditure in question was capital in nature, but amortised the expenditure under Section 35D(2)(c)(ii>) of the Act and directed the Assessing Officer to allow l\/10th of the eligible expenditure in the year under consideration. The Department has not come in appeal, but the assessee is in appeal.\n<\/p>\n
4.   Shri M.S. Syali, Advocate, the learned counsel for the assessee, submitted that there was conflict of judicial opinion on the issue. According to him Bombay, Andhra Pradesh, Madras, Kerala and Karnataka High Courts were of the view that the said expenditure was Revenue expenditure, but Himachal Pradesh, Punjab & Haryana and Rajasthan High Courts adopted a contrary view. It was submitted that Delhi High Court in the case of Bharat Carbon & Ribbon Mfg. Co.Ltd. v.  C7T[1981] 127  ITR  239 had decided the issue, but according to the learned counsel the facts of that case were distinguishable inasmuch as in that case a new industrial undertaking had been set up whereas in the instant case there was neither setting up of a new industrial undertaking nor extension of an existing one. It was pointed out by the learned counsel that the paid up share capital had in fact gone up from Rs. 6,00,000 to Rs. 40,00,000, and that there was no substantial increase in the fixed assets which remained at Rs. 2,72,70,830 as on 30-6-1985 as compared to Rs. 2,66,63,111 as on 30-6-1984. It was also submitted that the increase in the capital had resulted in the sales going up from Rs. 12,53,70,376 in the immediately preceding year to Rs. 18,61,14,814 in theyear under consideration. Itwas pointed out that the main purpose of increasing the subscribed capital was to reduce the interest liability which in the year under consideration had gone down to Rs. 18,74,054 as compared to the corresponding figure of Rs. 20,98,134 for the immediately preceding year. It was also pointed out that the assessee’s inventories had increased and that no benefit of enduring nature had accrued to the assessee nor had any capital asset been acquired. It was vehemently argued that the expenditure on filing fees was for the purpose of promoting the business and that Section 35D was not attracted in the present case, because neither the expenditure was incurred before the commencement of the business nor after the commencement of the business for the purpose of extension of the industrial undertaking or in connection with setting up of a new industrial unit. It was, therefore, submitted that the expenditure was allowable as a business expenditure.\n<\/p>\n
5. In the alternative, it was submitted that where two views were possible, the view favourable to the assessee must prevail.\n<\/p>\n
6.  The learned Departmental Representative relied on the Delhi High Court decision in the case of Bharat Carbon &, Ribbon Mfg. Co. Ltd. (supra) and submitted that since the matter was covered by the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court, the matter had been correctly decided by the Income-tax authorities.\n<\/p>\n
7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. Fees paid to the Registrar of Companies for increase of capital have been held to be revenue expenditure in the following cases :–\n<\/p>\n
(i)  CIT v.  Kisenchand Chellaram (India)(P.) Ltd. [1981] 130 ITR  385 (Mad.);\n<\/p>\n
(ii) CIT v.  Madras Auto Service Ltd. [1985] 156  ITR  740 (Mad.);\n<\/p>\n
(iii) Warner Hindustan Ltd.  v.  CIT [1988] 171  ITR  224 (AP);\n<\/p>\n
(iv) Federal Bank Ltd.  v.  CIT [1989] 180  ITR  241 (Ker.);\n<\/p>\n
(v) Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. (No. 3) v.  CIT [1989] 175  ITR  220 (Kar.).\n<\/p>\n
8. The following decisions, however, hold a contrary view :–\n<\/p>\n
(i)  CIT v.  Aditya Mills [1990] 181  ITR  195 (Raj.);\n<\/p>\n
(ii) Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd.  v.  CIT [1988] 174  ITR  689 (AP);\n<\/p>\n
(iii) Groz-Beckert Saboo Ltd.  v.  CIT [1986] 160  ITR  743 (Punj. & Har.);\n<\/p>\n
(iv) Bombay Burmah Trading Corpn. Ltd. v.  CIT [1984] 145 ITR 793 (Bom.); ‘<\/p>\n
(v) Brooke Bond India Ltd.  v.  CIT [1983] 140  ITR  272 (Cal.);\n<\/p>\n
(vi) Shree Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd.  v.  CIT [1982] 138  ITR  45 (Guj.);\n<\/p>\n
(vii) Upper Doab Sugar Mills. Ltd.  v.  CIT [1979] 116  ITR  928 (All.);\n<\/p>\n
(viii) Mohan Meakin Breweries Ltd.  v.  CIT (No. 1) [1979] 117  ITR  501 (HP).\n<\/p>\n
9. From the above it is clear that the majority of the High Courts hold the view that the expenses incurred in connection with the issue of additional equity shares is not revenue expenditure and is not deductible. They also hold that expenses incurred in raising capital are expenses of exactly the same character whether the capital is raised at the floatation of the company or thereafter. We further find that the Delhi High Court decision in the case of Bharat Carbon & Ribbon Mfg. Co. Ltd. (supra) also lays down that the expenditure incurred with a view to increasing its authorised capital was capital expenditure. The question referred to the Hon’ble High Court for its opinion in that case was whether the expenditure of Rs. 5,625 for increase in the authorised capital of the assessee-company was allowable as a revenue expenditure and the High Court held that the expenditure incurred by the assessee-company in its attempt to raise additional share capital for the company would be capital in nature. When it was sought to be argued that the provisions of Section 35D helped the assessee, the Hon’ble High Court observed that that section also only confirmed the view that these expenses were of capital nature but the Legislature had permitted their deduction over a period of 10 years.\n<\/p>\n
10.  In view of the above discussion, we hold that the matter is squarely covered by the decision of the jurisdictional High Court of Delhi and has, therefore to be decided against the assessee. We hold accordingly. Shri Syali laid great stress that Section 35D was not attracted in the instant case, because the expenditure of Rs. 11,310 was neither at the commencement of the business nor in connection with the extension of the industrial undertaking or with the setting up of a new industrial unit. As observed by us earlier the Revenue is not in appeal in this case otherwise 1\/10th deduction allowed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) could have been considered for withdrawal. Be that as it may the assessee cannot be worse off than what it was before coming in appeal before the Tribunal. We, therefore, do not say anything more about the applicability or otherwise of Section 35D because that is not an issue before us.\n<\/p>\n
11. We, therefore, hold that the Income-tax authorities were justified in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 11,310 was not business expenditure. This issue is, therefore, decided against the assessee.\n<\/p>\n
12 to 18. [These paras are not reproduced here as they involved minor issues.]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal – Delhi K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer on 14 May, 1992 Equivalent citations: 1992 42 ITD 168 Delhi Bench: J Bengra, J Kathuria ORDER J. Kathuria, Accountant Member 1. This appeal by the assessee for assessment year 1986-87 Is directed against the order dated 16-12-1988 passed by the Commissioner […]<\/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":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-130196","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nK.L. Rathi Steels Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer on 14 May, 1992 - 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\/k-l-rathi-steels-ltd-vs-income-tax-officer-on-14-may-1992\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer on 14 May, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-l-rathi-steels-ltd-vs-income-tax-officer-on-14-may-1992\" \/>\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=\"1992-05-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-02T12:22:26+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\\\/k-l-rathi-steels-ltd-vs-income-tax-officer-on-14-may-1992#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-l-rathi-steels-ltd-vs-income-tax-officer-on-14-may-1992\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer on 14 May, 1992\",\"datePublished\":\"1992-05-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-02T12:22:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-l-rathi-steels-ltd-vs-income-tax-officer-on-14-may-1992\"},\"wordCount\":1227,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-l-rathi-steels-ltd-vs-income-tax-officer-on-14-may-1992#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-l-rathi-steels-ltd-vs-income-tax-officer-on-14-may-1992\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-l-rathi-steels-ltd-vs-income-tax-officer-on-14-may-1992\",\"name\":\"K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer on 14 May, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1992-05-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-02T12:22:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-l-rathi-steels-ltd-vs-income-tax-officer-on-14-may-1992#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-l-rathi-steels-ltd-vs-income-tax-officer-on-14-may-1992\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-l-rathi-steels-ltd-vs-income-tax-officer-on-14-may-1992#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer on 14 May, 1992\"}]},{\"@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":"K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer on 14 May, 1992 - 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\/k-l-rathi-steels-ltd-vs-income-tax-officer-on-14-may-1992","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer on 14 May, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-l-rathi-steels-ltd-vs-income-tax-officer-on-14-may-1992","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1992-05-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-02T12:22:26+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\/k-l-rathi-steels-ltd-vs-income-tax-officer-on-14-may-1992#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-l-rathi-steels-ltd-vs-income-tax-officer-on-14-may-1992"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer on 14 May, 1992","datePublished":"1992-05-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-02T12:22:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-l-rathi-steels-ltd-vs-income-tax-officer-on-14-may-1992"},"wordCount":1227,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-l-rathi-steels-ltd-vs-income-tax-officer-on-14-may-1992#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-l-rathi-steels-ltd-vs-income-tax-officer-on-14-may-1992","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-l-rathi-steels-ltd-vs-income-tax-officer-on-14-may-1992","name":"K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer on 14 May, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1992-05-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-02T12:22:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-l-rathi-steels-ltd-vs-income-tax-officer-on-14-may-1992#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-l-rathi-steels-ltd-vs-income-tax-officer-on-14-may-1992"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-l-rathi-steels-ltd-vs-income-tax-officer-on-14-may-1992#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer on 14 May, 1992"}]},{"@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\/130196","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=130196"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/130196\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=130196"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=130196"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=130196"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}